J's Cafe Nette

Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Rick at Wizbang felt all Americans should hear Pat Condell speak.

If you are one who cherishes our values and freedoms then his suggestion is not a half bad idea:

*While we do not agree with the atheist views of Mr. Condell, the balance of the video is well worth viewing*

One of the key elements in this commentary comes at the three minute mark:

The American government has now done something, that if they did it in their own country would violate the constitution.

They have co-sponsored a UN resolution that puts a limit on freedom of speech.

As if that was not enough, we now receive word that for the first time in history the United Nations will investigate the United States for human rights violations. If you have not seen this story already, be certain to read it in its entirely. HT:Gateway Pundit

Here are a few of the pertinent facts:

For those of you who have never even heard of a “Special Rapporteur,” you may be surprised to find out that one has been appointed by the United Nations (UN), under a special mandate from the UN Human Rights Council (the successor to the corrupt and anti-Israel UN Commission on Human Rights), to open a probe—for the first time ever— into human rights violations by the United States because of a perception that there isn’t enough affordable public housing in urban areas.

and the real kicker:

The report will be bad. That is a foregone conclusion. How will the UN punish the United States? That remains to be seen. Who gave the UN the right to send a Special Rapporteur on this tour of American cities in the first place, since UN Special Rapporteurs can only visit countries that have agreed to invite them?

emphasis-admin

Who gave them this right indeed? If permission was granted without the consent of the White House then shame on the administration for not taking immediate action to see it was reversed. If this tour was granted by the White House then it is an egregious move on their part.

My thoughts. Kick the United Nations (which has never done anything productive for the United States) out of America and use what we foolishly pay in UN dues to feed and clothe the homeless or provide medicine and food to seniors or children who are unable to do so for themselves.

Oh, and about all that hope and change. How are the recent unemployment numbers working out for you? Are you excited about the government taking over major corporations and limiting executive pay? How about that anticipation of being taken care of by government run health care institutions?

Then of course there is the disgraceful attempted marginalization of those opposed to the administration on talk radio and television. What’s next, perusing the internet and shutting down all contrary views?

If the UN decides we are not generous enough in providing housing in urban areas, then by all means, let’s turn over all we have earned or saved to show the world that America is a compassionate, giving country.

Talk about that old cliche, the people get the government they deserve jumping up to bite us.

America deserves better.

Tweet This Post

Perhaps it’s not the tomatoes after all:

Investigators are seeing more signs that the salmonella outbreak blamed on tomatoes might have been caused by tainted jalapeno peppers and have begun collecting samples from restaurants and from the homes of those who have been sickened, according to health officials involved in the probe.

While attempting to track such an outbreak is no doubt a difficult task, what a shame for all the farmers who have taken a loss early this season due to these investigations. The fact that tomatoes have not been completely ruled out will most certainly spell disaster for many more in the near future.

Tweet This Post

This video offers the most comprehensive information seen to date on the theft of Classified Documents from the National Archives by President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger.

Not only does it detail the various visits by Mr. Berger to the Archives, but also provides information on the obvious mishandling by the Department of Justice in the prosecution of this case.

David Asman investigates on a level not seen before and in an interview with the Inspector General of the National Archives has this exchange:

Asman: Why was it that Sandy Berger was looking a highly classified information in a non SCIF? (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility)

IG: Because he was allowed to.

Asman: Why was he allowed to?

IG: Because he was Sandy Berger.

The entire video runs approximately 40 minutes but if you visit the link below you can copy the link to your desktop and view at your leisure.

If you followed at the time or have any interest in this case, this is a must see.

Socks, Scissors, Paper

Tweet This Post

Here is a run down of the investigations going on in congress. I’ve got a ring side seat and I am going to enjoy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Democrats are using subpoenas and other investigatory powers to expose Bush administration missteps and push for policy changes even as they struggle at times to enact legislation.

Backed by hundreds of hearings that compel the administration’s attention but often draw scant publicity, House and Senate Democrats are leaving their stamp on a range of governmental matters, without passing a bill.

Congressional inquiries have prompted the Federal Emergency Management Agency to test trailers used by displaced hurricane victims for formaldehyde poisoning. They triggered a Justice Department investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ role in firing federal prosecutors.

Other probes spurred the Army to recover millions of dollars in overpayments to private security contractors in Iraq. And the mere threat of Democratic-run hearings prompted President Bush, after months of resisting, to submit a controversial warrantless wiretap program to a special court’s review.

Congress’ oversight and investigative powers are especially vital to Democrats because a potent GOP minority in the Senate has kept them from passing legislation on issues such as immigration and an Iraq withdrawal plan.

“Maybe it’s even more important than legislation,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., a key player who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Democrats’ ability to conduct such hearings “has been the most important change since the 2006 election in terms of relations between the Congress and the administration,” said Thomas E. Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of a book on Congress, “The Broken Branch.”

“I have no doubt the hearings have altered the course the administration has taken on a range of areas, including Iraq,” Mann said.

The White House has complained bitterly about the sharp increase in congressional inquiries since Democrats took over the House and Senate in January.

“I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter as opposed to being the investigative body,” Bush said at an Aug. 9 news conference. “I mean, there have been over 600 different hearings, and yet they’re struggling with getting appropriations bills to my desk.”

Democrats call the inquiries long overdue after years of GOP-controlled congresses treating the administration with a light touch. “I don’t think Congress is overdoing the oversight,” Waxman said in an interview.

New or expanded congressional inquiries seem to pop up almost daily. On July 17, Waxman called on a former White House political aide to testify about trips made by top federal drug policy officials to help GOP congressional candidates in the 2006 campaign’s closing weeks.

The aide, Sara Taylor, had appeared only a week earlier before a Senate panel that subpoenaed her testimony about the prosecutor firings.

Meanwhile:

-Waxman’s panel is conducting a multi-agency search for missing e-mail records to and from numerous White House officials who had electronic message accounts with the Republican National Committee.

-The House Judiciary Committee has approved contempt citations against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers because they refused to testify about the fired U.S. attorneys.

-The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is looking into allegations that the Smithsonian Institution toned down a climate change exhibit to avoid angering lawmakers and the Bush administration.

-Waxman says he will introduce legislation to protect the surgeon general from political interference, following a hearing in which a former surgeon general said the administration muzzled him on sensitive public health matters.

-Waxman’s committee is conducting an inquiry into the administration’s handling of the friendly fire death of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, which has proved embarrassing to the White House and Pentagon.

Story

Tweet This Post

This is good news for the Tillman family. I can understand why in some cases the White House doesn’t want to turn over information to the Congress because any little discrepancies would be turned against them. I’m glad that they are at least granting interviews, in this case.

The White House has offered to let congressional investigators interview three former officials in an inquiry into what the administration knew about the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman.

The aides are Dan Bartlett, former White House counselor; Scott McClellan, former press secretary; and Michael Gerson, former speechwriter. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed to White House demands that initial interviews be conducted without a transcript and with White House attorneys present.

If investigators determine the aides have relevant information, they would be asked to return for transcribed interviews. The White House has reserved the right to oppose that by claiming executive privilege, according to a letter Thursday from the committee’s chairman and top Republican to White House counsel Fred Fielding.

A White House official confirmed the offer late Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity because a final agreement has not yet been reached formally. “The White House made a proposal to the committee that would permit them to talk to the individuals they’ve identified in connection with the Tillman matter,” the official said.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has been aiming to determine when and how the White House learned that Tillman’s April 22, 2004, death was by friendly fire, not at the hands of the enemy as the military claimed for five weeks.

A hearing Waxman presided over Wednesday shed little light as former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and several of his top generals denied any cover-up, rejected personal responsibility and could recall little about how and when they learned of Tillman’s death. Tillman family members say they believe officials at the highest levels of government hid facts to limit public-relations damage.

Story

Tweet This Post

It is becoming clear that we have very few honest politicians left in Washington. These power and money hungry individuals have themselves so entrenched in their part time jobs as legislators that it seems the only way to remove some of them is through investigations by the FBI, IRS and local authorities.

While I believe all are innocent until proven guilty this story from Fox News once again shows there is at least the appearance of corruption in Congress.

FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents searched the home of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday.

Stevens, who was formerly chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is the latest lawmaker reportedly under investigation for exchanging federal contracts for bribes, illegal gratuities and unreported gifts. The Stevens probe relates to dealings with VECO Corp., Alaska’s largest oil-field engineering firm. VECO has several federal contracts to provide logistics support for arctic research.

Perhaps what we should demand is that anyone desiring to run for office lay open all of their financial dealings once a year beginning with their entrance in to any race, local, state or federal. Show the public, on line or otherwise where your interests truly lie. I am not asking for just a tax return, all transactions which could give the appearance of impropriety or show complete honesty would be required.

Then write into law that anyone, no matter the position found in violation of the laws not only of the office they serve, but those of the United States, will be immediately removed and a special election (not an appointment by a Governor) will ensue.

I know, this is just a pipe dream. The same inidivduals of which I speak would be the ones to write legislation which would be signed into law. It would also eliminate many of the lobbyists and special interest groups on which the politics in this country thrives. So, nah, this would never, ever work..and besides even if it did happen, there would be loopholes and end arounds and we ordinary folk would continue to be duped by those in “power”.

I do not mean to imply that every politician in this country is unscrupulous. There are those who have served honorably. The problem is, the longer in power, the better the chances you will owe someone or they will owe you. Once that cycle begins, the taxpayer has no way of maintaining an account of every deal made and every payback accepted.

Earmarks are simple to slide past the noses of even those who carefully track this information and when they are uncovered or disclosed, it is too late.

When was the last time anyone heard of this money being returned to the till in Washington? That’s what I thought.

Tweet This Post

I hope they take this all the way and use everything at their disposal to prosecute these people for making a mockery of the justice system.
I’m not for these investigations but why wouldn’t they cooperate if they have nothing to hide?

House Democrats on Monday targeted two of President Bush’s longtime aides for criminal contempt against Congress, escalating a legal fight over executive privilege and access to White House deliberations on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said his panel would vote Wednesday on citing White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Counsel Harriet Miers for contempt of Congress.

“It is still my hope that they will reconsider this hard-line position and cooperate with our investigation so that we can get to the bottom of this matter,” Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement after being told again by their attorneys that Bolten and Miers would not comply with the committee’s subpoenas.

The administration showed no signs of budging from its position that the president’s current and former advisers are immune from congressional subpoenas and that any White House documents related to the dismissals are protected by executive privilege.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the decision to act on any House-passed contempt citation would be up to the Justice Department _ but would be inconsistent with the agency’s previous positions.

“The Justice Department long has believed, in Democratic and Republican administrations, that criminal contempt of Congress statutes do not apply to a president or subordinates who assert executive privilege,” Snow said in a statement to The Associated Press.

There were indications, however, that the administration was seeking to repair some political damage Democrats have inflicted during their nearly seven-month investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The probe has revealed information about agency practices under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, including an admission from his former White House liaison that she looked at whether candidates for career positions at Justice were Republicans or Democrats.

Besieged by calls for his resignation but supported by Bush, Gonzales on Monday delivered remarks to the Senate full of regret for his agency’s troubles accompanied by a commitment to repair the damage. He made no reference to the fired U.S. attorneys.

“I will not tolerate any improper politicization of this department,” Gonzales said in remarks prepared for his Senate testimony Tuesday. “I will continue to make efforts to ensure that my staff and others within the department have the appropriate experience and judgment so that previous mistakes will not be repeated.”

“I have never been one to quit,” Gonzales said.

His earnestness was unlikely to blunt Democrats’ efforts, slated to advance on several fronts this week in a constitutional showdown that could culminate in federal court.

Story

Tweet This Post

According to this piece at Patterico’s Pontifications
Johnny Sutton may be answering some tough questions today.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing to examine the prosecution of Agents Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas whose office prosecuted the Ramos/Compean case, is scheduled to testify at the hearing.

I hope Mr. Sutton’s testimony at this hearing helps answer my questions and concerns about the Ramos/Compean trial and verdict. In an effort to clarify my questions and concerns and to facilitate a better understanding of the testimony tendered to the Committee, this post will compare the Ramos/Compean trial transcript with the U.S. Attorney’s most recent press release.

If you are unfamiliar with the Ramos/Compean case or need a refresher on the facts, this February 2007 article by the AP’s Pauline Arrillaga (Washington Post link) contains a concise summary.

The linked post has terrific information on the case itself and should you wish to read further there is more here.

Update: Here is the Official Hearing Notice/Witness list as provided by the Judiciary Committee.

Tweet This Post

This was done by none other than Rep. Dan Burton.
Republicans actually stayed in power for six more years. Is this a good sign for the Democrats? I don’t think so because things are usually less tolerated the second time around.
It’s amazing how soon politicians forget the waste of time and money on things that don’t really change the lives of people they represent.

March 1, 2001
A House panel has opened a new round of hearings this afternoon into former President Bill Clinton’s controversial late-term pardons, a day after reaching an agreement with Clinton’s lawyer on viewing a list of donors to Clinton’s library foundation.

The House Government Reform Committee has begun the new round of hearings, with three former top White House aides scheduled to appear before Chairman Dan Burton’s panel to testify about the final days of decision-making that led to Clinton’s last-minute pardons.

Former White House Counsel Beth Nolan, Chief of Staff John Podesta and adviser Bruce Lindsey will likely tell the committee about the deliberations over the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich, which has sparked two congressional and one federal criminal probe.

Clinton, hoping to put the pardons scandal to rest, has waived any executive privilege claims and given his aides approval to testify freely when they appear before the panel.

The committee subpoenaed the three aides in its widening investigation of possible influence peddling or links between campaign donations and the pardon of Rich and others on Clinton’s last day in office. Marc Rich’s ex-wife Denise gave more than $1 million to Democratic causes and $450,000 to the Clinton library.

The committee and a lawyer for Clinton reached an agreement Wednesday that will give congressional investigators access to a winnowed-down list of donors to the Clinton Library Foundation, one day before the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on some of the pardons meted out by Clinton during his last hours as president.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tweet This Post

Isn’t it a shame that we could once again see a rogue prosecutor, fueled by politics, be responsible for the reputation and career of a man being ruined? Time will tell if Ronnie Earle managed this case in the same manner as Mike Nifong did his.

Court refuses to reinstate charges against DeLay

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today refused to reinstate criminal conspiracy charges against former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and two co-defendants.

DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and political consultants Jim Ellis and John Colyandro were accused of conspiring to violate state election laws in the 2002 elections for the Texas House. But lower courts threw out the indictment on grounds that conspiracy to violate the election code was not a crime until 2003,

A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed.

DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro were charged with plotting to funnel illegal corporate campaign contributions to several Republican House candidates in 2002, when the GOP gained its first House majority of modern times.

The three also were charged with money laundering, but a trial on those charges has been held up pending a resolution of the conspiracy charges.

DeLay’s attorney, Dick DeGuerin, said he was pleased with the ruling but sorry that it took so long and resulted in DeLay’s resignation from Congress, where he represented Houston’s southwest suburbs for more than 20 years.

“Ronnie Earle indicted Tom DeLay for a crime that didn’t exist, wasn’t on the books,” DeGuerin said.

Please do not misunderstand me here, I do not think Tom DeLay is a choir boy, but neither are most politicians at any level today. Won’t it be interesting to see if the money laundering charges hold up now that the main portion of Mr. Earles case has been defeated?

More here, here and a HT to MacRanger for pointing me to this story.

Update: The Courts Decision is available through a link at Redstate.

Tweet This Post

Tweet This Post

Byron York of National Review gives his take on the interrogation of Monica Goodling, late of the Justice Dept., yesterday:

Those were significant issues. But they weren’t enough to capture the attention of some committee Democrats, for whom there were more important questions to consider. Questions like: Where did Monica go to law school?

The short answer is Regent University Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. The longer answer was provided by newly-elected Tennessee Democratic Rep. Stephen Cohen. Cohen had apparently read Wednesday morning’s edition of the Los Angeles Times, which described Regent this way:

Regent University claims 150 past and present members of the Bush administration among its alumni. Accredited by the American Bar Assn., the law school boasts of a “distinctive” Christian-based mission “to bring to bear the will of our Creator, Almighty God, upon legal education and the legal profession,” according to its website.

A quick student of the Times, Cohen asked Goodling, “The mission of the law school you attended, Regent, is to bring to bear upon legal education and the legal profession the will of almighty God, our creator. What is the will of almighty God, our creator, on the legal profession?”

Goodling seemed perplexed. “I’m not sure that I could define that question for you,” she said.

“Did you ask people who applied for jobs as [assistant U.S. attorneys] anything about their religion?”

“No, I certainly did not.”

“Ever had religion discussions come up?”

“Not to the best of my recollection.”

Cohen pressed. Hasn’t the Justice Department hired an unusually large number of graduates of Regent?

“I think we have a lot more people from Harvard and Yale,” said Goodling.

“That’s refreshing,” said Cohen, a graduate of the University of Memphis School of Law. “Is it a fact — are you aware of the fact that in your graduating class 50 to 60 percent of the students failed the bar the first time?”

At that point, hisses and hoots began to be rise from the Republican side of the dais, and, for just a moment at least, 2141 Rayburn sounded a bit like the House of Commons. Goodling assured Cohen that she had passed the bar the first time around.

What was particularly odd about the moment, at least for a hearing not devoted to the state of U.S schools, was that it was the second time the subject of higher education had come up in the space of just a few minutes. Earlier, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was very concerned that Goodling had asked about the political leanings of a job seeker named Seth Adam Meinero, “a graduate of Howard University, one of the top, outstanding law schools in the nation.” (Rep. Cohen did not protest, even though Howard’s bar-passing statistics don’t measure up to Regent’s.) Goodling said she regretted making a “snap judgment” about Meinero’s supposed political leanings, although she stressed that Meinero ultimately got the job he was seeking.

Rep. Jackson Lee also caused a few observers to scratch their heads when she opened her questioning of Goodling this way: “Allow me just to simply begin a series of questions, Ms. Goodling, and I would ask that they — your answers — be as cryptic and as brief as possible, however truthful, because we do have a shortened period of time.”

“Cryptic?” whispered one reporter. “Did she say cryptic? I think she did.”

Indeed she did. But Goodling did not follow Rep. Jackson Lee’s directions. In fact, her answers were quite clear and direct.

That is, when she got the opportunity to answer the questions put to her. Later in the hearing, Jackson Lee, by then taking a temporary turn in the chairman’s seat, had to restrain fellow Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, who was so anxious to question Goodling that he seemed uninterested in her answers.

“So you all bypassed a chief of [the Civil Division] and went to somebody who had no experience in management simply because they were a liberal?” Ellison asked Goodling.

“No, not at all,” she answered. “There were other reasons involved in the decision.”

“Now — “

“To clarify, we — “

“No, I don’t need a clarification,” Ellison said. “Thank you, ma’am.”

“Well, I would like to complete my answer.”

“Well, I don’t need an answer.”

“Be cryptic”? “Well, I don’t need an answer”? That’s why I used the word “interrogation” in the post. This is a wild goose hunt and may catch the wild goose, but it seems they really don’t want to hear everything that is pertinent to this investigation.

Tweet This Post

It must be nice to be employed by the taxpayer to conduct endless hearings which are based on nothing more than the simple premise of right from wrong.

When I registered to vote I did so knowing I had the absolute right to do so and when my ballot was cast it was in good faith. Today we are graced with this from the WaPo explaining to us that the GOP and more specifically Karl Rove was behind the firing of the US Attorneys due to lack of investigation of voter fraud.

While this revelation is not new it certainly goes to the validity of these hearings. Karl Rove is a Senior Advisor to the President and the Commander in Chief can fire for any reason one or all of the US attorneys. How sad this obsession with any “gotcha” whether justified or unjustified, that it would allow grown men and women to conduct themselves in such a juvenille fashion.

Here is a portion of the article.

Nearly half the U.S. attorneys slated for removal by the administration last year were targets of Republican complaints that they were lax on voter fraud, including efforts by presidential adviser Karl Rove to encourage more prosecutions of election- law violations, according to new documents and interviews.

Of the 12 U.S. attorneys known to have been dismissed or considered for removal last year, five were identified by Rove or other administration officials as working in districts that were trouble spots for voter fraud — Kansas City, Mo.; Milwaukee; New Mexico; Nevada; and Washington state. Four of the five prosecutors in those districts were dismissed.

Notice the name Karl Rove twice in these two paragraphs and as you read further you will see it five more times. Seems strange to me that we now condemn individuals for doing the job which we as taxpayers finance. Last I looked, what Mr. Rove was doing is what advisers do..investigate and advise.

Attorney General Gonzales got it right in my book when he testified before the Judiciary Committee:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reflected the prevailing GOP view when he testified last week before the House Judiciary Committee, saying that the Justice Department has “an obligation” to prosecute voter fraud.

“[T]his notion that somehow voter fraud is a dirty word, I don’t understand it, because you’re talking about people stealing votes, canceling out legitimate votes,” Gonzales said.

If in fact the reason behind these firings is lack of investigation and prosecution of voter fraud then I for one applaud the decision loudly..if it was because of the way a particular attorney parted his hair then I say the President has that right.

Perhaps if some Republicans who acted in a less than courageous manner in their criticisms in this matter would have stepped up to defend the President and the Attorney General, this issue would have disappeared as have so many others. This is not a Congressional oversight issue it is an inherent right of the holder of the Office of the President of the United States, and a fair and honest election is the right of all citizens in this country.

Tweet This Post

According to KnoxNews: Business, it appears former Senator Bill Frist is no longer being investigated for insider trading.

WASHINGTON – In the end, Bill Frist’s habit of frequent e-mails helped document the former Senate Republican leader’s account that he was not involved in insider trading in his 2005 sale of HCA Inc. stock.
The former Tennessee senator was able to show in copies of e-mails given to federal investigators that he began the process of selling his family’s HCA stock in April 2005 – well before HCA had disappointing second-quarter earnings and publicly reported that fact July 13, two people familiar with Frist’s records said Friday.

Frist disclosed in a written statement recently that he had received letters from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York saying they had closed their investigations and were taking no action against him.

His recent written statement said: “I’ve always conducted myself according to the highest ethical standards in both my personal and public life, and my family and I are pleased that this matter has been resolved.”

If this is the end of the case I will be pleased for Mr. Frist. While he served as Majority Leader there were times I felt he could have been more forceful in seeing legislation through to completion but I never questioned the decency of the man. He was always respectful of those with whom he disagreed and conducted himself with dignity in a sometimes not so dignified environment.

HT:Powerline

Tweet This Post