BUSH APPOINTEE in Northern District of New York, Deals Right to Dissent a Death Blow! Options

[Livyjr]

"Purging the prosecutors"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Not very subtle, now, is it?

President Bush goes to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to let him know certain Republican congressmen were unhappy with certain federal prosecutors.

The White House helps the Justice Department prepare a list of prosecutors to be fired.

A few weeks later, eight attorneys are out of their jobs.

All this, by the Bush administration's own admission, as a scandal begins to spread out of control.

There's an unseemly word for what the White House has been doing.

It's called a purge.

The defense from Mr. Bush's inner circle is lame enough to underscore the mess from which they're trying to find a way out.

The President himself didn't call for the firing of any specific prosecutors, says White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Other White House officials took care of that, according to the administration line.

The Justice Department chimes in, meanwhile, that Harriet Miers, then the White House lawyer, was looking for a way to get rid of all U.S. attorneys once their four-year terms were up.

The investigation that Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, has been pushing takes on more urgency than ever with such a clear link to a White House role in the political housecleaning at the Justice Department.

Mr. Gonzales' admission on Tuesday that the firings were handled properly isn't remotely sufficient.

As for what's been motivating the White House, it would be laughable if it weren't so outrageous.

Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico and some other Republicans in Congress didn't think complaints about voter fraud were being investigated aggressively enough.

The unmistakable point there is that it was cases alleged by Republicans, against Democrats, that demanded action so drastic as going after the very jobs of supposedly lax prosecutors.

Vote fraud is very much a bipartisan affair.

Counting the votes in the presidential elections of 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio raised enough questions by Democrats about Republicans to drive home that point.

Mr. Domenici, though, was troubled by what happened in his own state, where Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts defeated Mr. Bush in 2004.

Then there's the irony, not to mention the gall, of this Justice Department being so bothered by complaints about voting rights.

Mr. Gonzales, remember, had no qualms about upholding a Georgia photo-ID law that seems more like a poll tax.

Under his watch, the Justice Department has generally ignored allegations of voter suppression aimed at minority voters.

Real justice is again a casualty of politics.

That much one of the brains behind this purge, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned Monday as a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, alluded to in an e-mail to the White House last December about firing prosecutors.

"Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval," he wrote about U.S. attorneys who would understandably fight to keep their jobs.

The reality is that preventing the further co-optation of the Justice Department might require more upheaval yet.

The Bush administration must be required to come clean.

[Livyjr]

"Bush stands by Gonzales amid controversy"

By MERRILL HARTSON, Associated Press Writer

12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he was troubled by the Justice Department's misleading explanations to Congress of why it fired eight U.S. attorneys, and said he expected his attorney general to fix the problem.

Bush said he stood by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales amid calls for Gonzales' ouster.

"Mistakes were made."

"And I'm frankly not happy about them," Bush told reporters at a news conference in Mexico, where he was wrapping up a weeklong trip to Latin America.

"Any time anybody goes up to Capitol Hill, they've got to make sure they fully understand the facts and how they characterize the issue to members of Congress," Bush said.

"And the fact that both Republicans and Democrats feel like that there was not straightforward communication troubles me and it troubles the attorney general."

"So he took action, and he needs to continue to take action."

Bush's chief lawyer, meanwhile, sought to protect presidential aides as Democrats demanded their testimony.

Sen. Charles Schumer told reporters after a meeting with White House counsel Fred Fielding that the White House would respond by Friday about whether political adviser Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley would testify and under what conditions.

"He said it was his goal to get us both the documents and the witnesses that we seek to question," Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

"He said his intention was not to stonewall."

The president said the prosecutors' firings were "entirely appropriate" and noted that U.S attorneys serve at his pleasure.

"Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys."

"It's their right to do so," Bush said.

Critics have said the firings appeared to be politically motivated.

Some of the prosecutors who were dismissed in a Dec. 7 purge said they felt pressure by Republican lawmakers to investigate more Democrats in the months leading up to November elections.

Bush said he did receive complaints about U.S. attorneys.

He recalled a congressional visit when senators "were talking about U.S. attorneys."

He said he did not remember any specific names of prosecutors mentioned.

"But I never brought up a specific case or gave him specific instructions," Bush said, referring to Gonzales.

"What Al did and what the Justice Department did was appropriate."

"... What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to the Congress."

Gonzales was expected to discuss the firings with lawmakers later in the week.

Those meetings were not expected to be public, a Justice Department spokesman said.

For nearly two months, Democrats have accused the department of playing politics with the prosecutors' jobs.

Top department officials, including Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, have maintained in congressional testimony the dismissals were based on the prosecutors' performance, not politics.

The fired prosecutors headed the U.S. attorneys' offices in Albuquerque, N.M.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Las Vegas; Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix; San Diego; San Francisco; and Seattle.

But e-mails released between Miers and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' then-top aide, showed a two-year campaign between the White House and the department to fire prosecutors.

The correspondence also included e-mails from J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy political director, who used an e-mail address registered to the Republican National Committee.

Appearing Wednesday on NBC's "Today" show, Gonzales said he had a "general knowledge" of Sampson's conversations with Miers about the prosecutors.

But, he said, "I was obviously not aware of all communications."

"We are going to work with Congress to make sure they know what happened," Gonzales said.

"We want to ensure that they have a complete and accurate picture of what happened here."

Several Democrats have called for Gonzales' resignation, among them presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" which was broadcast Wednesday.

She added that Bush "needs to be very forthcoming — what did he say, what did he know, what did he do?" and that Rove also "owes the Congress and the country an explanation" about his role.

Gonzales accepted Sampson's resignation this week; Miers had left the administration this year.

It was the second time in as many weeks that Gonzales came under withering criticism on Capitol Hill.

Last week, the attorney general and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller admitted that the FBI had improperly, and at times illegally, used the USA Patriot Act to secretly pry out personal information about Americans in terrorism investigations.

Gonzales, himself a former White House counsel, has been friends with Bush for years, going back to when he served as Bush's secretary of state in Texas.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

end quotes

Fred Fielding, the present WHITE HOUSE lawyer, was a COMMISSIONER on the 9-11 COMMISSION ....[/size]

[Livyjr]

"Republican says Gonzales should be fired"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Senate Republican is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal as Democrats weigh subpoenaing President Bush's top aides in the escalating political furor over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, a longtime Bush administration critic facing a tough re-election campaign, called for Gonzales' ouster Wednesday just hours after Bush expressed confidence in the attorney general, who is a longtime friend.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview.

"I think the attorney general should be fired."

Although some Republicans have been tepid in their support for the attorney general, Sununu was the first to go so far in the wake of an uproar over the Justice Department's firing of the attorneys and its response to congressional questions, plus a separate report that the administration abused its power to secretly investigate suspected terrorists.

The White House issued a curt response to Sununu's remarks.

"We're disappointed, obviously," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman refused to comment.

Speaking to reporters in Mexico before returning to Washington, Bush expressed confidence in Gonzales and defended the firings.

"What Al did and what the Justice Department did was appropriate," the president said.

Still, Bush left himself room to sack the attorney general.

"What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to the Congress," Bush said.

"And Al's got work to do up there."

Gonzales, expected to meet with lawmakers this week, has been fending off Democratic demands that he resign over the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys — dismissals Democrats have characterized as a politically motivated purge.

"We want Congress to know, to understand what happened here," Gonzales said.

"We'll work it out."

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday was considering subpoenas for presidential political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House counsel William Kelley, all of whom exchanged e-mails for two years with the Justice Department about the firings, according to documents made public this week.

The panel also was considering compelling the testimony of five of Gonzales' aides, even though the attorney general has pledged to let the officials speak with the committee.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting with presidential counsel Fred Fielding on Wednesday that Fielding promised a yes-or-no answer by Friday.

"He said it was his goal to get us both the documents and the witnesses that we seek to question," Schumer said.

The White House was expected to seek some conditions, but Fielding "said his intention was not to stonewall," Schumer added.

Sununu long has been a critic of what he has said was the White House's disregard for civil liberties in its war on terrorism and played a large part in forcing the administration to accept new curbs on its power during the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year.

He said his confidence in Gonzales had been shattered by the firings of the prosecutors and by a report Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general criticizing the administration's use of secret national security letters to obtain personal records in terrorism probes.

"We need to have a strong, credible attorney general that has the confidence of Congress and the American people," Sununu said.

"Alberto Gonzales can't fill that role."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted Wednesday that Gonzales would soon be out.

"I think he is gone."

"I don't think he'll last long," Reid said in an interview with Nevada reporters.

Asked how long, Reid responded: "Days."

Republicans came to Gonzales' defense.

"I don't believe the attorney general should resign over this," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

"I don't believe his ability to pursue the terrorist threat has been compromised to the extent that he should resign."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is running for his party's presidential nomination, agreed.

"(Gonzales) steadfastly maintains that he's done nothing wrong, so let him make his case," McCain said.

Some of the dismissed prosecutors complained at hearings last week that lawmakers tried to influence political corruption investigations.

Several also said there had been Justice Department attempts to intimidate them.

E-mails between the Justice Department and the White House, released Tuesday, contradicted the administration's earlier contention that Bush's aides had only limited involvement in the firings.

U.S. attorneys are the federal government's prosecutors and serve at the pleasure of the president.

They can be hired or fired for any reason, or none at all.

Senior Justice Department officials said Wednesday they considered for several years ways to fill vacant prosecutors' jobs without judicial meddling.

They said they never intended to bypass the Senate confirmation process when the department pushed to change the renewed Patriot Act in 2006.

Instead, they said they sought to erase what Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella called a "constitutional anomaly" that let federal judges appoint interim U.S. attorneys in jobs that were vacant for more than 120 days.

"There's a conspiracy theory about this and it's nothing other than that," Moschella said in an interview Wednesday.

Moschella was one of several senior Justice Department officials who testified to Congress about the firings.

It was disclosed later that he gave lawmakers misleading information.

Moschella declined to comment on that during the interview.

[Livyjr]

"Panel OKs subpoenas in attorney probe"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:53 p.m., Thursday, March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel authorized subpoenas Thursday to order Justice Department officials to testify about the prosecutor firings that have shaken Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and raised questions about White House involvement.

Subpoenas for President Bush's top aides, including political adviser Karl Rove, could be approved next week.

One Republican, Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, has publicly urged President Bush to fire Gonzales.

And the attorney general has lost support among other GOP lawmakers as well, with at least one key House Republican planning to call for him to step down.

Other Republican lawmakers spent Thursday urging colleagues to refrain from joining that chorus until they hear more from Gonzales and his aides directly.

"Let's give them a chance to respond before we get tough," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"I'm prepared to get tough, but I want to get tough with a basis for doing so."

The panel wants to question Gonzales about statements made by his deputies that the firings were not efforts to install new prosecutors without Senate confirmation.

An e-mail released this week revealed the attorney general's top aide discussing how to "run out the clock" by invoking a new provision in the Patriot Act that would allow such indefinite appointments.

Any answers may come too late to save Gonzales' job, some lawmakers say.

One Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who spoke on condition of anonymity because he has not yet announced his position, said Thursday he has told White House officials that Gonzales stands no chance.

The lawmaker said he expects to be among other Republicans calling for Gonzales' resignation after the attorney general tells his story on Capitol Hill.

Regardless of Gonzales' fate, questions will be asked under oath of his aides and most of the prosecutors he fired.

The Judiciary Committee approved subpoenas for five Justice officials Thursday as a safeguard against the attorney general retracting his permission for them to testify voluntarily.

They are Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff who quit this week; Michael Elston, top aide to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer; Monica Goodling, Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Mike Battle, the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the subpoena authorizations were not needed because Gonzales had agreed to make his aides available.

The Senate panel also authorized subpoenas for six of the eight fired U.S. attorneys.

The six -- Carol Lam of San Diego, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Seattle, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and David Iglesias of New Mexico -- testified under subpoena last week before the House Judiciary Committee.

Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., delayed until March 22 a vote on subpoenas for Rove; former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William K. Kelley.

E-mails released this week either authored by or mentioning Rove, Miers and Kelley appeared to contradict the administration's contention that Bush's staff had only limited involvement in the purge.

Rove said Thursday the controversy is being fueled by "superheated political rhetoric," and he said there was no similar uproar when President Clinton dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term in the White House.

"We're at a point where people want to play politics with it."

"That's fine," Rove told students at a journalism seminar at Troy University in Alabama.

It's customary for new presidents to bring in their own team of prosecutors when they take office.

Democrats say the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and efforts by Republican members of Congress and others to influence political corruption investigations.

"Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

"We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal."

Some of the fired prosecutors testified last week that lawmakers leaned on them to speed up prosecutions that would hurt Democrats.

Others said they felt intimidated by the agency to stay quiet.

All of them were miffed by the Justice Department's contention that the dismissals were performance-related.

The department then fired back, enumerating publicly what were described as performance problems for each of the fired prosecutors.

Gonzales at first shrugged off the furor as an "overblown personnel matter" in a USA Today column.

A day later, the inspector general of his department released a report showing a different problem: The Justice Department had abused its power to issue secret national security letters seeking people's personal information.

The twin controversies made Republicans cringe.

One, Sununu, called for Gonzales' firing.

Others have muttered tepid support for the attorney general while acknowledging concern about how the firings and their aftermath looked.

Bush on Wednesday defended the firings but criticized how they were explained to Congress.

The president said he still had confidence in the attorney general but implied that his support was conditioned on Gonzales patching things up with lawmakers.

------

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"E-mail indicates Rove role in firings"

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:24 p.m., Thursday, March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON -- White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail released Thursday shows.

The one-page document, which spans e-mails between the White House and the Justice Department in January 2005, also indicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was considering a range of options in dismissing U.S. attorneys early in President Bush's second term.

But it concludes with Gonzales' top aide warning that an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only."

The e-mails released Thursday by the Justice Department indicated that Gonzales and his then-chief aide, Kyle Sampson, suggested replacing 15 percent to 20 percent of federal prosecutors they identified as underperformers.

Sampson resigned under fire this week over the Justice Department's mishandling of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- and misleading Congress about the process.

[Livyjr]

"GOP wants answers on prosecutor firings"

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

18 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee say the Bush administration needs to be more straightforward about the White House's role in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.

"I've told the attorney general that I think this has been mishandled, that by giving inaccurate information ... at the outset, it's caused a real firestorm, and he better get the facts out fast," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the chairman of the committee, pledged to get the public testimony of White House officials involved in the case whether they want to testify or not.

On Monday, the Justice Department planned to turn over to Congress documents that could provide more details of the role agency officials — including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — and top White House officials played in planning the prosecutors' dismissals.

The White House was also expected to announce this week whether it will let political strategist Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and other officials testify or will seek to assert executive privilege in preventing their appearance.

Leahy delayed a vote on issuing subpoenas until Thursday as the president's counsel, Fred Fielding, sought to negotiate terms.

But on Sunday, Leahy said he had not met Fielding nor was he particularly open to any compromises, such as a private briefing by the administration officials.

"I want testimony under oath."

"I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this," Leahy said.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the committee, said he had a long talk with Fielding on Friday and was reserving judgment.

Specter said he would like to see Rove and Miers testify openly.

"I want to see exactly what the White House response is," Specter said.

"Maybe the White House will come back and say, 'We'll permit them to be interviewed and we'll give them all the records.'"

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore declined to comment about whether Rove and Miers would testify.

Fielding was taking additional time to review the matter "given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved," she said.

At issue are the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals that Democrats say were politically motivated.

Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed.

Both the Senate and House Judiciary committees planned votes on subpoenas for Rove and Miers.

The Senate panel already has approved using subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice officials and J. Scott Jennings, deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

Lawmakers also were scheduled to quiz Gonzales on Thursday about his agency's budget request in a hearing expected to generate some questions on the prosecutor scandal.

Several Democrats and a few Republicans, including Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, have called for Gonzales to resign.

Leahy and Cornyn appeared on ABC's "This Week," while Specter spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

[Livyjr]

"Gonzales' hold on job grows uncertain"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:13 p.m., Monday, March 19, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' hold on his job grew more uncertain Monday as the Senate debated removing his authority to unilaterally name U.S. attorneys and the White House said it merely hoped he would survive the tumult.

Asked if Gonzales had contained the political damage from the firing of eight federal prosecutors, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "I don't know."

Snow declined to predict how long Gonzales would stay in his job but reiterated President Bush's support of him.

"No one's prophetic enough to know what the next 21 months hold," Snow said.

"We hope he stays."

The Justice Department also planned to turn over to Congress late Monday a couple of thousand pages of new documents related to the firings.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said that Bush had full confidence in Gonzales and that the attorney general had not offered to resign.

But Gonzales faces a tough week.

The Senate was devoting Monday and Tuesday to debating and voting on rescinding his authority to appoint replacement U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

"We need to close the loophole exploited by the White House and the Department of Justice that facilitated this abuse," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said opening the debate.

In other trouble for the administration, the Justice Department's inspector general is to testify Tuesday and Wednesday before House and Senate committees on what he says was Justice's misuse of its power to secretly go through people's financial, Internet and other records in terrorism cases.

Gonzales, himself, is the star witness Thursday before a House panel considering his department's budget request.

That will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since Bush told him last week to quickly patch up relations with lawmakers.

There was no indication that would happen anytime soon.

Not a single Republican in Congress has come to Gonzales' defense, though some have stated the administration's right to replace prosecutors without offering a reason.

One Republican senator has called for Gonzales' resignation and another has said the attorney general has lost the confidence of Congress.

In the House, one GOP member has stepped forward to call for his replacement while another says he will do the same this week.

Democrats widely have called for Gonzales to step down, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.

However, many Democrats -- like most Republicans -- are waiting to see what shoe falls next.

Democrats kept up their effort to find out why eight U.S. attorneys were fired after Dec. 7 -- noting that six were involved in public corruption cases at a time when Republicans were still smarting from being stripped of their congressional majority in the November elections.

Some of those fired had pursued Republicans in corruption cases; one, David Iglesias of New Mexico, said he had refused political pressure to rush indictments that would hurt Democrats.

"If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

She said e-mails among Justice Department and White House officials show that "politics has in fact played some role."

The White House is expected to announce this week whether it will let political strategist Karl Rove and other officials testify in congressional hearings.

White House counsel Fred Fielding was to meet Tuesday on that issue with leaders of two judiciary committees.

Some of Bush's staunchest allies urged the administration to stem the political damage by being more clear about the White House's role in the dismissals.

"I've told the attorney general that I think this has been mishandled, that by giving inaccurate information ... at the outset, it's caused a real firestorm, and he better get the facts out fast," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, on Sunday.

Leahy has scheduled a vote by his Judiciary Committee for Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy, William Kelley.

"I want testimony under oath."

"I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this," Leahy said Sunday.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the committee, said he had a long talk with Fielding on Friday and was reserving judgment.

Specter said he also would like to see Rove and Miers testify in public.

Gonzales initially had asserted the firings were performance-related, not based on political considerations.

But e-mails between the Justice Department and the White House contradicted that assertion.

The e-mails showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term.

[Livyjr]

"White House Seeking Gonzales Replacements"

By: Mike Allen

March 19, 2007 07:24 PM EST

Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose support among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has collapsed, according to party sources familiar with the discussions.

Among the names floated Monday by administration officials are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect.

So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job.

Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly.

Officials were debating whether Gonzales and McNulty should depart at the same time or whether McNulty should go a day or two after Gonzales.

Still known as "The Judge" for his service on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales is one of the few remaining original Texans who came to Washington with President Bush.

In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales' departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales') resignation won't stop them," said a well-connected Republican Senate aide.

"And on our side, no one's going to defend him."

"All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching."

A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity.

In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court.

Now they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.

Complaints range from his handling of immigration cases to his alleged ceding of power in the department to career officials instead of movement conservatives.

Without embracing Gonzales, Republicans pointed out that presidents are free to replace U.S. attorneys at will.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) noted on MSNBC that some of those who were replaced "haven't whined or complained about it" and added, "I think that there's a lot of politics, but I don't think it's just on one side."

But officials on Capitol Hill said that after the Justice Department failed to turn over a batch of e-mails about the prosecutors on Friday as expected, Republican senators became less likely to defend Gonzales or the White House.

They feared the delay signaled more damaging information was in the pipeline.

"We have a crisis where there doesn't need to be one, and now Democrats have an issue where they can open up the subpoena floodgates," said an exasperated Republican aide.

"Once these investigations start, there always ends up being a lot of messy collateral damage."

Now the White House is girding for a confirmation battle at the same time it is coping with Democrats' threats to subpoena aides to Bush, including senior adviser Karl Rove.

Among the contenders to replace Gonzales, Chertoff is a former U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia.

Before that, he was confirmed by the Senate in 2003 as assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

Under this scenario, Chertoff's successor at the Department of Homeland Security might be Townsend, who now works in the White House as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

Townsend held senior Justice Department posts under Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration and is also a potential nominee for attorney general.

Republican sources said other widely respected Republican lawyers have been considered for attorney general, although some of them may not be interested in taking the job.

These names include:

--Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the "Law & Order" star who is now considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

--Olson, who was Bush's first solicitor general and now is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington.

--Larry Thompson, who has been general counsel of PepsiCo Inc. since leaving his first-term job as deputy to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

--Retired federal judge Laurence H. Silberman, who was named by Bush to be co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

--George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general and acting attorney general who was a leader of Bush's legal team during the Florida election recount.

Asked if Gonzales will stay, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Monday:

"We hope so."

"He has the confidence of the president."

But Snow also revealed that the president had not talked to Gonzales since a conversation the two had when Bush was in Mexico last week.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3202.html

[Livyjr]

I am finding that people up here in New York State are indeed in favor of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to OUR New York State CONSTITUTION .....

WE WOULD AMEND THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT MANDATORY .....

THAT LAWYERS ....

WHO PRESENT FALSE EVIDENCE IN COURT .....

OR FALSE TESTIMONY .....

AS DID DEPUTY RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RICHARD MCNALLY IN THIS MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION IN HERE .....

WOULD DO MANDATORY JAIL TIME .....

THREE DAYS AT THE START WOULD DO ....

WITH AN ESCALATING PENALTY FROM THERE FOR REPEAT OFFENSES .....

WE WOULD FURTHER AMEND OUR NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION .....

TO KEEP PRACTICING ATTORNEYS OUT OF OUR TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS .....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A LAWYER .....

BE A LAWYER ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A CROOKED LAWYER ....

YOU GO TO JAIL ....

IF YOU WANT TO BE A JUDGE ....

YOU CANNOT HAVE "CLIENTS" .....

AND IT IS NOT SACROSANCT .....

THAT A JUDGE CAN DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE WANTS TO .....

THAT IS A BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN CRAP .....

THE OLD WAY OF DOING BUISNESS IN RENSSELAER COUNTY ...

AND NEW YORK STATE ....

WHERE JUDGES WERE NOTORIOUS FOR BEING FOR SALE ....

WHICH IS WHAT F. STEWART JONES OF RENSSELAER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK .....

WANTS TO BRING THINGS BACK TO .....

A GOLDEN AGE FOR CROOKED LAWYERS .....

AND THE PEOPLE WHO HIRE THEM ON .....

AND CAN PAY THEM THOSE BIG BUCKS ....

THAT KEEP THE LAWYERS LIVING IN STYLE ....

LIKE RATS IN A FARMER'S CORN CRIB ....

OR WEEVILS IN THE FLOUR BIN ....

And so ....

NY TIMES - The Empire Zone

Generous Judicial Screeners

Glittering legal résumés abound among the 23 people Governor Spitzer appointed earlier this month to five screening committees that will review candidates for the state bench.

Among Mr. Spitzer’s appointments are senior partners at some of New York City’s leading law firms, eminent law-school professors and several retired state judges.

But many of the appointees have another qualification, too.

Ten of them contributed to Mr. Spitzer’s gubernatorial campaign, including the leaders of all five committees, who are selected by the governor.

In total, the appointees contributed about $85,000 — small beer in the current world of gubernatorial fund-raising.

Most of that was given by two of the appointees: Robert A. Bourque, chairman of the First Judicial Department Committee, and Henry B. Gutman, who sits on the second department’s committee.

Both are partners at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; together they gave $68,500 to Mr. Spitzer during the 2006 election cycle.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, noted that Mr. Spitzer’s campaign supporters were motivated by his message of reform, and that those selected for the screening panels were among them.

“It’s not surprising that some of the same people who got involved, spoke out or contributed to Eliot’s reform efforts would be interested in getting involved in his administration,” she said.

FROM THE WEB-EDITION OF THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION ....

Comment by John Galt — March 20, 2007 @ 8:38 am

ITEM: The Post renewed its call for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, to reveal his client list and salary at the law firm where he is of counsel.

This “thing” of LAWYER’S OMERTA, the famed “Lawyer’s Code of Silence” with respect to who their “clients” really are, when those lawyers also hold public positions here in New York State that can directly benefit their undisclosed “clients”, be it as town attorneys, or town judges, as in the case of East Greenbush Town Judge Kevin Engel, or as state officials, is very troubling, especially when we are confronted with what appears to be a “back-room” deal between “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer and the New York State Bar Association to turn our state Constitution on its head by turning over the selection of our state Supreme Court justices to the bar association and Eliot Spitzer, himself a rich lawyer with ties to one of the richest “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firms here in the USA, a “back-room” deal which was outlined in the TU story “State’s lawyers suggest constitutional amendment - Merit selection of judges expected by 2009″ by MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, last updated 12:26 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2007:

“ALBANY - The 72,000-member New York State Bar Association revealed a legislative package today intended to amend the state Constitution to allow for the merit selection of state judges.”

“The bar wants an interim judicial selection plan to take effect over the next three years while a merit-selection constitutional amendment is being approved.”

In essence, the New York State Bar Association, which does not in the least represent our interests as state citizens, wants one of its fellow members, “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer to set aside our Constitution with some kind of governor’s writ or decree that will have us getting our state supreme court justices exclusively from whomever this lawyer’s guild chooses to give us, without us knowing anything about whose interests are really being fronted or represented by these judges, who hold considerable power over our very lives, and livelihoods here in New York State ….

In a TU story “U.S. Supreme Court To Review NY Court Case” dated February 20, 2007 at 11:31 am by Jay Jochnowitz, State Editor, Albany, New York Times Union, it is stated:

“Some — including Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the state bar association — have suggested the convention system and judicial election should be scrapped in favor of a merit-based selection process.”

Which takes us to a story about JUDICIAL SCREENING PANELS in the Gotham Gazette entitled “Surrogate’s Court And Why It Should Go” by Gary Tilzer, dated 04 Jul 2005 wherein is stated:

“Though Koch set up panels to screen candidates for judgeships, presumably based on merit, as time went on, the erstwhile reformers became more and more dependent on contributions and support from the machine politicians and the law firms that benefit from Surrogate patronage.”

“Since then, Koch himself – along with other prominent politicians, including former Governor Mario Cuomo — has been the beneficiary of the Surrogate’s Court.”

“Koch, for example, received $77,000 for a guardianship in 2001 and 2002, according to the New York Observer.”

“‘I’m on the list of people who are qualified,’ Koch told the Observer.”

“‘They’re very careful to prevent [the court] from being used as a trough.’”

“Today, every candidate who runs for Surrogate pledges to make ‘reforms’ and end the court’s patronage.”

“Once elected, they do nothing.”

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20050704/202/1472

And that takes us to a story from the NY Times “Empire Zone” BLOG entitled “Spitzer Donor Sees Albany as Presidential Test - Skadden Arps lawyer Doug Dunham says that if reforms succeed, Eliot could be the next Grover Cleveland.” by Azi Paybarah, wherein is stated:

“According to one of Eliot Spitzer’s major contributors, the success of the Governor’s reform agenda in Albany could end up being a test run for something much bigger down the road.”

“’I can certainly see him being a really viable contender for President if he’s able to get all these reforms through,’ said Doug Dunham, a major Democratic fund-raiser who is counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.”

“By Mr. Dunham’s thinking, Mr. Spitzer needs to succeed in his plan to flip control of the Republican-led State Senate to the Democrats.”

“He would then be able to push through his agenda of reform, and could in turn parlay that into a successful bid for the White House.”

http://www.nyobserver.com/20070226/2007022…_newsstory2.asp

As to who Skadden Arps is, besides a rich “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firm, all one need to do is go to this link, and that information will be available, except we, the citizens of the State of New York, will still be ignorant as to whose interests people like lawyer Eliot Spitzer are really representing when they are deciding the various “state policies” that have such a direct impact on our lives here in New York State, especially when those lawyers like “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer have connections to such a rich “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firm like Skadden Arps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden%2C_Ar...eagher_%26_Flom

From this citizen’s point of view, it is past time to end LAWYER’S OMERTA, here in New York State, when lawyers hold public office, especially as local judges, or state supreme court justices, or members of the state legislature, or the position of governor, itself ….

If you want to be a lawyer out there in the world, and keep secret whose money you are taking as a “rented pencil” so be that, have at it …

If you want to come into the public domain, however, FULL DISCLOSURE, first, or stay the hell out ….

We don’t need you, we don’t want you, and that is that ….

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4117#comments

[Livyjr]

"Scandal a blow to faith in the system"

By JAY BOOKMAN

First published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007

"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee two months ago.

If you want to understand how a pretty minor story -- the removal of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration -- has somehow metastasized into a major controversy, that statement by Gonzales is your Rosetta Stone.

It opens the door to the three levels of scandal in this story, ranging from relatively minor to potentially grave and earthshaking.

Let's start with the relatively minor.

In his statement to Congress, Gonzales acknowledges it would be wrong to remove prosecutors for political reasons.

It is so wrong, he tells Congress, that he would never, ever do such a terrible thing.

And yet he did.

Since that statement, the evidence has become overwhelming that some, if not most, of the attorneys were ousted for political reasons, with considerable input from the White House.

One of the eight, for example, was removed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas despite glowing performance reviews.

Why?

So an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove could get the job.

Now, that's not a huge scandal.

Such decisions, even if made on a political basis, are clearly within a president's prerogative.

They do bring into question the judgment of those who would treat one of the most important jobs in federal law enforcement like a mere political plum, but they do not explain why this scandal threatens the careers and reputations of some of the most powerful people in Washington.

To understand that, you have to step to the next level:

By denying any political motive or involvement by the White House, Gonzales and other Bush officials lied to the U.S. Senate.

That has angered politicians of both parties, leading at least two Republican senators to demand Gonzales' resignation.

It's almost funny -- Congress, which has allowed itself to be lied to, stonewalled, ignored and ridiculed by the administration for six years over issues fundamental to government, finally gets upset at how it's treated and it's over something like this.

The third level of this scandal is by far the most troubling and explosive, and also the least understood.

It goes to how and why those eight prosecutors were selected for replacement despite the fact most were Bush appointees who had conducted themselves well as U.S. attorneys.

John McKay, a well-respected Republican lawyer ousted as U.S. attorney in Seattle, says he may have been tagged for removal because he fended off unethical demands from Republican leaders to pursue charges of vote fraud against Washington Democrats, even though those charges were groundless.

"There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury," says McKay, who suggests a special prosecutor may be needed to determine the full extent of this scandal.

David Iglesias, the equally well-respected Republican ousted as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, believes that he, too, was removed because he ignored pressure from fellow Republicans to indict Democrats just before the 2006 elections.

Iglesias has told Congress he felt pressured by phone calls from a U.S. senator and congresswoman; barely a week after the election, his name was added to an internal list of attorneys to be removed.

The most troubling case may be that of Carol Lam, a U.S. attorney from San Diego who put Duke Cunningham, a Republican congressman from California, in federal prison on corruption charges.

On the day the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam was also investigating U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the powerful head of the House Appropriations Committee, a top Justice Department official sent an internal e-mail to the White House, complaining about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," suggesting a replacement be found quickly.

Any implication that a U.S. attorney's employment depends on his or her willingness to protect a president's political allies and persecute his enemies strikes at the heart of public confidence in the system.

In Georgia, for example, defenders of former state Sen. Charles Walker, a top Democrat now serving a federal prison term, have long argued he was the victim of politically motivated prosecution.

That's not the case; Walker was guilty and got what he deserved.

But in some quarters, this scandal will be seen as lending credence to Walker's claim, and that's unfortunate.

Jay Bookman writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. His e-mail address is jbookman@ajc.com.

[Livyjr]

Any implication that a U.S. attorney's employment depends on his or her willingness to protect a president's political allies and persecute his enemies strikes at the heart of public confidence in the system.

"Subpoenas force talks for testimony deal"

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press

Last updated: 6:42 a.m., Friday, March 23, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are pressing President Bush to allow his political guru Karl Rove and other top aides to answer questions under oath about the firing of federal prosecutors.

The brokering has already begun.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania floated a compromise with Bush's counsel Fred Fielding, even as both sides publicly ratcheted up the standoff.

The White House said Fielding would pass the proposal to Bush.

A Senate panel joined the House on Thursday in authorizing subpoenas for the aides, and the White House insisted it would fight attempts to compel Rove and others to appear on camera, testifying under oath.

It was the latest chapter in an unfolding drama pitting Democrats, who have promised to use their congressional majority to end the Iraq war and scrutinize the Bush administration, against a president who is battling to protect his prerogatives and exert his influence.

A compromise could avert a full-blown legal confrontation and prolonged court battle.

Specter, the former Judiciary chairman, reached out to the White House on Thursday afternoon with his proposal to allow the aides to be questioned publicly by just a limited number of lawmakers without putting them under oath.

Fielding "listened attentively and said that he had no authority to negotiate, but that he would take my suggestions to the president," Specter said.

Neither Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont nor Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the Democratic chairmen of the judiciary panels, appeared in any rush to issue the subpoenas.

"I'll issue them when we're ready," Leahy said Thursday night, adding that he wants to see more documents and await the outcome of a hearing on the matter next week.

Democrats said their action gave them a bargaining chip in negotiations with Bush.

The White House has said the aides would provide only limited interviews with select lawmakers behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath.

"We all would like them to get off their mountain and come down and negotiate," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

A court clash with the executive branch over subpoenas could produce months and even years of legal wrangling, possibly delaying an opportunity for lawmakers to question Bush's top aides until after he leaves office.

In letters to Fielding on Thursday, House and Senate Judiciary Democrats said they couldn't accept Bush's conditions.

"Unfortunately, these letters show they aren't as interested in ascertaining the facts than going on a political fishing expedition," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, fighting for his job amid the furor over the fired prosecutors, promised to cooperate with Congress in the inquiry.

"I'm not going to resign," he told reporters Thursday after an event in St. Louis.

Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, said Gonzales has become a "lightning rod" for criticism and joined GOP lawmakers who want him out.

"It would be better for the president and the department if the attorney general were to step down," Gillmor said.

Bush is standing by Gonzales and insists that the firings were appropriate.

Democrats argue they were politically motivated.

Members of both parties want to know why the Justice Department fired eight well-regarded U.S. attorneys over the winter; whether politicians pressured the prosecutors to rush corruption cases; and whether the firings were punishment for the prosecutors' balking at Bush administration priorities.

Prosecutors are appointed to four-year terms by the president and can be dismissed by him at any time.

The Senate panel voted to approve subpoenas for Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers and her former deputy, William Kelley.

The House authorized similar subpoenas a day earlier.

Democrats object to Bush's offer, which Fielding relayed to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, in large part because there would be no transcript and the testimony would not be public.

"I've had a lot of those unstructured briefings and found that I was given, in many instances, not the whole truth, nothing near the whole truth," Leahy said.

Leahy and Specter have formally asked Gonzales' former top aide, Kyle Sampson, who resigned amid the furor, to testify voluntarily next week before the Judiciary panel.

The panel approved a subpoena for Sampson last week.

Bradford Berenson, Sampson's lawyer, on Thursday requested a delay until at least April 2 to give his client "more time to review the matter" and to allow Berenson to take a previously scheduled vacation with his family.

[Livyjr]

"Documents show Gonzales approved firings"

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press

Last updated: 8:13 a.m., Saturday, March 24, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

On Friday night, however, the Justice Department revealed Gonzales' participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

The firings of eight prosecutors has since led to a political firestorm and calls for his ouster.

At that meeting, the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials discussed a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Gonzales' aides said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was drafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.

Sampson resigned last week.

Another Justice aide closely involved in the dismissals, White House liaison Monica Goodling, has also taken a leave of absence, two officials said.

The five-step plan approved by Gonzales involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval, naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.

Six of the eight prosecutors who were ultimately ordered to resign are named in the plan.

The department released more than 280 documents Friday night, including e-mails, calendar pages and memos to try to satisfy Congress' demands for details on how the firings were handled -- and whether they were politically motivated.

There are no other meetings on the calendar pages released between that Nov. 27 and Dec. 7, when the attorneys were fired, to indicate Gonzales participated in other discussions on the matter, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said.

Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting.

Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers -- where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week.

"But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

"That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added:

"I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department."

"But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time."

"Many decisions are delegated."

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Asked to explain the difference between Gonzales' comments and his schedule, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the attorney general had relied on Sampson to draw up the plans on the firings.

"The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better," Roehrkasse said.

"He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced."

Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said.

The department's inspector general also will participate in that investigation.

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

"Clearly the attorney general was not telling the whole truth, but what is he trying to hide?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"This puts the attorney general front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress."

Presidential spokesman Trey Bohn referred questions to the Justice Department, saying White House officials had not seen the documents.

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn, summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted "no surprises."

"I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release.'"

"'We need to know what the facts are,'" Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said.

"We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys," Sampson attorney Brad Berenson wrote in a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

New e-mails released Friday indicate that some of Gonzales' most trusted advisers were kept out of the loop in the firings.

Scolinos apparently learned about the plans to dismiss attorneys on Nov. 17, 2006 -- nearly two years after Sampson and the White House first began talking about replacing prosecutors.

Democrats question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

------

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Clearly the attorney general was not telling the whole truth, but what is he trying to hide?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"This puts the attorney general front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress."

"GOP support for attorney general erodes"

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his truthfulness and a Democrat joined the list of lawmakers who want him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful."

"And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department.

Specter, R-Pa., said he would wait until Gonzales' scheduled April 17 testimony to the committee on the dismissals before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general.

He called it a "make or break" appearance.

To Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Gonzales "does have a credibility problem."

"... We govern with one currency, and that's trust."

"And that trust is all important."

"And when you lose or debase that currency, then you can't govern."

"And I think he's going to have some difficulties."

Hagel cited changing stories from the Justice Department about the circumstances for firing the eight U.S. attorneys.

"I don't know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management."

"I don't know what the problem is, but he's got a problem."

"You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings.

"He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called for Gonzales to step down over his conflicting statements on how involved he was in the dismissals last fall.

Democrats contend the prosecutors' firings were politically motivated.

Feinstein, whose state lost two U.S. attorneys in the purge — in San Diego and San Francisco — joined a growing number of Democrats and Republicans in calling for Gonzales' ouster.

She said she now believes Gonzales has not told the truth about the firings.

"I believe he should step down," said Feinstein, also on the committee.

"And I don't like saying this."

"This is not my natural personality at all."

"But I think the nation is not well served by this."

"I think we need to get at the bottom of why these resignations were made, who ordered them, and what the strategy was."

Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.

His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors' firings.

The White House has stood by Gonzales, saying the documents do not conflict with Gonzales' earlier statements.

"The president continues to have confidence in the attorney general," a spokesman said Saturday.

Gonzales maintains the firings were proper, but also has said he relied heavily on his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to plan the prosecutors targeted for dismissal.

Sampson, who resigned under fire March 12, is scheduled to appear Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the dismissals.

The committee chairman, Sen. Sen. Patrick Leahy, said he is concerned the Bush administration is trying to make Sampson "the fall guy."

"And yet we find so many e-mails that contradict what the attorney general has said, contradict what the deputy attorney general has said, contradict what the White House has said."

"Mr. Sampson's right in the middle of it," said Leahy, D-Vt.

"We're going to ask him under oath."

"... I want him to say exactly what happened."

Leahy's committee also has authorized subpoenas for presidential political adviser Karl Rove and other top White House staff linked to the firings in more than 3,000 e-mails, calendar pages, memos and other documents the Justice Department has released.

President Bush has offered to grant a limited number of lawmakers private interviews with the aides with no transcript and without swearing them in — which senators from both parties have rejected.

A House Judiciary subcommittee also has authorized subpoenas in the matter.

Specter appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press," Feinstein spoke on "Fox News Sunday," Hagel was on "This Week" on ABC while Leahy and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

[Livyjr]

"Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment"

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

The White House, meanwhile, continued to stand by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales despite new calls over the weekend for his resignation and documents that indicate he may have been more involved in the dismissals than he has previously acknowledged.

Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons.

The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees.

Goodling was Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison until she took a leave of absence earlier this month.

She was subpoenaed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee along with several of Gonzales' other top aides.

There have been questions about whether Goodling and others misinformed Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty about the firings just before he testified before the Senate committee in February.

Dowd said that since then a senior Justice Department official had privately told a member of the Senate committee that he was misled by Goodling and others before testifying.

Gonzales' truthfulness about the firings of seven prosecutors on Dec. 7 and another one months earlier also have been questioned.

On March 13 at a news conference, Gonzales denied that he participated in discussions or saw any documents about the firings, despite documents that show he attended a Nov. 27 meeting with senior aides on the topic, where he approved a detailed plan to carry out the dismissals.

Goodling was one of five senior Justice Department aides who met with Gonzales for that Nov. 27 discussion.

Department documents released Friday to Capitol Hill show she attended multiple meetings about the dismissals for months.

She also was among aides who on Feb. 5 helped Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty prepare his testimony for a Senate hearing the next day — during which he may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.

Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque.

Domenici wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.

The Justice Department appeared surprised Monday to hear of Goodling's decision on testifying.

Earlier Monday, addressing rumors that department aides would refuse to testify, Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said:

"That is incorrect."

Addressing the anticipated testimony of McNulty and Associate Deputy Attorney General Will Moschella — the two who recently appeared, respectively, in Senate and House hearings — Scolinos said the two men "are voluntarily making themselves available to the Hill and plan to fully answer all questions posed to them."

Scolinos had no immediate comment about Goodling's testimony.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Monday that Gonzales "might be accused of being imprecise in what he was saying," but maintained that the attorney general was not closely involved in the firings.

"I understand the concern."

"I understand that people might think that there are inconsistencies," Perino said.

"But as I read it, I think that he has been consistent."

The White House is placing the onus on Gonzales to explain his actions to lawmakers, but he is not scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee until April 17 — three weeks away.

Speaking to reporters in Orlando, Fla., Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said whether or not Gonzales was fully engaged, "he has lost all credibility with me."

Nelson on Sunday joined the ranks of lawmakers in both parties calling for Gonzales to resign.

"Unless he has a good explanation for not only what he knew and when he knew it but also for the ineptitude of the department ... he is a goner," Nelson said of Gonzales.

"I think there might be enough Republicans who are calling for his resignation, even before he takes the witness stand."

The Senate committee's senior Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, on Sunday said documents including a Nov. 27 calendar entry that placed the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements.

But his Nov. 27 schedule, included in a batch of memos sent to Capitol Hill late Friday, showed he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge.

Since the release of that calendar entry on Friday, Justice aides have said Gonzales meant he was not involved in selecting the prosecutors when he said he didn't participate in discussions about their firings.
___

Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

NY POST

"SMEARING THE NYPD"

March 27, 2007 --

What will it take to make The New York Times wake up?

Another 9/11?

Madrid-like bombings?

Violence like that of the '99 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle?

The question becomes relevant after the paper's splashy front-page, um, "news story" Sunday about the NYPD's "aggressive" intelligence-gathering prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Now, no law was broken during the NYPD's pre-convention surveillance - as, in fact, the newspaper noted:

"The operation was mounted in 2003, after the police department, invoking [9/11] and the prospect of future terrorism, won greater authority from a federal judge to investigate political organizations for criminal activity."

Funny that the above disclaimer didn't quite make Page One - it was in the first paragraph after the story jumped to an inside page.

Or not so funny.

Giving the NYPD a fair shake would have been totally out of character for the Times.

Since the '01 attacks, and especially after the '04 convention, the paper has run endless pieces about the NYPD's "overreach."

Sunday's gripe: Cops traveled far and wide "to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention."

No wonder the convention went off without a hitch, most normal folks might think.

Thank God!

Good for the NYPD!

Clearly such a triumph by cops just doesn't sit well with Times editors.

Sunday's piece claimed that the NYPD's Intelligence Division "chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law."

Is that so?

But how can cops know a group's intentions unless they first review its actions - and maybe chronicle them?

Was that legal?

Actually, yes.

As noted, after 9/11 a judge gave police the right to monitor groups even if they hadn't openly displayed any intent to break the law.

It wasn't until this year that Judge Charles Haight revised his orders and restricted monitoring to openly "unlawful" groups.

That was, in fact, a dangerous and wrongheaded revision - suggesting cops wait until it's too late before they move to stop potential attacks.

The Bloomberg administration is challenging the change - as indeed it should.

But during the run-up to the convention, cops acted entirely within the ruling that was then in force.

Just recall what cops were up against.

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators were to converge on New York City - then and now arguably the No. 1 terrorist target in the world.

What were the police supposed to do?

Wait for the riots to start, a la Seattle?

For the bombs to go off, a la Madrid?

Don't be absurd.

Even a goodly number of the "peaceful" protesters had promised to do their best to bring the convention to a standstill - thus abrogating the free-speech rights of convention delegrates.

Oh, the delegates don't count?

Let's be clear.

The 2004 Republican National Convention went off without a hitch - announcing to the world that New York City had spectacularly recovered from 9/11.

And today the city is luxuriating in the economic benefits of that recovery.

The NYPD doesn't get all of the credit for what went right back in 2004 - but it gets the lion's share.

We don't know why the Times is so disappointed with that, but the paper really needs to get over it.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/posto...editorials_.htm

[Livyjr]

NY POST

"SMEARING THE NYPD"

March 27, 2007 --

What will it take to make The New York Times wake up?

Another 9/11?

Madrid-like bombings?

Violence like that of the '99 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle?

The question becomes relevant after the paper's splashy front-page, um, "news story" Sunday about the NYPD's "aggressive" intelligence-gathering prior to the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Now, no law was broken during the NYPD's pre-convention surveillance - as, in fact, the newspaper noted:

"The operation was mounted in 2003, after the police department, invoking [9/11] and the prospect of future terrorism, won greater authority from a federal judge to investigate political organizations for criminal activity."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03272007/posto...editorials_.htm

NY TIMES EMPIRE ZONE

#6. March 27th, 2007 2:50 pm

problem - police ’spied’

solution - do a better job with secrecy

— Posted by dougk

#7. March 27th, 2007 6:27 pm

A point which seems to be getting completely overlooked here is the fact that within the State of New York, our right to freedom of speech is guaranteed to us, not by the United States Constitution, but by section 8 of the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution, wherein is stated:

“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

§ 8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

Now, it appears that what the NYPD has done in the case of this secret spying on us is to have made a unilateral decision on its own that WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York cannot actually “freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects” ….

To the contrary, and this is buttressed by these following comments of this G. Ollie Koppel, there are “certain unknowable to us” areas where we are really prohibited to speak, or write, or publish, because:

“It is necessary, unfortunately, for us to know what people are doing who engage in vigorous advocacy, let’s put it that way, because vigorous advocacy can turn into violent acts.”

Now, in the light of § 9(1) of the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution, which follows, this is interesting language, indeed:

9(1) No law shall be passed abridging the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof ….

Now, as any lawyer will tell you, when petitioning the government or any department thereof for redress of grievance, one is expected to zealously advocate for one’s position, and in fact, lawyers are required to zealously defend their client’s rights ….

And so ….

This G. Ollie Koppel and the NYPD seem to be taking a set of garden shears to OUR BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution for reasons known only to them, as OUR “BIG BROTHER”, or “OVERLORD” ….

Which would seem to be taking them afoul of section 1 of OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, which states in clear and unequivocal language that a hot-shot lawyer like G. Ollie Koppel should be able to understand, since it was written for the common person in NYS:

Section 1. No member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his or her peers ….

And this is not all some mumbo-jumbo that I am reciting here, as can be readily determined from these words from our own NYS Court of Appeals in 1996, in Ricky Brown et al. v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172:

“Constitutions assign rights to individuals and impose duties on the government to regulate the government’s actions to protect them.”

“It is the failure to fulfill a stated constitutional duty which may support a claim for damages in a constitutional tort action.”

“The underlying rationale for the decision, in simplest terms, is that constitutional guarantees are worthy of protection on their own terms without being linked to some common-law or statutory tort, and that the courts have the obligation to enforce these rights by ensuring that each individual receives an adequate remedy for violation of a constitutional duty.”

“If the remedy is not forthcoming from the political branches of government, then the courts must provide it by recognizing a damage remedy against the violators much the same as the courts earlier recognized and developed equitable remedies to enjoin unconstitutional actions.”

“Implicit in this reasoning is the premise that the Constitution is a source of positive law, not merely a set of limitations on government.”

“The damage remedy has been recognized historically as the appropriate remedy for the invasion of personal interests in liberty, indeed, damage remedies already exist for similar violations of the Federal Constitution.”

“Those created by Congress and the Supreme Court, however, fail to reach State action though it is on the local level that most law enforcement functions are performed and the greatest danger of official misconduct exists.”

“By recognizing a narrow remedy for violations of sections 11 and 12 of article I of the State Constitution, we provide appropriate protection against official misconduct at the State level.”

Indeed, as this case with G. Ollie Koppel and the NYPD and this secret spying is clearly demonstrating to the candid world, it is on the local level in the State of New York, specifically in NYC, thanks to this G. Ollie Koppel and the NYPD, that the greatest danger of official misconduct exists with respect to OUR Constitutional rights in NYS as defined by the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution ….

And so ….

It is interesting that anyone would actually come out in public and advocate for those who would so willingly toss the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NY Constitution right in the trash barrel, but we have it in writing just above here, in comment #6 …

And so …

— Posted by Livyjr

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0.../#comment-59831

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES

"Judge Limits New York Police Taping"

By JIM DWYER

Published: February 16, 2007

In a rebuke of a surveillance practice greatly expanded by the New York Police Department after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal judge ruled yesterday that the police must stop the routine videotaping of people at public gatherings unless there is an indication that unlawful activity may occur.

In yesterday’s ruling, Judge Haight, of United States District Court in Manhattan, found that by videotaping people who were exercising their right to free speech and breaking no laws, the Police Department had ignored the milder limits he had imposed on it in 2003.

Citing two events in 2005 — a march in Harlem and a demonstration by homeless people in front of the home of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg — the judge said the city had offered scant justification for videotaping the people involved.

“There was no reason to suspect or anticipate that unlawful or terrorist activity might occur,” he wrote, “or that pertinent information about or evidence of such activity might be obtained by filming the earnest faces of those concerned citizens and the signs by which they hoped to convey their message to a public official.”

While he called the police conduct “egregious,” Judge Haight also offered an unusual judicial mea culpa, taking responsibility for his own words in a 2003 order that he conceded had not been “a model of clarity.”

The restrictions on videotaping do not apply to bridges, tunnels, airports, subways or street traffic, Judge Haight noted, but are meant to control police surveillance at events where people gather to exercise their rights under the First Amendment.

“No reasonable person, and surely not this court, is unaware of the perils the New York public faces and the crucial importance of the N.Y.P.D.’s efforts to detect, prevent and punish those who would cause others harm,” Judge Haight wrote.

Jethro M. Eisenstein, one of the lawyers who challenged the videotaping practices, said that Judge Haight’s ruling would make it possible to contest other surveillance tactics, including the use of undercover officers at political gatherings.

In recent years, police officers have disguised themselves as protesters, shouted feigned objections when uniformed officers were making arrests, and pretended to be mourners at a memorial event for bicycle riders killed in traffic accidents.

“This was a major push by the corporation counsel to say that the guidelines are nice but they’re yesterday’s news, and that the security establishment’s view of what is important trumps civil liberties,” Mr. Eisenstein said.

“Judge Haight is saying that’s just not the way we’re doing things in New York City.”

A spokesman for Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly referred questions about the ruling to the city’s lawyers, who noted that Judge Haight did not set a deadline for destroying the tapes it had already made, and that the judge did not find the city had violated the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, Judge Haight — at times invoking the mythology of the ancient Greeks and of Harold Ross, the founding editor of The New Yorker — used blunt language to characterize the Police Department’s activities.

“There is no discernible justification for the apparent disregard of the guidelines” in his 2003 court order, he said.

These spell out the broad circumstances under which the police could investigate political gatherings.

Under the guidelines, the police may conduct investigations — including videotaping — at political events only if they have indications that unlawful activity may occur, and only after they have applied for permission to the deputy commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division.

Judge Haight noted that the Police Department had not produced evidence that any applications for permission to videotape had ever been filed.

Near the end of his 51-page order, the judge warned that the Police Department must change its practices or face penalties.

“Any future use by the N.Y.P.D. of video and photographic equipment during the course of an investigation involving political activity” that did not follow the guidelines could result in contempt proceedings, he wrote.

At monthly group bicycle rides in Lower Manhattan known as Critical Mass, some participants break traffic laws, and the police routinely videotape those events, Judge Haight noted.

That would be an appropriate situation for taping, he said, but police officials did not follow the guidelines and apply for permission.

“This is a classic case of application of the guidelines: political activity on the part of individuals, but legitimate law enforcement purpose on the part of the police,” Judge Haight wrote.

“It is precisely the sort of situation where the guidelines require adherence to certain protocols but ultimately give the N.Y.P.D. the flexibility to pursue its law enforcement goals.”

Gideon Oliver, a lawyer who has represented many people arrested during the monthly bicycle rides, said he was troubled by the intensive scrutiny of political activities.

“I’m looking forward to a deeper and more serious exploration of how and why this surveillance has been conducted,” Mr. Oliver said.

In the past the Police Department has said that it needed intelligence about the Critical Mass rides in order to protect the streets from unruly riders.

Patrick Markee, an official with another group that was cited in the ruling, the Coalition for the Homeless, said the judge’s decision ratified their basic rights to free speech.

“We’re gratified that Judge Haight found that the police shouldn’t engage in surveillance of homeless New Yorkers and their supporters when they’re engaged in peaceful, lawful political protest,” Mr. Markee said.

The Police Department’s approach to investigating political, social and religious groups has been a contentious subject for most of four decades, and a class action lawsuit brought by political activists, including a lawyer named Barbara Handschu, was settled in 1985.

Judge Haight oversees the terms of that settlement, which are known as the Handschu guidelines, and which he modified in 2003.

At the time, Judge Haight said that the police could “attend any event open to the public, on the same terms and conditions of the public generally.”

But in yesterday’s ruling, he said that permission “cannot be stretched to authorize police officers to videotape everyone at a public gathering just because a visiting little old lady from Dubuque (to borrow from The New Yorker) could do so."

"There is a quantum difference between a police officer and the little old lady (or other tourist or private citizen) videotaping or photographing a public event.”

The judge said he bore some responsibility for misinterpretation of the guidelines.

“I confess with some chagrin that while the text of this opinion and its implementing order, read together, may not be as opaque as the irritatingly baffling pronouncements of the Oracle” at Delphi, “they do not constitute a model of clarity,” he wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/nyregion...5e0&ei=5070

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES EMPIRE ZONE

March 27th, 2007 6:27 pm

A point which seems to be getting completely overlooked here is the fact that within the State of New York, our right to freedom of speech is guaranteed to us, not by the United States Constitution, but by section 8 of the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution, wherein is stated:

“We The People of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

§ 8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.”

Now, it appears that what the NYPD has done in the case of this secret spying on us is to have made a unilateral decision on its own that WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York cannot actually “freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects” ….

To the contrary, and this is buttressed by these following comments of this G. Ollie Koppel, there are “certain unknowable to us” areas where we are really prohibited to speak, or write, or publish, because:

“It is necessary, unfortunately, for us to know what people are doing who engage in vigorous advocacy, let’s put it that way, because vigorous advocacy can turn into violent acts.”

— Posted by Livyjr

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0.../#comment-59831

NY TIMES EMPIRE ZONE

8. March 27th, 2007 11:50 pm

speak freely, openly and loudly; just don’t get your nose bent out of shape when people, including the NYPD listen, if you don’t want folks to listen, whisper behind closed doors.

— Posted by dougk

10. March 28th, 2007 6:44 am

“If you don’t want folks to listen, whisper behind closed doors ….”

There it is, America …

THE SLOGAN FOR OUR TIMES, which should be posted on large billboards from one end of this state to the other …

And you read it first in the pages of the NY TIMES, although not as a policy the NY TIMES endorses, which has the editors of NY POST bent so far out of shape, the wags up here say they now look like fancy pretzels!

And it is true, this SLOGAN FOR OUR TIMES …

As was the case in Communist China when the madman Mao ruled, and also in Russia when Beria’s goons were everywhere, “LISTENING IN” on what people were saying to determine who next to “remove from society” to keep a dictator in power, people in upstate NY DO WHISPER BEHIND CLOSED DOORS in fear when they are talking about CORRUPT GOVERNMENT up here, because of what happened to that engineer, where before, when there was law, and contitutional rights in NYS, these same people would have been putting their words in writing in the form of an Article 78 lawsuit against these same CORRUPT public officials, and then pursuant to section 6 of the BILL OF RIGHTS of the NYS Constitution, these same citizens who are now in hiding, whispering in fear behind closed doors, would have been bringing the results of these Article 78’s before a grand jury for further action ….

And with that said, it is worth taking a look at that specific constitutional language in the BILL OF RIGHTS of OUR NYS Constitution:

§ 6. No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor shall he or she be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself, providing, that any public officer who, upon being called before a grand jury to testify concerning the conduct of his or her present office or of any public office held by him or her within five years prior to such grand jury call to testify, or the performance of his or her official duties in any such present or prior offices, refuses to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, shall by virtue of such refusal, be disqualified from holding any other public office or public employment for a period of five years from the date of such refusal to sign a waiver of immunity against subsequent prosecution, or to answer any relevant question concerning such matters before such grand jury, and shall be removed from his or her present office by the appropriate authority or shall forfeit his or her present office at the suit of the attorney-general.

The power of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of informations in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law.

THE POWER OF GRAND JURIES IN NYS TO INQUIRE INTO THE WILFUL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE OF PUBLIC OFFICERS IN NYS SHALL NEVER BE SUSPENDED ...

EXCEPT …

IT HAS BEEN ….

THROUGH FEAR …

BY “STEAMROLLER” SPITZER and the NYS POLICE STATE ….

Because where there are no witnesses, well, hey, you do the math ….

And at least one person is cheering for that right here in the pages of the NY TIMES ….

And his cheers are being echoed by a whole host of corrupt public officials in NYS who never need fear being hauled before a grand jury themselves, BECAUSE RETALIATION AGAINST POTENTIAL WITNESSES AGAINST THEM IS THEIR WEAPON, against us, as this case with the engineer is evidence of, and so long as the maws of the GULAGS beckon, to us, if we dare speak above a whisper, down in our basements, as if we were Russians, or Chinese, or ordinary Germans in the time of Hitler, these corrupt politicians will be safe ….

Which is what POLICE STATES generally exist for, to protect POWER, and not people …

And so …

— Posted by Livyjr

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...lance/#comments

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES EMPIRE ZONE

March 27th, 2007 11:50 pm

speak freely, openly and loudly; just don’t get your nose bent out of shape when people, including the NYPD listen, if you don’t want folks to listen, whisper behind closed doors.

— Posted by dougk

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...lance/#comments

NY TIMES

Breaking News 7:59 AM ET:

"Britain Freezing All Ties With Iran, British Foreign Secretary Says - Mayor Defends Spying by Police Before G.O.P. Convention"

By DIANE CARDWELL

Published: March 28, 2007

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday defended police spying on potential protesters in advance of the 2004 Republican National Convention, saying that it was necessary for security during an uneasy time.

“We had a fundamental responsibility to learn whether groups might include any potential terrorists or anarchists planning to cause or take advantage of any disruptions,” Mr. Bloomberg told reporters at a news conference.

Toward that end, he said, the Police Department monitored those who said they intended vandalism or disruptions and, he added, “in a few instances, we did keep track of groups or individuals who did plan to come to New York for the R.N.C. convention and who might have been planning violent acts.”

The administration has come under sharp criticism for its tactics with protesters before and during the convention, which included denying permission to rally in much of Central Park, sending undercover officers to infiltrate protests, making mass arrests of demonstrators and detaining many of them for days at a Hudson River pier.

But the scope of the preconvention operations, in which officers traveled widely, is just emerging from records in federal lawsuits brought as a result of the mass arrests as well as from still secret reports reviewed by The New York Times.

In defending the program, Mr. Bloomberg said that everything had been in accordance with court guidelines and was aimed at protecting the city and showing its recovery at a time when the presence of President Bush and members of Congress made it an even more inviting terror target.

“We were not keeping track of political activities,” he said.

“We have no interest in doing that.”

But the records show that the police did covertly monitor political activity.

Virtually every intelligence report, even those about expressly peaceful groups, described the political viewpoints of the organizations.

For example, a Feb. 6, 2004, police report said that Leslie Cagan, the national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, an antiwar organization, would speak at a conference later that month at City University Graduate Center.

Her presence, a headline in the report said, “indicates a reinforcement of ties between organizers and expanding activist youth movement.”

Stu Loeser, Mr. Bloomberg’s chief spokesman said:

“We weren’t seeking political information."

"We were seeking security information."

"It wasn’t because of the political views expressed."

"The only concern was what security ramifications came from the activities of those groups.”

Jim Dwyer contributed reporting

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/nyregion/28mayor.html

[Livyjr]

"U.S. loses top spot in global tech study"

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press

Last updated: 11:43 a.m., Wednesday, March 28, 2007

GENEVA -- European countries and Singapore have surpassed the United States in their ability to exploit information and communication technology, according to a new survey.

The United States, which topped the World Economic Forum's "networked readiness index" in 2006, slipped to seventh.

The study, out Wednesday, largely blamed increased political and corporate interference in the judicial system.

The index, which measures the range of factors that affect a country's ability to harness information technologies for economic competitiveness and development, also cited the United States' low rate of mobile telephone usage, a lack of government leadership in information technology and the low quality of math and science education.

But Thierry Geiger, one of the Forum's economists responsible for the 361-page report, said the U.S. market environment remains the best in the world in terms of how easy it is to set up a business, get loans and have access to market capital.

Nordic countries -- traditionally strong in all surveys conducted by the Geneva-based Forum -- dominated the top of the rankings.

Denmark edged Sweden for the top spot, while Finland was behind in fourth.

Singapore, which topped the poll in 2005, was the top Asian nation in third.

Rounding out the top 10 were Switzerland, fifth; Netherlands, sixth; Iceland, eighth; Britain, ninth; and Norway, 10th.

The report covered 122 countries, with Chad, Burundi, Angola, Ethiopia and Bangladesh at the bottom.