This Web site is designed to receive on a completely confidential basis any information concerning the possible politicization of the United States Department of Justice since 2001.
The incoming communications should be limited to those who represent that they are or were employed by the Department of Justice during that period. The communications will be received and reviewed by a select group of members of the majority staff of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. The staff will verify through official directories that the sender is or was an employee of the Department of Justice. The names, titles and identities of the senders will be maintained in strictest confidence, but once the identities are confirmed, the substantive information provided will be utilized for official Committee business, to the extent that it can be verified and confirmed.
This Web site has been created in response to numerous requests by current or former career attorneys of the Department of Justice who have advised Members and staff of the House Judiciary Committee that they are concerned that the Department has become unduly politicized in pursuing its important law enforcement functions. These concerns were underscored by, but predated the firings of at least nine United States Attorneys in the second half of 2006. The concerns are voiced by lawyers in various divisions of Main Justice, including but not limited to, the Criminal Division and the Civil Rights Division and by assistant United States attorneys throughout the country.
At the same time, many individuals have expressed concerns that their identities be kept confidential from political appointees within the Department out of a concern for retribution, which could include termination, demotions or other adverse employment actions. In order to prevent such unfortunate retaliatory actions, we recommend that Departmental e-mail not be used for this purpose.
We recommend that current or former employees use personal e-mail to this Web site or call or write the staff of the Committee at the following address or telephone number: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. (202) 225 3951.
While anonymous messages will not be considered, similar confidentiality will apply to anyone identifying him or herself and requesting such confidentiality. The Committee is looking for concrete and specific actions taken or statements made by management-level officials of the Department that have led career employees to be concerned that law enforcement actions will not be handled on a completely non-partisan, impartial manner but will be unduly influenced by partisan political or other inappropriate considerations.
The information supplied and verified will be included in matters that are investigated by the Committee and will be incorporated in the Committee’s reports and in legislative and oversight activities of the Committee. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance and look forward to any valid information that current or former DOJ employees can provide.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Showing posts with label John Conyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Conyers. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
John Conyers and Impeachment...
One has to wonder, why are the Democrats so afraid of the very idea of impeachment? That impeachment hearings have not already begun is jaw-dropping, unless there is something of which the general public is unaware.
If Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses then there are no impeachable offenses. Perhaps we should just do-away with the impeachment clause, and substitute a clause which states that if the people are unanimous in their belief that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed and that the all around well-being of the country has been put at risk, the public is permitted to arrest the offending officers of government or shoot on them sight.
Impeachment Sells
Tue, 2007-06-12 03:38. Media
By David Swanson
"I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act." -- U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
The latest version of the lengthy report on Bush and Cheney's crimes produced by John Conyers' staff on the House Judiciary Committee includes a foreword by former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman which ends thus:
"This pattern of immunity for presidents must stop. Impeaching President Bush for lying to get us into a war will not only protect us from him, but also send an unmistakable message to future presidents: never again."
I'm sure Conyers likes that foreword, because he put it in there and it undoubtedly helps to sell books. Impeachment sells, and some people will do anything that sells, even faking decency. Some of the best paid prostitutes probably impersonate virgins.
"We can fire Bush!" Conyers likes to shout at rallies, later explaining that he simply means we can sit on our hands for two years until Bush's term ends. Conyers is refusing to even begin impeachment hearings, even against Cheney, even against Gonzales. He's refusing even to meet with the author of his book's foreword to talk about it. He's refusing even to meet with 400 of his constituents gathered to discuss it.
On May 29th, Conyers arrived early at a town hall meeting in Detroit that he had agreed to participate in. He left before it began, and never returned. He had, at the last minute, scheduled another public forum for the same time, about gas prices. The crowd at that one was reportedly much smaller and included a number of people who insisted on talking about impeachment.
Conyers' only legitimate excuse for not moving on impeachment would be if he were moving on criminal indictments. His report begins by listing numerous violations of law committed by Bush and Cheney. But Holtzman's short foreword argues for the advantages of impeachment over indictment. I find her case persuasive, and so apparently does some portion of John Conyers.
The question facing the world right now is how to send the rest of John Conyers an unmistakable message. An activist named Gordon Bennett sent me one idea:
"I am planning," he wrote of Conyers' book, "to tear out one page at a time, maybe highlight a key statement, and send it to his Detroit office with a short message pasted to the page from his book, something like,
"Congressman Conyers--"WHY WASTE ALL THIS EXCELLENT RESEARCH? LET'S GET ON WITH IT!"or,"YOU'VE MADE THE CASE IN PRINT. PLEASE MAKE IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE!"
Anyone interested in joining in Bennett's effort can find Conyers' report for free at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis or purchase it at all the usual online bookstores. Mail your page a day toChairman John Conyers2426 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515or669 Federal Building231 W. LafayetteDetroit, MI 48226
Or, here's a better idea. Fax it each day to (202) 225-0072 or (313) 226-2085.
There is a portion of John Conyers that is absolutely golden, that means to do absolutely right by us and our descendants. But that is precisely why we are so reluctant to hold Conyers to account. We're willing to keep moaning about Bush and Cheney. We'll even denounce Nancy Pelosi for her efforts to pressure Conyers not to impeach. But the fate of this nation and all the nations it impacts around the world is too big a matter to allow our friendship and admiration for John Conyers to block us from demanding - and I mean DEMANDING - that he live up to his oath of office.
Conyers pushed this issue when his party was in the minority. His staff produced a brilliant report. But those facts make his failure to act less, not more, excusable. And let's be clear, after five months in the majority, Conyers is failing to act, not waiting to act. No more evidence is needed. No better evidence than what we possess for several offenses is even conceivable. And no investigations are going to progress much further, now that the White House has made clear that it is going to simply ignore subpoenas (actually, Cheney announced that before the elections, but who's counting).
Nor can Conyers be said to be waiting for his colleagues to gather together the numbers to guarantee passage of Articles of Impeachment. Those numbers will follow impeachment proceedings, not precede them. But Congress Members will only follow where their most senior and respected members lead. If no one leads, nothing will happen - except the ongoing commission of the sort of crimes chronicled so pointlessly and tragically in Conyers' report. The list of crimes is a smorgasbord of impeachment options. If the war is too tough a sell within Congress, Conyers can proceed with the spying, the signing statements, detentions, torture, Katrina, elections. He only needs to pick one in order to do what is needed. Not to act is to be complicit in all of them.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
If Bush and Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses then there are no impeachable offenses. Perhaps we should just do-away with the impeachment clause, and substitute a clause which states that if the people are unanimous in their belief that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed and that the all around well-being of the country has been put at risk, the public is permitted to arrest the offending officers of government or shoot on them sight.
Impeachment Sells
Tue, 2007-06-12 03:38. Media
By David Swanson
"I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act." -- U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
The latest version of the lengthy report on Bush and Cheney's crimes produced by John Conyers' staff on the House Judiciary Committee includes a foreword by former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman which ends thus:
"This pattern of immunity for presidents must stop. Impeaching President Bush for lying to get us into a war will not only protect us from him, but also send an unmistakable message to future presidents: never again."
I'm sure Conyers likes that foreword, because he put it in there and it undoubtedly helps to sell books. Impeachment sells, and some people will do anything that sells, even faking decency. Some of the best paid prostitutes probably impersonate virgins.
"We can fire Bush!" Conyers likes to shout at rallies, later explaining that he simply means we can sit on our hands for two years until Bush's term ends. Conyers is refusing to even begin impeachment hearings, even against Cheney, even against Gonzales. He's refusing even to meet with the author of his book's foreword to talk about it. He's refusing even to meet with 400 of his constituents gathered to discuss it.
On May 29th, Conyers arrived early at a town hall meeting in Detroit that he had agreed to participate in. He left before it began, and never returned. He had, at the last minute, scheduled another public forum for the same time, about gas prices. The crowd at that one was reportedly much smaller and included a number of people who insisted on talking about impeachment.
Conyers' only legitimate excuse for not moving on impeachment would be if he were moving on criminal indictments. His report begins by listing numerous violations of law committed by Bush and Cheney. But Holtzman's short foreword argues for the advantages of impeachment over indictment. I find her case persuasive, and so apparently does some portion of John Conyers.
The question facing the world right now is how to send the rest of John Conyers an unmistakable message. An activist named Gordon Bennett sent me one idea:
"I am planning," he wrote of Conyers' book, "to tear out one page at a time, maybe highlight a key statement, and send it to his Detroit office with a short message pasted to the page from his book, something like,
"Congressman Conyers--"WHY WASTE ALL THIS EXCELLENT RESEARCH? LET'S GET ON WITH IT!"or,"YOU'VE MADE THE CASE IN PRINT. PLEASE MAKE IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE!"
Anyone interested in joining in Bennett's effort can find Conyers' report for free at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis or purchase it at all the usual online bookstores. Mail your page a day toChairman John Conyers2426 Rayburn BuildingWashington, DC 20515or669 Federal Building231 W. LafayetteDetroit, MI 48226
Or, here's a better idea. Fax it each day to (202) 225-0072 or (313) 226-2085.
There is a portion of John Conyers that is absolutely golden, that means to do absolutely right by us and our descendants. But that is precisely why we are so reluctant to hold Conyers to account. We're willing to keep moaning about Bush and Cheney. We'll even denounce Nancy Pelosi for her efforts to pressure Conyers not to impeach. But the fate of this nation and all the nations it impacts around the world is too big a matter to allow our friendship and admiration for John Conyers to block us from demanding - and I mean DEMANDING - that he live up to his oath of office.
Conyers pushed this issue when his party was in the minority. His staff produced a brilliant report. But those facts make his failure to act less, not more, excusable. And let's be clear, after five months in the majority, Conyers is failing to act, not waiting to act. No more evidence is needed. No better evidence than what we possess for several offenses is even conceivable. And no investigations are going to progress much further, now that the White House has made clear that it is going to simply ignore subpoenas (actually, Cheney announced that before the elections, but who's counting).
Nor can Conyers be said to be waiting for his colleagues to gather together the numbers to guarantee passage of Articles of Impeachment. Those numbers will follow impeachment proceedings, not precede them. But Congress Members will only follow where their most senior and respected members lead. If no one leads, nothing will happen - except the ongoing commission of the sort of crimes chronicled so pointlessly and tragically in Conyers' report. The list of crimes is a smorgasbord of impeachment options. If the war is too tough a sell within Congress, Conyers can proceed with the spying, the signing statements, detentions, torture, Katrina, elections. He only needs to pick one in order to do what is needed. Not to act is to be complicit in all of them.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Gonzo Still Stonewalling
Seems the Bushites learned the lessons of Watregate:
Lie, Obsfuscate, withold/destroy evidence and otherwise stonewall any and all attempts at getting to the truth of anything they have done. Because, let's face it, doing time for obstruction of justice, perjury or whatever is better than the truth coming out.
Of course, the pardon fix is in so, if they just drag things out long enough, there will be no time served for a damn thing anyway.
Seems to me that that, all by itself, should be taken as proof of guilt when it comes to politicians. Why would one cover-up something that is not criminal, especially when the embarrassment has already been inflicted by the information that is in the public record?
Gonzales still withholding key information on Attorneys, says letter from House investigators
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday June 5, 2007
A letter sent to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by the House Judiciary Committee alleges that the Justice Department has failed to turn over information in a variety of categories requested in the course of the US Attorneys investigation. A top House Democrat subsequently made a veiled threat to issue more subpoenas.
"I must again reiterate several long-standing requests for documents and other information from the Department of Justice, a number of which were made months before the May 10 hearing," Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said in a Monday letter to the Attorney General obtained by RAW STORY.
After noting that progress has been made in fulfilling earlier subpoenas, Conyers added a warning.
"I hope to avoid a more formal legal process, but reiterate again that this information should be provided as soon as possible," he wrote.
Conyers outlined the information he was seeking in an attachment with the letter. On the US Attorneys investigation, the information he sought included: documents concerning contact between Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and fired US Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton; Answers to questions and unredacted documents on the resignation of former Minnesota US Attorney Tom Heffelfinger; and, unredacted documents on the firing of US Attorney for Kansas City Todd Graves.
The House Judiciary Committee was also seeking information pertaining to national security-related matters outside the scope of the US Attorneys investigation, such as a report on US residents detained on suspicion of terrorism, answers to questions for the record on the FBI's use of National Security Letters, and answers to questions raised after the testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey on the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping programs.
In addition to the follow-up on earlier information, Conyers forwarded 26 pages of detailed questions for the record to Gonzales, which were supplemental to questions asked after the Attorney General's May 10 hearing before the House Committee. Conyers sought answers by June 18.
Many of the questions for the record concerned revelations arising from the May 23 hearing with Monica Goodling, the former White House Liaison at the Justice Department. The Committee sought: information on discussions between Gonzales and other Justice Department employees about the process that led to the firing of the Attorneys, since March 8; Gonzales's awareness of inaccuracies in the Feb. 6 testimony of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; the Attorney General's awareness of and involvement in Monica Goodling's political criteria for hiring decisions on career employees; White House involvement in personnel decisions by Goodling; and, whether or not Goodling received any bonuses or raises during her tenure at the Justice Department, and for what reasons.
Questions in the document were also submitted by Reps. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), and Brad Sherman (D-CA). The questions concerned a variety of subjects in addition to the US Attorneys firings.
An additional 22-page document came from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the Ranking Republican on the Committee, with 52 questions on the details of the firings of various US Attorneys. However, the questions were drafted prior to Goodling's hearing.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Conyers Zeroes in On Grifffin, Rove and Voter Caging
Well, it's about time......
Rove Pick for US Attorney Resigns After Conyers Seeks Evidence from BBC
Tim Griffin, formerly right hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US Attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television 'Newsnight' reported that Congressman John Conyers requested the network's evidence on Griffin's involvement in 'caging voters.' Greg Palast, reporting for both BBC Newsnight and Democracy Now, obtained a series of confidential emails dating from the 2004 presidential election in which the GOP operative transmitted so-called 'caging lists' of voters to state party leaders.
Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge voters right to cast ballots. The caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters including African-American homeless men, students and soldiers sent overseas.
Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin's resignation, "we're not through with him by any means."
Conyers indicated that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive 'caging' operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove.
Griffin, who was chosen as US Attorney at Rove's request, has not responded to requests by BBC to explain the 'caging' memos.
For more on the caging lists, see Palast's BRAD BLOG Exclusive from last week, just after Monica Goodling's stunning admissions concerning vote caging allegations about Griffin in her House Judiciary Committee testimony.
Also see our coverage of Slate's article late this afternoon as they become the first MSM-ish outlet to give a serious look at Goodling's overlooked-by-the-MSM, yet bombshell statement.
Palast first reported on the emails from Griffin containing vote caging lists for BBC's Newsnight, prior to the 2004 Presidential Election.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Rove Pick for US Attorney Resigns After Conyers Seeks Evidence from BBC
Tim Griffin, formerly right hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US Attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television 'Newsnight' reported that Congressman John Conyers requested the network's evidence on Griffin's involvement in 'caging voters.' Greg Palast, reporting for both BBC Newsnight and Democracy Now, obtained a series of confidential emails dating from the 2004 presidential election in which the GOP operative transmitted so-called 'caging lists' of voters to state party leaders.
Experts have concluded the caging lists were designed for a mass challenge voters right to cast ballots. The caging lists were heavily weighted with minority voters including African-American homeless men, students and soldiers sent overseas.
Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin's resignation, "we're not through with him by any means."
Conyers indicated that he thought it unlikely that Griffin could carry out this massive 'caging' operation without the knowledge of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove.
Griffin, who was chosen as US Attorney at Rove's request, has not responded to requests by BBC to explain the 'caging' memos.
For more on the caging lists, see Palast's BRAD BLOG Exclusive from last week, just after Monica Goodling's stunning admissions concerning vote caging allegations about Griffin in her House Judiciary Committee testimony.
Also see our coverage of Slate's article late this afternoon as they become the first MSM-ish outlet to give a serious look at Goodling's overlooked-by-the-MSM, yet bombshell statement.
Palast first reported on the emails from Griffin containing vote caging lists for BBC's Newsnight, prior to the 2004 Presidential Election.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Lantern has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Lantern endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
....And The Truth Shall Set Us Free
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
