Editorial: Republican Ethics -- Political Pressure on US Attorneys

This is an editorial on the White House effort to intimidate US Attorneys to bring indictments for partisan gain.

Ref Links to US Atty Articles

* * *

It's wrong.

Wislon's excuses and denials are unconvincing. It no longer matters what she says. The issue is her lack of credibility.

How Wilson is characterizing the communications does not square with the inconsistent statements from DoJ supervisors. Adverse inferences are warranted.

Wilson's explanations, assurances, and denials are unconvincing. Suggesting that she was passing on a "constituent" concern doesn't mean anything. If the "constituent" were real, Wilson should have told the Constituent, "That is illegal for us to call the US Attorney." Wilson has identified no constituent because the "constituent" is unreal, an excuse, not a real explanation.

Wilson's characterizations that the US Attorney was "delaying" a prosecution isn't something that a constituent would know. The US Attorney investigations and status of their indictments is classified. Either the White House got this information inappropriately from the NSA wiretaps, or Gonzalez and others are divulging ongoing investigation status to the GOP. Either way, there's problem.

But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a "constituent" does know the status of a US Attorney Action. Consider, where is the immediate FBI investigation into this "leak":

___ How did the "constituent" learn of this "inside info"?

___ What was the reason that the "constituent" did not call the US Attorney's office directly?

___ Who was the constituent, where were they assigned to the White House, and how much access does this constituent have with classified information?

___ Why is this constituent using this classified information to call a Member of Congress and express a concern?

* * *

It sure seems odd in the day of "we're concerned about leaks" that the President, Cheney, and Addington have been curiously quiet on the legal front.

Surely, if their "concerns" with Joe Wilson's statements and "other leaks" about the NSA activity were real, we'd see the President ordering investigations into the "ungrateful ones" who are undermining this justice system.

Not this President. The reasonable conclusion is that Harriet Miers and the White House counsel are linked with these calls to the US Attorneys.

* * *

Bungling idiots in DC remain bungling idiots. The US should not be surprised why the world looks at the US with disdain. It's the likes of this arrogant abuse of power, feigned stupidity, and fleeting arguments which makes the world less convinced the US is serious about the "big values" it supposedly stands for.

Left and right, we hear utter non-sense.

* * *

Wilson appears to be delusional in her denials. These are adverse inferences based solely on Wilson’s unpersuasive denials:

1. She was calling about a particular case and person. If the "constituent"-argument was true, that "Constituent" was concerned about something specific, prompting her specific call.

2. She was motivated by more than partisanship, but arrogant lust for power at any price. Let her suffer the lawful consequences: Inquiry, voter challenge, and an inquiry with fact finding. We the People will be the judge. Evidence doesn't matter: Our Will and adverse inferences will prevail.

3. She was obviously calling before the election because of the timing. Suggesting that something was "not" being done means that she or others had a deadline: The election.

4. She intended to communicate to the US Attorney here intention that something get done; and she worked with others to put pressure on the US Attorney.

5. She did intend to pressure the US Attorney. Calling him at his hotel room is evidence that she is desperate, concerned about something specific, and desperately trying to find information. She could have written a letter and left it at that. But she wants us to believe she was "just mildly concerned," yet she somehow gets a private hotel room number. Stunningly inconsistent.

* * *

I care little about their reasons, excuses, or justifications for the calls they made.

Domenici knows he has a problem: Despite the feigned "I have no idea what you’re talking about"-argument, he knows enough to hire a top-grade defense lawyers. Too smart, too fast, too transparent. He obviously knows there's a real problem. Surprising what sunlight will do to someone's "Concern" with their Congressional paycheck, and chance they may have to get a real job, not to mention make arrangements for prison.

Again, the same goes for Domenici

1. He was seeking political advantage

2. His explanation and characterization of the event is unconvincing.

3. There is no reasonable explanation for what he was doing.

4. There is no information -- as required -- as to how Domenici got this information about the case that was supposedly classified.

5. Domenici hasn't answered the simple question: Who inside his office made the original complaint to the US Attorney about Domenici's opponent; and what was the basis for Domenici to know that the time between [a] the original date of filing of the information (that Domenici should not know) and [b] the status of the investigation was or wasn't reasonable. It looks as though Domenici may have more information about who provided the original complaint; but makes no mention of what basis he is using to suggest the US attorney was or wasn't proceeding according to a timeline. Again, the only reasonable answer is: Domenici appears to have anticipated that the original complaint would have been sufficiently timed before the election to bring about the bad news before the election. This didn't happen.

6. US Attorneys have the discretion to decline cases. Senators don't have that input. Congress needs to stay out of DoJ's business. Separation of Powers. If Congress doesn't like that rule, then FBI agents can make more reads on Member of Congress offices to find the name of the "constituent" who provided the information, raised the question, and find out whether Domenici is or isn't misleading the American public, Congress, and judicial system.

* * *

I care little about Wilson or Domenici's reputation. What they have or haven't done has no bearing on what the facts are with this incident. Despite their experience, they appear to have put themselves above the law. Aren't they stupid: First for doing it; second fir believing nothing would happen; third for mistaking the GOP control as a rubber stamp to accountability would thwart oversight through the enforcement, investigation, oversight, and DoJ IG and DOJ OPR reviews.

Foreign fighters, under the laws of war, are permitted to directly engage combat forces and, where war crimes are not stopped, the civilian leadership who refuses to do what they should. Wilson and Domenici have legal responsibilities under the laws of war, including making sure that US combat forces -- including the NSA - comply with the legal requirements of the Constitution. Foreign fighters could conclude that Wilson and Domenici are part of the illegal system enabling war crimes. It is possible that they have been specifically targeted for rendition. If the US Congress does not discipline its own, foreign fighters may lawfully render Wilson and Domenici for accountability before The Hague.

* * *

Wilson and Domenici have overstayed their political usefulness. The question for the White House is how many other Members of Congress do they want to see go down in political flames.

The longer the GOP refuses to surrender from its illegal insurrection against the Constitution, the more information We the People will have as a searing memory of why this GOP should be permanently subjected to intrusive oversight, audits, and careful monitoring.

The easy way is for the voters to being planning for a New Party, outside the GOP, that will credibly assert values which the GOP has recklessly abandoned. The GOP may not be totally destroyed, but it can be supplanted by a group marginally more interested in civility.

Wilson and Domenici are disloyal to their oath, their Constitution, and have put partisan loyalty to their party above the rule of law. Shame on them.

Wilson and Domenici have burned the bridges with America. New Mexicans will get to decide whether they want to stick with them. There's alot to go through between now and then. Criminal prosecutors and ethics investigations can expand, and include financial audits and NSA telecom reviews to find out who was really calling whom.

Someone inside NSA knows exactly who inside the White House is involved, when they made the calls, and what discussions occurred. GCHQ has copies of these transcripts.

This incident is not impressive, given the national scope and abuse of power. This "incident" is one more example of what Republicans will do to their allies in the Justice Department, and arrogantly believe there will not be consequences.

Woe to those in Congress to attempt to blame the Justice Department for the failure to do what should have been done. These GOP Members of Congress haven't seen what happens when US Attorneys and FBI put their minds toward teaching a real lesson about what the rule of law means. US Attorneys have the power to refuse to decline cases where GOP Members of Congress are implicated in war crimes and serious breaches of the US Constituent.

What they may or may not have been promised or threatened in the past in the open and no longer a credible scare tactic. US Attorneys know they're going to get political support for directing the sharp end of the justice system directly at the reckless GOP Members of Congress and White House who have attempted to corrupt the rule of law. Libby’s conviction appears to have not sunk into the White House Counsel’s office. More is on the way. Don’t mess with the US Justice system or We the People.

They wished for this.