Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Desperate to Distract" would be more accurate.

George W. Bush runs the Justice Department. If Berger is getting off easy, then shouldn't we blame Bush?

/smile

Posted by Bill White at January 15, 2007 08:43 AM

Maybe we should blame Bush. It is his Justice Department. Either he's not paying attention, or he's happy with what happened, or he's incapable of or unwilling to cleanse it of Clinton apparatchiks who allowed it to happen. First, though, I'd blame Gonzales.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 15, 2007 08:52 AM

"or he's incapable of or unwilling to cleanse it of Clinton apparatchiks who allowed it to happen."

Yeah, because Clinton's soooo powerful over Bush...

Maybe the simple explanation is that they've exhausted their investigation and all they have is witness testimony, and they have determined it is insufficient to take the investigation any further.

It could be like that wise old detective once said, "We ain't got jack $#!+."

Posted by Clive Gunston at January 15, 2007 02:02 PM

Yeah, because Clinton's soooo powerful over Bush...

No, it's because the civil service has a great deal of inertia, and it takes a great amount of energy on the part of the Executive to make changes at lower levels. One of Bill Clinton's first acts upon taking office was to fire every US Attorney in the country, and replace them with his own people (I wonder why he did that...?). The Bush administration didn't do that. They were trying to "bring a new tone to Washington."

Maybe the simple explanation is that they've exhausted their investigation and all they have is witness testimony, and they have determined it is insufficient to take the investigation any further.

Based on the evidence that we've seen in the papers, and in the recently released report, they had enough on him to revoke his clearance permanently, and give him years of jail time. People are convicted on eyewitness testimony all the time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 15, 2007 02:08 PM

Maybe Clinton didn't fire every US attorney.

Maybe Bush did.

Do you have a source for your claims?

Posted by anonymous at January 15, 2007 05:50 PM

Do you have a source for your claims?

Do you have some basis to doubt my claims? Are you calling me a liar?

Do a little research, Anonymous Moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 15, 2007 07:01 PM

"Do you have some basis to doubt my claims? Are you calling me a liar?"

_I'm_ not calling you a liar.

Now I request that you back up your claims. Is that an unreasonable request?

Posted by Clive Gunston at January 15, 2007 07:09 PM

_I'm_ not calling you a liar.

Now I request that you back up your claims. Is that an unreasonable request?

Yes, it is, unless you have some credible citations to indicate otherwise. It would involve my having to spend time googling and researching to do so. I have better things to do with my time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 15, 2007 07:35 PM

Maybe Clinton didn't fire every US attorney.

He did. It was in all the papers.

How old were you in 1993, anyway?

Posted by McGehee at January 16, 2007 05:45 AM

"Yes, it is, unless you have some credible citations to indicate otherwise."

So, you make wild assertions and refuse to back them up. I always thought that the way it worked was that people who make claims are supposed to have evidence to support them. For instance, if you're going to declare the sky purple, you might want to have some data that proves you right.

Posted by Clive Gunston at January 16, 2007 06:47 AM

So, you make wild assertions and refuse to back them up.

If they were "wild assertions," you might have a point. They are not. They are simple historical fact. If I said that Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, would you demand a citation?

So, you are calling me a liar.

As I said, if you don't want to accept my word on it, that's your problem, not mine. I don't have time to do your homework for you. Try googling a little, if you really care.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 16, 2007 07:00 AM

Simberg

you have a history of making wild claims, given that
this is a matter of public record, there should be
a simple source for this.

The fact that you get so Angry, indicates, that you didn't
have an original source when you made this, just
some RNC talking point

Posted by anonymous at January 16, 2007 07:40 AM

Simberg

I'm not calling you aliar, i'm saying you are a GOP stooge.

Posted by anonymous at January 16, 2007 07:50 AM

Rand's right, and Anon/Clive should do a bit of growing up before throwing accusations around. Some of us were paying attention in the early 90s.

Posted by Stewart at January 16, 2007 06:20 PM

Stewart

Can you cite something?

Rand is good at vague accusations, but, really poor at
scholarly research. Kind of sad as he wants to be a
neo-con, without the intellectual veneer

Posted by anonymous at January 16, 2007 07:12 PM

Actually

there is a reason Rand is vaguely attacking the clinton's
on the DoJ. Bush just fired 7 US Attorney's for
investigating corruption, so, the first thing the GOP
does is attack in a parallel manner. By accusing clinton
of something, it becomes just usual politics.

Of course, Rand is unable to substantiate anything because
all he has is the daily talking points from the RNC, so
he doesn't know anything.

It's just Rand stooging for the GOP.

Posted by anonymous at January 16, 2007 09:29 PM

More proof that Gonzales secretly works for the Clintonistas!:

Secret Court to Govern Wiretapping Plan
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; 2:42 PM

The Justice Department announced today that the National Security Agency's controversial warrantless surveillance program has been placed under the authority of a secret surveillance court, marking an abrupt change in approach by the Bush administration after more than a year of heated debate.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said that orders issued on Jan. 10 by an unidentified judge puts the NSA program under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret panel that oversees most intelligence surveillance in the United States.

Gonzales also wrote that the current NSA program will effectively be abandoned after its current authorization expires in favor of the new approach.

The change marks a dramatic turn of events for the Justice Department, which has strenuously argued for more than a year that the NSA spying program was legal and that the foreign intelligence court was poorly suited to oversee the program, as many lawmakers had advocated.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush authorized the NSA to monitor telephone calls and e-mail between the United States and overseas if one party to the communication was believed to be linked to al-Qaeda or related groups.

The program did not require any court oversight, prompting widespread objections from privacy advocates and many legal experts after the program was first revealed in news reports in December 2005. Bush and his aides strongly defended the legality and efficacy of the NSA spying initiative, which they dubbed the "Terrorist Surveillance Program."

In his letter to lawmakers, Gonzales said a judge on the surveillance court issued orders "authorizing the government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe" that one of the targets is a member of al-Qaeda or an associated group.

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote.

Gonzales also said that the administration has been exploring ways to seek approval from the surveillance court for nearly two years, but that "it took considerable time and work to develop" an approach that "would have the speed and agility necessary to protect the nation from al-Qaeda."

Gonzales and other administration officials had previously claimed that the surveillance court was too slow and clumsy to be of any use in administering the NSA spying program. Justice officials also released statistics today showing improvements in the amount of time it takes to obtain warrants from the surveillance court.

Posted by at January 17, 2007 12:58 PM

"They are simple historical fact. If I said that Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, would you demand a citation?

So, you are calling me a liar.

As I said, if you don't want to accept my word on it, that's your problem, not mine. I don't have time to do your homework for you. Try googling a little, if you really care."

I used Lexis/Nexis and did a search of all major newspaper articles for the first two years of Clinton's presidency. There is no evidence to support your assertion that Clinton fired all the US attorneys.

I found lots of hits on unrelated things: Waco, Clinton firing FBI director William Sessions, but nothing about mass firings at the Justice Department. It didn't happen.

So now I'm calling you a liar.

Posted by Clive Gunston at January 17, 2007 01:10 PM

So now I'm calling you a liar.

There was a time that calling someone a liar was fighting words. You are accusing me of a) saying something that is false and b) saying it knowing that it's false. That's a serious charge, and one that should take more than a cursory Nexis-Lexis search. Now, instead of deciding on such flimsy evidence that I'm a liar, consider the possibility that none of the newspapers you searched considered it newsworthy, at the time, or since.

Are you going to call that well-known right-wing Clinton Hater™ Ken Bode a liar, too?

Bode praised the new President's judicial record: "Clinton's first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high-profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new Attorney General to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children, and a continued emphasis on crime and public safety." Bode did note Reno's unprecedented decision to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys "has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno."

Emphasis mine.

I'll await an apology, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 17, 2007 01:49 PM

Rand finds a story on a right wing site.

Nothing objective, to support him.

Nor does he substantiate that Bush kept
the Clinton US Attorney's.

Nor is Rand discussing Bush's firing of 7 US Attorney's

Posted by anonymous at January 17, 2007 11:41 PM

Post a comment