Democrats Were Targets in Inquiries, Panel Is Told

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh’s home state, Pennsylvania.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution.

“The citizens of the United States must have confidence that the department is conducting itself in a fair and impartial manner without actual political influence or the appearance of political influence,” said Mr. Thornburgh, who is now in private practice. He is defending the former elected Democratic coroner of Allegheny County, Pa., against federal corruption charges. “Unfortunately that may no longer be the case.”

His unusually harsh criticism of fellow Republicans was directed specifically at the United States attorney in Pittsburgh, Mary Beth Buchanan, who was director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, based in Washington, in 2004 and 2005. That office has come under scrutiny for its role in the dismissal of United States attorneys last year, in some cases for what appear to have been partisan reasons.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/washington/24prosecute.html?ex=1350878400&en=f50a0162b0f8486c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[MadMaddie]

1. Another check on the list for facism....

[EVDebs]

2. In case no one has recognized it, these are abuses of federal agencies

which were part of the Impeachment articles against Richard Nixon

Articles of Impeachment July 27, 1974
http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

[MadMaddie]

3. You are so right. ...thank you for reminding us.

[frylock]

4. big fucking deal..

the dems passed a minimum wage hike. can't you people ever be satisfied?!

[EVDebs]

6. BFD indeed. eom

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. yeah, anything more is casting pearls among swine

democrat party swine, no less.

No I am NOT satisfied until Monica, Alberto, that crazy US atty in Minnesota, and a bunch others are behind bars. with NO IMMUNITY ALLOWED. NO PARDONS.



I just flashed on Bush's last days. Pardons listing every single employee ever hired by Bush-cheney. yikes.

[EVDebs]

27. I'm just wondering, the Constitution's pardon power for a Prez has to be limited

I mean it's not like he's the Pope too, you know ?

"The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

(Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)

July 9, 2007
The President's Broad Power to Pardon and Commute
by James Pfiffner, Ph.D.
WebMemo #1543
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1543.cfm

Therefore it makes the UTMOST sense for Congress to begin Impeachment proceedings NOW.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. I think that means the President cannot pardon someone that's been impeached

It's the one limit to the power of the Presidential Pardon.

[Divine Discontent]

15. thank you...

keep preaching the truth...

[PATRICK]

32. Everyone should read the list

Dubya is much worse. Nixon had to help people against the DOJ. Bush corrupts the entire DOJ instead thereby saving bribes and those particular breaches that sunk Nixon. Nixon also provided the 'smoking gun" evidence in tapes. We have small pieces in that regard although some are highly public or highly sourced such as the DSM. All the other counts Bush has done and those are just starters.

The main dance seems to be a ton of tapes falling into the semi-reluctant Congressional laps. Without that there would have been censure at most, political grist for the next election at least. All beleaguered presidents are dangerous, have the same excuses and difficulties. The crimes are overwhelming threats to just about everything which includes circling the wagons around witnesses and evidence. The Dems, stung by the ease of how Clinton was hurt want to ignore that impeachment even exists or that the criminal acts are an ongoing crisis(at best) destroying the nation.

When the bar was set by the GOP it was plainly for brutal political gain in unseating the incumbent. Any charge would do and that is what the Constitution could be used for. The Dems allowed the bar to be set high for Nixon and the tapes vaulted him over it. He still compromised his way out with a resignation so no standard in fact was set except that the GOP can cut a deal while the Dems can simply surrender and then get pursued even with no crime involved.

The gratuitous statements by leading Dems, even progressive champions, that the bar should be astronomically high, should be guaranteed of bi-partisan support(the GOP uses bullying and coercion, the Dems appeals to duty!), should be simple and swift. Even with all those assumptions granted and a little guts against the rubberstamped GOP they would not want to. Would not want to at all. Power comes before law and duty. Myth before universal awareness of crime. On the other hand the GOP seems motivated to advance ALL the methods of coup d'etat for their arsenal of seizing power. Letting the government move in this two track universe itself is a betrayal of duty- and common sense.

Message to Bush. Do the decent thing or lucky thing and resign, but we won't bother you if you, El Presidente, godking of the people, don't. The Dems are still impeachment virgins when it comes to power
even with the very existence of the Republic at stake- and lately- much more globally.

[gratuitous]

5. Oh my goodness!

Does Dick Thornburgh have late stage, incurable cancer? Gosh, best of luck to him.

[EVDebs]

7. Bruce Fein--Restrain This White House !

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.fein.html

[Robbien]

8. Good for the NYT finally getting a headline right

Most headlines on this story read that the DoJ was used for partisan purposes. This headline just comes right out and says they were going after Dems.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

20. I was pleased

It's about time they begin calling it like it is.

[journalist3072]

9. Impeachment, and conviction & removal from office anyone? Like yesterday already. eom

[zazzle]

26. Dems won't hold impeachment hearings because they'd be detrimental to Hillary's power grab!

with the media focused on impeachment hearings while Bill campaigns with Hillary. Impeachment ain't gonna happen!

The Dems could have upheld the law and protected the Constitution - but they chose to protect Hillary.

[EVDebs]

28. Underline, exclamation point ! eom

[journalist3072]

35. Gee, I'd like whatever you're smoking today. Must be powerful stuff. eom

[Bitwit1234]

10. One thing this proves, even real republicans are upset at this level

of corruption in the bush administration. And it is hard to tell how many attorneys and appointees this administration has put into undercover positions. They will be there for years to come to cause havoc.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Wimpy Dems will do nothing until the Repubs in Congress give them

a sure win. So I hope you're right.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. So Bush was destroying the Democrats at the same time that he

was waging a foreign war. A formula for utter failure.

[zazzle]

29. A John Edwards DOJ would be superior to continuing the Bush-Clinton dyna$ty

Remember - Bill Clinton gave a big gift to the Bushes and Repubs when he ended all pending and future Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations!
A former first lady will NOT investigate a former president's son and his corrupt and evil administration.

That's why there are dynasties! to coverup the crimes of previous rulers.

And now - the Bush dirty money BCCI crowd is donating to Hillary!
http://www.realnews.org/stories/2007-10-16_hillary.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Hillary will bury the truth.

[DemGa]

13. Bookmarking: another one for the memory hole....nt

[bleever]

14. Retired Bush I AG, and the New York Times.

I'm starting to think the the Justice Dept. might be the place where the law catches up with the schemers.

Ironic, poetic, or both?

[JPZenger]

19. PA. Attorney General Avoided Investigating Republicans

The PA. Attorney General is conducting an investigation of whether State employees working for the PA. State Legislature were given large State bonuses in return for doing campaign work. Many took leaves of abscenses to work on legislative campaigns, and received large bonuses even though they only worked for the State part of the year.

Up until 2 days ago, the PA. Attorney General was only investigating the Democrats who were accused of this wrongdoing, even though there were several Republicans who were involved in very questionable situations. The State Democratic Party leadership cried foul, and finally 2 days ago, the AG started investigating the Republicans.

[BridgeTheGap]

16. Is there a comprehensive list of Repubs who have come out against

what the Justice Dept. has been used for under Bush?
If so, it would be very effective in combating the notion that this is just a Dem political ploy.
How do we get this out to the general public?

[w4rma]

21. You can be sure that some well-connected Republican is keeping one to use for a blacklist. (nt)

[L. Coyote]

17. Caling a Junta a Junta is on the horizon, at long last. They stole 2000!

[Botany]

18. Once again ....

...

The Dept. of Justice used U.S. Attorneys as "button men" for political hits
and the NSA spied on "selected targets" to see what their campaigns were
doing.

Attn Nancy Pelosi:

Is your table clear yet?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. I still maintain that NSA has something on her

and that might explain her increasingly incredible position.

[BrainGlutton]

24. I'll feel a lot better when this Administration finds its John Dean.

I mean, I believe everything Thornburgh says -- but he's NOT a W-Administration insider.

[JDPriestly]

25. So would they have eavesdropped and spied on Democrats?

You be the judge. Is there any wonder we grass-roots Democrats do not trust this administration? How can Nancy and Harry be so naive as to trust the Bush administration with the power to tap their (and our) phones and read their (and our) e-mails? What fools.

[geiger]

31. time to frieking move on, boys and girls.....

[BelgianMadCow]

33. Important! Giving a fourtieth rec n/t