Democrats & Liberals Archives

Two Systems of Justice

Ever since 8 prosecutors in the Justice Department were fired, Alberto Gonzales has changed his story about the firing several times. The fired prosecutors blamed the firing on political considerations. Gonzales blamed his chief of staff. Today, Sampson insists Gonzales is lying. Career attorneys at the Justice Department are unhappy about what appears to be one type of justice for Republicans and another type of justice for Democrats.

There has been a lot of discussion whether the firings were brought about because of political considerations - not pursuing Democrats fervently enough or pursuing Republicans too well - or for performance reasons. Unbelievably, here is what Sampson said:

The distinction between political and performance-related reasons … is in my view largely artificial.

Artificial? When a Republican disobeys the law and the administration (most likely, Karl Rove) says spare him, must the attorney follow orders to be considered a good attorney? When there is no legal basis for pursuing a Democrat and the administration says indict him, must the attorney indict the Democrat in order to keep his job? Is this what Republicans call justice?

The administration has corrupted the Justice Department. So says Joseph D. Rich, who was chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005:

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

Where is this "voter fraud"? As the Washington Post said "the notion of widespread voter fraud... is itself a fraud." It exists mainly in the propaganda of the Republican Party.

Rich tells us how this administration has corrupted the Justice Department by politicizing it:

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.

What was the result of the politicization of the Justice Department. Rich tells us:

Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 55% to 60% of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.

This is the good news: It shows that there are a few attorneys in the Justice Department who want to apply the law equally to every individual, whether he be a Republican or a Democrat. However, the corruption has tainted the Justice Department so badly that its reputation will be hard to reclaim.

The first step must be the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales. This should be followed with a thorough investigation of political corruption in the Justice Department.

We must replace the separate justice systems, one for Republicans and another for Democrats, with one justice system for all.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 29, 2007 8:00 PM
Comments
Comment #214360

Justice at last
Justice at last
Thank God all mighty
Justice at last

Now that the stranglehold on power by the most corrupt regime since even before Tammany Hall has been broken, we can finally have trials and investigations and testimony under oath and supoenas and all those things to answer the question of “Can we prove it?”. Is BushCo as evil and corrupt and craven as so many have come to understand? Can we prove it?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 29, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #214373

Two systems of Justice for Democrats and Republicans? Yes, that sounds exactly like how it’s always worked.

Each President puts together a Justice Department stacked with political appointees whose job it is pursue that administation’s prosecutorial agenda. Do you suppose that a future Democratic president wouldn’t fire virtually all of Bush’s appointees and replace them with his/her own?

Didn’t Clinton fire every single US attorney when he came into office? Was that somehow good for “the morale” of those were fired or forced to quit? And who gives a fig about their morale anyway? Hire people with better morale.

Gonazale’s trouble is that he give weak and half-baked explanations of his personnel decisions without taking responsibility for them or properly educating even himself about what’s going on in his department. Does this make him look bad? Yes, absolutely. No argument there.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 29, 2007 11:08 PM
Comment #214374

Paul, good post. Justice and Just Us has been the strategy of this bunch of losers in the Worst administration in the history of this Country. As the truth comes out we will find this is but 1 more dis-service they have done to this Country. Jan 09 cant come quick enough.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #214375

Joseph Rich provides a good example of what we can expect from career Justice Department officials who are also political activists. He held his office since 1999, did he? I wondered who appointed him. If Bush had just done what Clinton did when he came into office and purged Rich, maybe that would have saved him some trouble.

No cases brought on behalf of minorities? Not true, since the Bush Justice Department has actually been very tough on enforcing things like dual language ballots. And anyhow, 99% if not 100% of the alleged violations of African American voting rights are either pure political bunk perpetuated by the likes of Al Shartpon and Jesse Jackson, or issues which have to do with redistricting and are actually the responsibility of state legislatures.

Voting fraud is a myth? Right. I guess that’s why when Democrats hired convicted felons to help with voter registration in 04, we had individuals like “Daffy Duck” and “Bugs Bunny” showing up on voter applications.

I guess it’s why 2,600 dead voters in New York cast ballots 4-1 for Democratic candidates. I guess it’s why in the last election of a governor in Washington state, liberal King County found one bag of misplaced “votes” after another over a period of weeks until the Democratic candidate was ahead. After which no additional sacks of ballots were found lying around in their basement.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 29, 2007 11:45 PM
Comment #214376

Loyal,
“In most cases, instances of dead voters can be attributed to database mismatches and clerical errors”. From your link .

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #214387

LO,

There’s a world of difference between “I need to find a new job because the Democrats won” and “I need to find a new job because I went after a corrupt Republican congressman instead of looking the other way”.

Both involve politics, but only the latter is a perversion of justice.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 30, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #214389

Woody,

Sampson himself tells us this wasn’t the case though, that they were targeted specifically because they weren’t going after cases the president wanted them to go after.

So, is he telling the truth only some of the time during the hearings?

“Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president’s and the attorney general’s priorities,” he said. “In some sense that may be described as political by some people.”

He denied that any prosecutor was fired for pursuing corruption cases that might hurt the administration. “To my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here,” Sampson told the committee

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 30, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #214393

LO,

Have you even read the article you link to? It discusses many different reasons the “dead vote,” the vast majority of which have nothing to do with fraud. It’s mind boggling the way folks like you will see an evil motive behind every inconsistency in government — unless it comes from the current administration.

Posted by: Steve K at March 30, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #214396

Rhinehold,

Is Sampson telling the whole truth? Beats me. I never implied that he was.

Even if he is, “not carrying out the president’s priorities” can cover a lot of ground…

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 30, 2007 9:19 AM
Comment #214405

Did anyone else find it repulsive how closely Sampson resembled a younger version of Karl Rove? Gave me the willies.

Rhinehold:
“So, is he telling the truth only some of the time during the hearings?”

Sampson was Taking One for the Team, When He Could Remember As that link tells us, the guy said “I don’t know” one hundred and twenty-two times.
Reagan during Iran/Contra, Libby, Torquemada Gonzales, Sampson and other Repugs use that “I don’t know” whenever they’re lying.
Whether one chooses to beleive them or not, it’s clear that Republicans ought not to be running the country simply because they can’t remember what happpens so damn much. It’s like their brains are all suffering from the human version of Mad Cow Disease — a pile of mush riddled with swiss-cheese-like holes.

Loyal:
“Gonazale’s trouble is that he give weak and half-baked explanations of his personnel decisions without taking responsibility for them or properly educating even himself about what’s going on in his department. Does this make him look bad? Yes, absolutely. No argument there.”

Let’s just take a quick review of all the lies:

Democrats in particular expressed deep doubt at Mr. Sampson’s argument that politics were not involved in the dismissals. “In the last seven weeks, we’ve learned that Attorney General Gonzales was personally involved in the firing plan, after being told that he wasn’t,” Mr. Schumer said. “We’ve learned that the White House was involved, involved, after being told that it wasn’t; we’ve learned that Karl Rove was involved, after being told that he wasn’t,” the senator said, alluding to the president’s chief political adviser. “And we have learned that political considerations were very important, after being told that they weren’t.”

Woody:
“Even if he is, “not carrying out the president’s priorities” can cover a lot of ground…”

It certainly can. But we don’t need to believe Sampson’s opinions on what that covers or means, because the e-mails tell the whole story (from the same link I quoted above):

internal department e-mail messages show consideration was also given to the views of senators, administration policy priorities and legislative goals.

In other words, they have made a mockery of Justice. Just as this administration has made a mockery of everything America is supposed to stand for. And even when this becomes clear, our Clown President praises his Clownish Friends, and allows them to keep their jobs.
This entire administration deserves impeachment.

Paul, very good article.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 30, 2007 10:45 AM
Comment #214407

The firings were legal; the reason they gave was confusing. Get over it people and move on!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 30, 2007 10:58 AM
Comment #214408

Speaking of an out of control Democrat congress that wants BIG government and is spending our childrens future…….

In their first new proposed budget since the Democrats took control of Congress the House, voting along strict part lines, approved a new proposed budget that includes the largest dollar tax increase in US history (and the largest as a share of GDP since World War II).

It does this, in part, by eliminating the so-called “Bush tax cuts”. All of them.

NOT just raising the top marginal brackets on “The Rich” but the lower brackets as well.

* No more lower rates on dividends or capital gains (not even for lower income-bracket investors).
* The marriage penalty comes back.
* Increases in child tax credits go away.
* Education credits go away.
* IRA contribution limits go back to where they were ($2,000)
* Lots of other fun changes - including the AMT snaring more and more people. You read that right - there is not even any propsed AMT “fix” (Not that this one personally bothers me any).


All those nice, two income yuppie couples who helped vote in the Democrats will get what they voted for.

Hope they’re happy now :-)

Posted by: stephen L at March 30, 2007 11:10 AM
Comment #214411

I hear they are after the IRAs too, extra taxes.

Bend over folks, you are about to start bleeding money for bigger government socialist democrat agendas.

And that doesn’t even cover National Health Care

Posted by: Stephen at March 30, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #214427
LO,

Have you even read the article you link to? It discusses many different reasons the “dead vote,” the vast majority of which have nothing to do with fraud.

No, there are many reasons why the dead are still on the voter roles. That’s totally different from them actually voting.

I did not mention or complain about the 77,000 dead people still on the voter roles, most for perfectly innocent reasons.

I’m just concerned about the 2,600 who are not only on the roles but who rise up from their graves on election day to vote 4-1 for Democratic candidates.

It’s laughable that anybody would claim that voter fraud is a “Republican myth” or that these legions of dead Democratic voters have a perfectly innocent explanation.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 30, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #214431

I guess you could say this whole DOJ/prosecutor scandal is one big obstruction of justice caper, bending the law and how it functions (when it does, that is) to political machinations.

A serious charge to be sure.

I suspect that each government agency could tell tales of corruption, of malfesance, of cronyism, under the Bush administration—pick one—the SEC, FEMA, FDA, NLRB, the State Department, the FBI. I’m sure there is plenty of evidence.

What concerns me, though, is the damage done to carreer agency operatives. Evidently, the morale is so low in the DOJ that there has been a 50% turnover of lawyers in the last four years. People that have dedicated their professional lives trying to contribute, to make a difference in how government works, have walked away in disgust.

Of all the damage done to American prestige worldwide, to our environment, to the country’s stand for human rights and the rule of law, the damage done to Constitutional rights and individual liberties in service to a lawless, plutocratic, unjustice economic system—the damage done to the professionalism of governance may be the most serious.

It will take at least a generation (if ever) to rebuild any concept of intergrity and justice in American governance; for the very simple reason that the truth, and a love and respect for truth, has disappeared from these shores.

“When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth, they will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest.”

Posted by: Tim Crow at March 30, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #214437

LO,

If you read the article more carefully, those 2,600 people weren’t all dead and they didn’t all vote. To quote the article

The numbers do not indicate how much fraud is the result of dead voters in New York, only the potential for it. Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not mean any extra ballots were actually cast. The Journal did not find any fraud in the local matches it investigated.
Posted by: Woody Mena at March 30, 2007 1:09 PM
Comment #214438

Wow… do you people (Dems and Reps) truly believe that you’re party is good and the other bad? Are you so blind by your party loyalty that you don’t realize that EVERYthing one side does, the other does too? Clinton fired Republicans… Bush fired Democrats… who the *%?! cares? My goodness… let’s use this space to talk about real party differences (not many) and not use it to call foul when the party you’re not in does the SAME EXACT THING as does the one you are. geez…

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at March 30, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #214445
Clinton fired Republicans… Bush fired Democrats… who the *%?! cares? My goodness…Posted by: Doug Langworthy at March 30, 2007 01:20 PM
Yo! Doug! Bush FIRED HIS OWN APPOINTEES!!!! The US Attorneys are supposed to appointed then allowed to do their job of DEFENDING OUR NATION, Bush wanted them to DEFEND BUSH. Some people think that’s the same thing. I don’t. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 30, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #214446

I’m just concerned about the 2,600 who are not only on the roles but who rise up from their graves on election day to vote 4-1 for Democratic candidates.

LO,

Which was addressed directly by the article:

Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not mean any extra ballots were actually cast. The Journal did not find any fraud in the local matches it investigated. Democrats who cast votes after they died outnumbered Republicans by more than 4 to 1. The reason: Most of them came from Democrat-dominated New York City, where the higher population produced more matches.


Posted by: Steve K at March 30, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #214450

…..the firings were legal, the dirt-scratching-lying-to Congress after the fact, was not! Why is it so difficult to accept that when someone does something right once, and wrong multiple times, that one right doesnt trump the rest??

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 30, 2007 2:42 PM
Comment #214454

Fair enough that they were his own appointees… the fact remains… they both do it… all the time… who cares?

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at March 30, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #214459

Obviously those of us who understand the difference between right and wrong !!! And how long are we expected to accept the total disregard for the law by this administration ??
You seem to forget how not so long ago, the right wanted to hang Clinton for getting blown. Your perception of right and wrong is mind boggling.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 30, 2007 3:54 PM
Comment #214463
The firings were legal; the reason they gave was confusing. Get over it people and move on!… Posted by: rahdigly at March 30, 2007 10:58 AM
Like in the Libby case, there was no proof offered or needed of an underlying crime. Lying before congress (was it under oath?) might be. What are they hiding? Why lie (or ‘misdirect’) if there was nothing to hide?
Bend over folks, you are about to start bleeding money for bigger government socialist democrat agendas…Posted by: Stephen at March 30, 2007 11:18 AM
I’m willing to bleed out my taxhole to pay down the numbingly large growth and costs of the federal government in it’s warmaking and intrusions into my private life as well as helping domestic social programs. If we start now maybe my grandkids will have a country left. Why aren’t you willing to bleed out of your hole to help your fellow man? Or do you just care about doing unto others whatever you can get away with? Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at March 30, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #214464

War against a country which did not threaten the US.
Military bombings which killed innocent civilians.
Renditioning.
Lying under oath.
Nuclear technology to North Korea.
Massive corruption.
Waco.
Questionable fund-raising.
Etc…

It was not about clinton getting “blown,” that is just what the left tells themselves to defend, excuse and justify what really happened.

I really like how you ask how long you can be expected to accept the total disregard for the law by THIS administration while at the same time ignoring the previous administrations crimes.

Your perception of right and wrong is based on partisanship.

Doug
Who cares depends solely on which party is involved and its not going to change.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 4:41 PM
Comment #214465

kctim, your points are mostly oblique. What in the world good does it do to go backwards??? I pointed out the Clinton scenario because that’s where most Reps want to take us whenever we point out yet another of Bush’s screw-ups, or those of his good-ol-boys. Now, is where we’re at, like it or not, so now, is what we have to deal with, and that means Bush, etc.
And except for two on your list, you’ve pointed directly to Bush’s fiascos, so what’s your point???

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 30, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #214471

Sandra
All of those on my list were during clintons reign.
Does no good to go backwards? Funny, thats the exact thing people do when asked why this Congress has done nothing.

I did not mention clintons crimes because you pointed out “yet another of Bushs’ screw-ups.” I mentioned them because you said the right went after him simply for that one reason.

Whats my point? Doug is right, there is no big difference between the Dems and Reps.
Why defend one side for something and then condemn the other for doing almost the exact same thing? It accomplishes nothing.

Posted by: kctim at March 30, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #214480
“Like in the Libby case, there was no proof offered or needed of an underlying crime.”

And, “like in the Libby case”, it is complete (and utter) bullsh*t. It’s about setting “perjury” traps and nothing more elegant than that!

Posted by: rahigly at March 30, 2007 6:59 PM
Comment #214484

kctim, what I said was, that whenever we bring to light another inappropriate act by the Bush administration, what the left predominantly does is to go back and point to Clinton’s errors. well, he did it first, neener neener! It has been old for a long time now, and Bush’s duck and cover attitude has him about out of hidey-holes!!
Happy weekend, all !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 30, 2007 7:24 PM
Comment #214488


Dave:

The problem is not with taxes, it’s with the effect of the Democratic proposals. Taxing IRA’s and 401(k)’s discourages saving for retirement. Why save when the government is going to take a nice chunk(I’ve heard a figure of 15% of the total collected at retirement)? What effect will eliminating or reducing the education deductions have on those who are not affluent? While we’re at it, let’s discourage stock ownership by jacking up the capital gains tax.After all, we don’t want anyone owning a piece of the company do we?

And, by all means let’s keep the alternative minimum tax. Can’t let all those rich folks get away without paying “their fair share”.
If the Denmocrats are serious about reducing the deficit, which they are not, they come up with a tax code that encourages economic growth. Not this typical “progressive” mishmash.

Next time, vote Libertarian, Green, Independent, or what ever flavor floats your boat, but don’t vote Republicrat, they’re dangerous to your financial health.

Posted by: John Back at March 30, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #214526

Dave:

BTW: I have absolutely no problem with helping those truly less fortunate than myself. Only I, and many others, do it through our churches and charitable giving.

The taxes that I pay should go toward financing a system of government that is small, reasonable, and efficient. They are not paid so that some of what I have worked for can be transferred to someone who won’t. Not can’t, won’t.

Posted by: John Back at March 31, 2007 6:46 AM
Comment #214559

John, I have to agree with you, taking my hard earned money and giving it, in taxes, to the 109th who obviously were not worth the money was hard to endure.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2007 3:50 PM
Comment #214682

A third form of justice:

In Texas, Republican Governor Rick Perry has had to deal with something called the Texas Youth Comission. It’s a Juvenile center for hardcore kids. He allowed it to be run by Felons and Sexual Predators. Now that it has come to light, he is letting 400 of these kids go.”

Let’s see…Hardcore kids, raped in prison and now released on to the public. Hmmm, yep that’s justice.

I guess we get the form of government we elect.

Posted by: gergle at April 2, 2007 2:00 PM
Post a comment