HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The coup already occurred...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 11:39 AM

The coup already occurred.

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

The NSA gathered info on Democratic politicians that it would turn over to the FBI and US Attorneys, resulting in investigations and prosecutions, operating under "parallel construction," which would occur during close elections.

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT’S 2002 MEMORANDUM

On March 6, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding new procedures to apply to foreign intelligence (FI) and foreign counterintelligence (FCI) investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It proposed significant changes to FISA and allowed overlapping between intelligence officers and law enforcement officers:

Prior to the USA Patriot Act, FISA could be used only for the "primary purpose" of obtaining "foreign intelligence information." The term "foreign intelligence information" was and is defined to include information that is necessary, or relevant, to the ability of the United States to protect against foreign threats to national security, such as attack, sabotage, terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)(1). Under the primary purpose standard, the government could have a significant law enforcement purpose for using FISA, but only if it was subordinate to a primary foreign intelligence purpose. The USA Patriot Act allows FISA to be used for "a significant purpose," rather than the primary purpose, of obtaining foreign intelligence information. Thus, it allows FISA to be used primarily for a law enforcement purpose, as long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(7)(B), 1823(a)(7)(B).

The Act also expressly authorizes intelligence officers who are using FISA to "consult" with federal law enforcement officers to "coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against" foreign threats to national security. Under this authority, intelligence and law enforcement officers may exchange a full range of information and advice concerning such efforts in FI or FCI investigations, including information and advice designed to preserve or enhance the possibility of a criminal prosecution. The USA Patriot Act provides that such consultation between intelligence and law enforcement officers "shall not" preclude the government's certification of a significant foreign intelligence purpose or the issuance of a FISA warrant. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(k), 1825(k).


These procedures were changed or rejected by the FISA court and its opinion was publicly released in August 2002.


In spite of the long-accepted, constitutionally sound, independence-preserving method of appointing interim U.S. Attorneys, the appointment process was radically changed with the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006. Removed was the interbranch appointment from the district court; the Attorney General could now make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. Also eliminated was the 120 day period that interim U.S. Attorneys could stay in office before a district court could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy. Interim U.S. Attorneys could now remain in office indefinitely, or until the President appointed a U.S. Attorney to the district. Interim U.S. Attorney appointments bypassed Senate confirmation, leaving the determination of qualification to the Justice Department.

The insertion of this new clause into the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act went unnoticed. Senators were at a loss to explain how the clause made its way into the bill. It was later determined that the Justice Department had requested Brett Tolman to insert the clause into the bill (Kiel, 2007). At the time the clause was inserted Mr. Tolman was a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is a member. Sen. Specter responded to inquiries about his involvement with the clause by saying, “I do not slip things in” (Kiel, 2007, p. 1). According to Sen. Specter, the principal reason for the change was to resolve “separation of power issues” (Kiel, 2007, p. 2). The Senate voted to repeal the clause in February 2007 (P.L. 110-34, 2007). At the time of this writing, Mr. Tolman is a U.S. Attorney for the state of Utah.

~snip~

A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).


Criminal defense lawyers demand access to secret DEA evidence
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/08/criminal-defense-lawyers-demand-access-to-secret-dea-evidence/

In interviews, at least a dozen current or former agents said they used “parallel construction,” often by pretending that an investigation began with what appeared to be a routine traffic stop, when the true origin was actually a tip from SOD.

Defense lawyers said that by hiding the existence of the information, the government is violating a defendant’s constitutional right to view potentially exculpatory evidence that suggests witness bias, entrapment or innocence.

“It certainly can’t be that the agents can make up a ‘parallel construction,’ a made-up tale, in court documents, testimony before the grand jury or a judge, without disclosure to a court,” said Jim Wyda, the federal public defender in Maryland, in an email.

“This is going to result in a lot of litigation, for a long time.”


"Parallel construction" is really intelligence laundering
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425612

The government calls the practice "parallel construction," but deciphering their double speak, the practice should really be known as "intelligence laundering." This deception and dishonesty raises a host of serious legal problems.

~snip~

Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.

The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering


The NSA-DEA police state tango
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/singleton/

On the other hand, this is a genuinely sinister turn of events with a whiff of science-fiction nightmare, one that has sounded loud alarm bells for many people in the mainstream legal world. Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.


The NSA operates under the purview of the Department of Defense. The current Secretary of Defense is former Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel. What does Hagel have to do with a coup? He was one of the authors of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the law that brought unverifiable electronic voting machines using secret, proprietary software. Hagel also has business and financial ties with ES&S.

Diebold's Political Machine
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/03/diebolds-political-machine 

While Diebold has received the most attention, it actually isn't the biggest maker of computerized election machines. That honor goes to Omaha-based ES&S, and its Republican roots may be even stronger than Diebold's. 

The firm, which is privately held, began as a company called Data Mark, which was founded in the early 1980s by Bob and Todd Urosevich. In 1984, brothers William and Robert Ahmanson bought a 68 percent stake in Data Mark, and changed the company's name to American Information Services (AIS). Then, in 1987, McCarthy & Co, an Omaha investment group, acquired a minority share in AIS. 

In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel's Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that. 

A little less than eight months after steppind down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state's popular former governor. It was Hagel's first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel's Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel's ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel's margin of victory was so large. 

As might be expected, Hagel has been generously supported by his investment partners at McCarthy & Co. -- since he first ran, Hagel has received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from McCarthy & Co. executives. And Hagel still owns more than $1 million in stock in McCarthy & Co., which still owns a quarter of ES&S.


The other authors of HAVA are former Republican congressman, Bob Ney,

Ney Pleads Guilty to Corruption Charges 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300169.html 

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) pleaded guilty yesterday to corruption charges arising from the influence-peddling investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, becoming the first elected official to fall in a scandal that may damage his party's chances in next month's elections. 

Ney, 52, emerged from a month of alcoholism treatment to appear in federal court in Washington, where he admitted performing official acts for lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions, expensive meals, luxury travel and skybox sports tickets. Ney also admitted taking thousands of dollars in gambling chips from an international businessman who sought his help with the State Department. 

~snip~ 

Ney made no statement to the court, but afterward he issued a written statement saying he was "ashamed" that his long career in public service has ended this way. 

"I never acted to enrich myself or get things I shouldn't, but over time, I allowed myself to get too comfortable with the way things have been done in Washington D.C. for too long," Ney said. "I accepted things I shouldn't have with the result that Jack Abramoff used my name to advance his own secret schemes of fraud and theft in way I could never have imagined."


former Democratic Senator, Chris "Friend of Angelo" Dodd, who ran for President (and did worse than Kucinich),

Countrywide Gave Special Attention To Lawmakers 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061303738_pf.html 

The Portfolio investigation alleges that favorable loans also were extended to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.); President Bush's former housing secretary, Alphonso Jackson; former United Nations ambassador Richard Holbrooke; and former Health and Human Services secretary Donna E. Shalala. 

~snip~ 

Holbrooke, Shalala and Jackson did not return phone calls seeking comment. But Conrad and Dodd, both of whom have committee jurisdictions that affect Countrywide, yesterday dismissed the notion that they received favorable deals, and they said they did not know that the FOA loan category existed. 

~snip~ 

"As a United States senator, I would never ask or expect to be treated differently than anyone else refinancing their home," Dodd said in a statement. 

~snip~ 

Dodd borrowed $506,000 at 4.25 percent to refinance his Washington townhouse and $275,042 at 4.5 percent to refinance a home in East Haddam, Conn., according to Portfolio. Quoting internal documents, the magazine said Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the first loan and a quarter of a point, or $700, on the second.


(Dodd is now a lobbyist for Hollywood and is lobbying for laws that allow censorship of the Internet.)

Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist 
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promise-not-to-become-lobbyist-just-weeks-after-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.shtml 

One of the worst kept secrets in DC and Hollywood over the last month or so is the news that former Connecticut Senator and failed Presidential candidate Chris Dodd is set to become the MPAA's new boss (salary: $1.2 million per year). This came after a failed attempt to get former Senator (and failed presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey to take the role last year. 

Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar. Last summer, Dodd insisted that he would not become a lobbyist. He made this abundantly clear. When asked what he would do, he was explicit: "No lobbying, no lobbying." Yeah, apparently a million dollar plus salary makes you a liar barely a month after leaving the job. Of course, technically, Dodd is also barred from becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but there's a kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* trick that Dodd and others use to technically claim they're not lobbyists while merely running one of the bigger and most high profile lobbying organizations around. 

Of course, it'll also be interesting to see if Dodd sells his soul and changes some of his professed principles. For example, he was a big supporter of "net neutrality." But the MPAA has come out against net neutrality, claiming it would hamper its efforts to "fight piracy." He was also against ISP data retention, which the MPAA has supported (again as a way to fight piracy). On copyright he was somewhat non-committal, but did talk about how fair use rights are important. I imagine that will disappear once he takes the role formerly filled by Jack Valenti -- the man who once declared that fair use doesn't exist.


and former Republican Representative and House Majority Whip, Tom "Dancing with the Stars" DeLay. DeLay, who had been under indictment for five years and was convicted in 2010 for conspiracy and money laundering to get Republicans elected, recently had his conviction overturned, all without spending a single day in prison.

Texas Appeals Court Overturns Tom DeLay's Money Laundering Conviction
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-appeals-court-overturns-tom-delay-s-money-laundering-conviction 

A Texas Court of Appeals overturned former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's (R-TX) conviction of money laundering on Thursday, finding the trial court's decision "legally insufficient to sustain DeLay’s convictions," KHOU reported. 

A court convicted and sentenced DeLay to three years in prison in 2010 for allegedly scheming to improperly influence Texas elections by helping to illegally steer corporate money to candidates in 2002. DeLay has since been waging a lenghty appeals process, and was acquitted Thursday. 

Read the appeals court opinion here. 

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=eb407752-d6ce-4bd3-9180-7fe57e473ffc&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=ecfe9eca-d8d0-48c2-b525-de00c57af7bf


Sounds like a successful coup to me.

81 replies, 6025 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply The coup already occurred. (Original post)
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 OP
woo me with science Jan 2014 #1
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #2
questionseverything Jan 2014 #16
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #29
loudsue Jan 2014 #36
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #40
sabrina 1 Jan 2014 #47
truth2power Jan 2014 #71
polichick Jan 2014 #76
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #80
Doctor_J Jan 2014 #3
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #4
Agony Jan 2014 #5
Enthusiast Jan 2014 #10
2banon Jan 2014 #25
Octafish Jan 2014 #6
questionseverything Jan 2014 #13
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #17
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #30
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #33
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #43
truedelphi Jan 2014 #53
billhicks76 Jan 2014 #56
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #7
PotatoChip Jan 2014 #8
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #12
billhicks76 Jan 2014 #57
lunasun Jan 2014 #70
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #79
bananas Jan 2014 #41
Enthusiast Jan 2014 #9
bvar22 Jan 2014 #11
2banon Jan 2014 #24
ancianita Jan 2014 #28
loudsue Jan 2014 #37
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #44
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #45
KoKo Jan 2014 #67
Berlum Jan 2014 #14
Savannahmann Jan 2014 #15
arcane1 Jan 2014 #18
Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2014 #19
Scuba Jan 2014 #21
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #31
rhett o rick Jan 2014 #32
Pretzel_Warrior Jan 2014 #35
JoeyT Jan 2014 #20
2banon Jan 2014 #22
2banon Jan 2014 #23
MuseRider Jan 2014 #26
KoKo Jan 2014 #27
Oilwellian Jan 2014 #34
JFN1 Jan 2014 #38
bananas Jan 2014 #39
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2014 #42
debunkthis Jan 2014 #46
Sylvan1 Jan 2014 #50
blkmusclmachine Jan 2014 #48
OnyxCollie Jan 2014 #55
Zen Democrat Jan 2014 #62
polichick Jan 2014 #77
Initech Jan 2014 #49
Corruption Inc Jan 2014 #51
xchrom Jan 2014 #52
FatBuddy Jan 2014 #54
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2014 #59
Nay Jan 2014 #68
RainDog Jan 2014 #58
mother earth Jan 2014 #60
Octafish Jan 2014 #66
mother earth Jan 2014 #78
MaeScott Jan 2014 #61
Demeter Jan 2014 #63
heaven05 Jan 2014 #64
openfield Jan 2014 #65
niyad Jan 2014 #69
Solly Mack Jan 2014 #72
warrprayer Jan 2014 #73
polichick Jan 2014 #75
warrprayer Jan 2014 #74
WillyT Jan 2014 #81


Response to woo me with science (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 01:58 PM

2. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:12 PM

16. well written op,more about those es&s blackboxes

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7875

from the article...At least six different election officials at both the county and state levels remain unable to tell The BRAD BLOG how any of it could have happened, even though thousands of votes appear to have simply disappeared in the final certified results, and the state is set to hold its primary run-off election next Tuesday...

////////////////////////

the election the article documents was the primary between lincoln and progressive halter......in my opinion the blackboxes maybe the biggest reason our elected leaders are not more progressive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:01 PM

29. I believe that a silent coup has occurred. The intelligence agencies are controlling this

country operating under the direction of someone. Maybe the Carlyle Group.

Obama appoints Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander. Either he likes their ideologies or he didnt have a choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:08 AM

36. While I am really not happy with Obama, I have insisted from the first that he has had little choice

in a great many things. There have been too many "security breaches" since he took office that looked like warnings, to me. Even an airplane Michelle was in, at one point, had problems. I knew damn good and well that it was another warning shot to Obama. His hair hasn't turned gray for no reason. The coup was something that DU was absolutely on top of when it came to Black Box voting.

We have known since the first that things weren't going well for the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #36)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:38 AM

40. We know that Georgie Bush wasnt in control of the country. Who ever was in control

most likely are still in control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:20 AM

47. And Chuck Hagel who we all knew, back when we actually acted like Democrats who were aware of the

lies and corruption under Bush, was suspect due to his unlikely win and the 'coincidence' of his association with a Right Wing voting machine Corp. But that was then.

How clever of them to get the 'left' to develop amnesia about so many of these things. I wonder since, as Rep Peter King said 'we count the votes' if whoever is actually running things, LETS Dems win after Repubs go a little too far and the anger on the Left begins to spill over even to Conservatives, knowing that partisan loyalty might temper some of the anger against, eg, people like Hagel?

I am disgusted by the number of Republicans this President has nominated AND retained when the public clearly told him they wanted Republicans OUT of office after eight long years of lies, war crimes and deceptions.

This statement from the judge in the OP is what we, who were not affected by 'partisan loyalty' have been saying all along:

It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.


Their creepy use of made up language, such as 'enhanced interrogation' rather than 'torture', and here 'parallel construction' to hide what they are really doing. It's sickening, and even more sickening that ANY democrat would not be supporting those courageous enough to keep on revealing their 'secrets' like Manning and Snowden.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 11:09 AM

71. If he is so constrained that he doesn't have a choice, then maybe he should resign...

The Codes of Ethics of all the helping professions (Social Work, Psychology, etc.) have sections which address "Professional Impairment". If a social worker et. al. cannot perform work-related duties in a competent manner because of personal problems (and this includes burnout, as well as a number of other issues) he or she is expected to terminate his/her practice and seek help to ameliorate the situation.

Barak Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution. If his actions (or lack thereof) are causing harm to the American people, then he cannot effectively perform his executive functions and should step down. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that our lives are in his hands.

I realize that the next person up to bat would probably be selected by the PTB. It's discouraging. I don't have a good answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:18 PM

76. His wife's and daughters' lives are in his hands too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:40 PM

80. I think it's a lot more complicated. First of all, if he is being "controlled" by someone,

they sure as hell wont let him quit and possibly call attention to the real problem. Secondly, he may have concerns for his family. Thirdly, he may think that he can help the American people more if he stays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:04 PM

3. That might explain why there were no prosecutions or impeachments during 2007-2010

while we had plenty of votes to impeach the miserable piece of shit in the WH, and prosecute his entire criminal empire. Pelosi's being blackmailed, probably along with everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:13 PM

4. And then there was Rove, Miers, and Bolton blowing off Congress.

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The House could have bypassed the US Attorneys by going for inherent contempt instead of statutory contempt.

But since Monica Conyers, the wife of Rep. John Conyers, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was being investigated by the FBI, Johnny Letter chose to let them off the hook.

Monica Conyers got three years for conspiracy.

Monica Conyers, Wife To John Conyers, Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison For Detroit Bribes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/monica-conyers-wife-to-jo_n_494305.html

DETROIT (AP) — A former Detroit city councilwoman was sentenced to more than three years in prison Wednesday for bribery after a federal judge refused to set aside her guilty plea during a stormy court hearing dominated by a dispute over evidence of other payoffs.

As guards cleared the packed courtroom, Monica Conyers yelled that she planned to appeal. The wife of U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., wanted to withdraw her guilty plea, suggesting she was the victim of "badgering" last year when she admitted taking cash to support a Houston company's sludge contract with the city.

But U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn, reviewing a transcript of the June hearing, said Conyers had denied any coercion and voluntarily pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

Conyers, 45, is the biggest catch so far in the FBI's wide-ranging investigation of corruption in Detroit city government. Nine people have pleaded guilty, including two former directors of the downtown convention center, and prosecutors have promised more charges are coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:17 PM

5. Rove polished the technique in TX on Hightower

"Rove, as all the world knows, has been a longtime Republican political operative in Texas prior to heading to Washington with Bush. During that time, Texas Democrats noticed a pattern that they eventually became somewhat paranoid about: In election years, there always seemed to be an FBI investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press."
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-26.htm

Republicans are a danger to civilization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:10 PM

10. "Impeachment is off the table."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:42 PM

25. I long suspected she was being blackmailed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:44 PM

6. Those who went along, got along. Those who didn't, got the ziggy...

Carol Lam, for one:



Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?

By Faiz Shakir
ThinkProgress.org on Mar 19, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”

The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:

– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”

– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”

– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.


CONTINUED w/LINKS...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/03/19/11209/carol-lam-white-house/



Thank you for a most important post and thread, OnyxCollie! Dynamite stuff in the OP. Saddened, if not surprised, to hear about Mr. Dodd. I guess even the relatively wealthy need money in this economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:57 PM

13. ty for remembering LAM

she was cleaning up the west coast and repubs were complaining to the justice department,who in turn complained to the white house according to the e-mails in the following bradblog article

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4297

she was following the evidence up the chain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:13 PM

17. Lam, and seven other US Attorneys who were fired,

and one who was demoted.

The changes came to light in December 2006 when eight U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign their posts, seven of them resigning on the same day (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2008). One of the U.S. Attorneys was in the process of an investigation. Carol S. Lam had just successfully prosecuted congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego, CA) of accepting bribes in return for steering in excess of $70 million to two defense contractors (Pincus, 2006). Ms. Lam was forced to resign after indicting Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, the no. 3 man at the Central Intelligence Agency, who had connections to Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, two men involved in the Cunningham scandal (Pincus, 2006). On February 19, 2008, Mr. Wilkes was convicted of bribery, conspiracy, and fraud and was sentenced to 12 years in prison (Eggen, 2008). Mr. Foggo was convicted of corruption on September 29, 2008 (Johnston, 2008).

The reason the government provided for Ms. Lam’s departure was that she refused to prosecute immigration cases (Steinhauer and Lipton, 2007). However, a review of court records spanning five years had shown Ms. Lam to be ranked among the top 10 of the 93 U.S. Attorneys for prosecutions and convictions, with immigration cases providing the bulk of her prosecutions (McCoy and Johnson, 2007).

U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara was asked to resign in November 2006. Ms. Chiara claims to have been notified by the Justice Department to resign from her post in order to make way for “an individual they wanted to advance” (Lipton, 2007, p. 1). The Justice Department cited poor performance and low office moral as the reasons for her dismissal, yet Ms. Chiara said her office had increased felony convictions by 15 percent (Lipton, 2007). Recounting an email exchange with Michael Elston, the deputy attorney general’s chief of staff, Ms. Chiara said Mr. Elston had told her that she “erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity” and that she and other U.S. Attorneys were “being asked for their resignations without good cause” (Lipton, 2007, p. 1).

U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was forced to resign on December 20, 2006. Mr. Cummins’ replacement, Tim Griffin, was appointed to the position five days earlier (Arkansas Times, 2006). Mr. Griffin had previously worked for the Republican National Committee and had been an opposition researcher for presidential advisor Karl Rove (Satter, 2006).

U.S. Attorney John McKay was forced to resign on December 7, 2006. In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, McKay recounted a phone call he had received shortly after the November 2004 election from Ed Cassidy, then chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Washington) (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007). Mr. McKay had said that the call was to inquire about an investigation into allegations of voter fraud in the close election win of Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire. Mr. McKay withheld any comments about the investigation and “told Cassidy he was sure the call was not intended to suggest that Hastings was calling for a federal investigation, because that would be improper” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007, p. 1). The Republican National Committee and Gov. Gregoire’s opponent, Republican Dino Rossi, had brought a lawsuit forward to challenge the results of the election. Lacking evidence to support the claims of fraud, Judge John Bridges ruled against the plaintiffs (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007).

Similar to Mr. McKay was the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Mr. Iglesias received calls at his home by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM). Mr. Iglesias testified before the Senate that the calls were to question the progress of an investigation of voter fraud in the upcoming election of Rep. Wilson. Mr. Iglesias said he was pressured to bring an indictment before the election. According to Mr. Iglesias:

I was at home. This was the only time I’d ever received a call from any member of Congress while at home during my tenure as United States Attorney for New Mexico. …I recognized the voice as being Senator Pete Domenici. And he wanted ask me about the matters of the corruption cases that had been widely reported in the local media. I said, “All right.” And he said, “Are these going to be filed before November?” And I said I didn’t think so, to which he replied, “I’m very sorry to hear that.” And then the line went dead (Iglesias, 2007, as cited in McKay, 2008, p. 282, 283).


Conversely, of the U.S. Attorneys who were not fired, there were the “…80-85 percent, I would guess, who are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.” (Sampson, 2005, p. 1), who have been the subject of allegations of political prosecutions. A report from Professors Emeritus Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan of the University of Missouri and Illinois State University respectively, shows that of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops” (Shields & Cragan, 2007, p. 1).

A July 2008 Justice Department report indicated illegal hiring practices based on political or ideological affiliations for career positions. The report stated that more qualified candidates were passed over in favor of political cronies. From the report:

Elston said that Goodling made it clear to him that she did not want Democrats detailed to the ODAG because she had a ‘farm system’ approach to filling vacancies in the Department, and she wanted to ‘credential’ Republicans so that they could move on to higher positions. Elston also stated that there were some Republicans that Goodling did not want to hire as detailees because they were not ‘Republican enough’ (U.S. Department of Justice, 2008, pp. 47, 48).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8807073&mesg_id=8809373


Pair-a-dice...Guam's DOJ Gamble, the ante in the U.S. Attorneys firings
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/us_attorney_fred_black.html

In 2002, President G.W. Bush's Administration abruptly removed the Acting U.S. Attorney in Guam, U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black from his post. Black had been the Acting U.S. Attorney for Guam since 1991 when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, the current President's father.

Black was in the midst of investigating what might have touched on the lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence peddling with government officials. Evidence exists that suggest that just prior to Black's demotion, Jack Abramoff, who was ultimately convicted of defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials, was actively seeking Black's replacement. From The Nation, Attorneygate in Guam:

"I don't care if they appoint bozo the clown, we need to get rid of Fred Black," Abramoff wrote to colleagues in March 2002.

The day after Black announced he was launching an investigation into then-governor Carl Gutierrez and his ties to the now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff himself, Black was informed he would be replaced by Leonardo Rapadas, whose recommendation was apparently made directly to Karl Rove, by Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist under contract to then-governor Gutierrez. The confirmation process for Rapadas was supposedly "well under way" when his nomination was first announced on November 19, 2002 and was completed by the U.S. Senate in May 2003.1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:05 PM

30. Presidents usually replace all of the state's US Attorneys with those that are friendly to the

Presidents ideologies. How many US Atty's did Obama replace?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:26 PM

33. It's the ones he kept that we should worry about.

What Should We Learn from Richard Shelby's Game of "Alabama Hold 'Em"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x516790
http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Should-We-Learn-from-by-Roger-Shuler-100209-436.html

In a perverse way, you have to give credit to U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) for placing a blanket hold on more than 70 pending nominations from the Obama Administration. In the wake of announcing yesterday that he was releasing most of the holds, Shelby essentially admitted that he's a political extortionist. You have to admire a guy for that kind of honesty.

But here's what is not admirable about Shelby--and the Obama administration should keep this in mind going forward. Shelby's "Alabama hold 'em" gambit tells us that he is not serious about his objections on presidential nominees. In other words, there is no reason to think Shelby has legitimate grounds for objecting to any nominee. So Obama should move forward like a steamroller, challenging Shelby to hold his ground or dive out of the way.

Consider the sensitive U.S. attorney position in the Middle District of Alabama, site of the Don Siegelman prosecution. Joseph Van Heest, a highly regarded attorney from Montgomery, was ready for confirmation and could have been on the job months ago. But Shelby apparently objected, and the Obama administration decided not to fight for Van Heest's nomination.

That has caused George W. Bush appointee Leura Canary to remain in place, more than a year into the Obama administration. At last report, the White House was on the verge of nominating Montgomery lawyer George Beck, whose firm has strong ties to Karl Rove and Business Council of Alabama President Bill Canary. The possibility of a Beck nomination has drawn heavy fire from Alabama progressives.


Is Lawsuit Cash Having a Negative Impact on Progressive Politics?
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/04/is-lawsuit-cash-having-negative-impact.html

To top it off, Jones' public statements about the Beck nomination reflect significant foot shuffling and dissembling. Could that be because George Beck represented chief government witness Nick Bailey in the Siegelman/Scrushy case and reportedly allowed prosecutors to browbeat and coach his client? Could it be because Beck comes from the Montgomery law firm of Capel and Howard, which has strong ties to GOP strategist Karl Rove and Bill Canary, who is president of the Business Council of Alabama, husband of Leura Canary, and confidant of U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donahue?

This scenario becomes particularly troubling when you consider that the other co-liaison counsel in the HealthSouth case--Jones' chief local assistant--was Rob Riley, the son of former Republican Governor Bob Riley. Why did Doug Jones need Rob Riley on the lawsuit team? Probably because Riley had inside information about former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. And that information probably came from Riley's involvement in a Republican conspiracy to conduct a political prosecution against Siegelman and Scrushy, a scheme that Alabama attorney and whistleblower Dana Jill Simpson revealed to the world.

Should progressives be concerned about Doug Jones' willingness to make money by jumping in bed with a member of the Riley clan? What about Jones' apparent determination to now push tainted nominees to a Democratic administration?

Regular readers know that Bob Riley has ties to GOP felons Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlon. And yet Doug Jones, who now seems to have the Obama administration's ear, is comfortably aligned with Bob Riley's son.


Coverup in the Siegelman Case Now Extends to the U.S. Senate
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/07/coverup-in-siegelman-case-now-extends.html

The Senate approved by voice vote on June 30 the appointment of George Beck as U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama. Beck replaces Leura Canary, the Bush appointee who helped turn the Don Siegelman case into perhaps the most notorious political prosecution in American history.

But here's the kicker: Beck also played a prominent and highly questionable role in the Siegelman case. Beck's nomination was an opportunity for senators to grill a key figure in the Siegelman prosecution, to help determine how the U.S. justice system went badly off track in the Bush years.

The Senate, however, elected to punt, giving Beck a free pass into his new position and throwing an extra load of dirt onto a coverup of Bush-era criminality. For progressives who once had hope for the Barack Obama administration on justice matters, consider this: Beck is an Obama nominee, and the Senate is controlled by Democrats.


Have Democrats come to "own" Bush/Rove scandals that made a mockery of the U.S. constitution? It sure looks that way from here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:49 AM

43. Candidate Barack Obama was a liberal candidate. But once in office he changed dramatically.

Either he lied to us as a candidate or something changed him once in office. I fear the later. Now we are faced with replacing him with an outspoken friend of Wall Street. Cinton-Sachs. She isnt even pretending to be liberal. Oh, I am sure she is socially liberal, but a lot of good that will do if we all become paupers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:18 AM

53. However she will indeed start pretending as we get closer to the

Primary. She will be all Hope and Change-y, and all for the Middle Class.

Until she is put in office, and then...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 07:02 AM

56. Wrong!!!

Obama flip flopped on Telecom immunity after even promising to filibuster it. This happened months before the election so either he lied as a liberal or they got to him BEFORE the election. I fear the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:48 PM

7. K&R If only someone could've predicted this, years ago.

 

Oh, never mind...
& R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 02:54 PM

8. Holy Crap! Folks, check out the lists of political office holders in the appendixes

of this link provided by the OP. http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

I know you will recognize many of the bigger names, even if they are not from your state* and probably names of many office holders local to you.

You need to scroll all the way down to Appendixes A, B, and C. They are PDF files full of not only federal political office holders, but also state and local, including mayors and even city council members, sheriffs, ect. The lists also include some (presumably unsuccessful) candidates.

The investigations were apparently from the years 2003-2007 for alleged crimes such as bribery, extortion, illegal use of campaign funds, even things such as the possession of crack. Looks as if they were just casting about for anything they hoped might stick.

79.47% of the politicians were D's. Definitely some political profiling going on there.

*There were a few states not listed, mine included.

Wow, unfreakin believable...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:48 PM

12. You'll find Don Siegelman on that list.

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:25 PM - Edit history (2)

Why Did Obama Administration Ask Judge To Increase Gov. Siegelman's Prison Sentence?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023955756

From:
Daily Kos
June 5, 2012
By Ralph Lopez

According to Andrew Kreig who writes at OpEdNews.com, Siegelman, who was facing a 7 year sentence, is now serving a 20 year sentence,
"one that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder pushed for, beyond the 7 years he was originally sentenced to serve."
"In 2009, the Obama Justice Department requested that Judge Fuller sentence Siegelman to 20 more years in prison when his appeals are finished."

Kreig says
"The new administration stood shoulder-to-shoulder with it's Bush predecessors in continuing the frame-up and cover-up."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/05/1097552/-Gov-Don-Siegelman-Facing-20-Years-Obama-Pushes-For-Long-Sentence/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251292060/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023951944/


For the many DUers who are unhappy with the above story from OpEdNews by Andrew Kreig, here are some comments from Thom Hartmann and Governor Siegelman himself obtained from an interview he did with Thom Hartmann in 2009.

Siegelman: "I was surprised that the Obama administration is now opposing my position in the U.S. Supreme Court"
Hartmann: "Yeah, well this is what has me completely baffled...I don't get it."
Siegelman: "Well, it doesn't baffle me because with all due respect to the President and to Eric Holder, very little substantive change has taken place within DOJ...The very same people who approved my prosecution, the very same people who pushed my prosecution, those motivated to see me prosecuted, at the top level of the Dept. of Justice, are still there...They are still in power."
Hartmann: "I don't understand why when Barack Obama became President of the United States and Eric Holder became Attorney general, they did not ask for the resignations of these Bush holdovers who are still in office...I mean the woman who prosecuted, who initiated the prosecution against you, whose husband was the campaign manager of your opponent and Karl Rove's best friend since college, she, Laura Canary, she's still a Federal Prosecutor down there, who's still coming after you."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023955756


Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8308581

Andrew Kreig
DC legal reform advocate and attorney
Posted: April 12, 2010 04:24 PM

Siegelman Judge Asked To Recuse As Kagan, Rove Oppose Reviews

But Kagan, now widely reported as a leading candidate to ascend from her post as Justice Department solicitor general to become her friend Obama's nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy, urged the high court in November to deny Siegelman a hearing. Kagan used technical legal arguments devised with the assistance of DOJ's trial prosecutors.

Since the 2006 convictions DoJ has withstood complaints that include: political prosecution orchestrated by Rove , judge-shopping , jury tampering , lying about Canary's recusal , firing a DoJ whistleblower, and suppressing evidence that DoJ tried to blackmail its central witness.

Kagan's stance already has created strong skeptics in progressive circles in Alabama, and is certain to irritate Siegelman supporters around the country if she is nominated to the Supreme Court. DOJ has requested that Fuller re-sentence Siegelman, now 64, to an additional 20 years in prison.


It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) describe “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have managed to conceal their role” (p. 4) as a conspiracy theory, a pejorative term which denotes a faulty epistemology, rumors, and speculation. Furthermore, it is asserted that such analysis overestimates the ability of government bureaucracies to carry out “sophisticated and secret” (p. 6) plans in an open society. Alternately, Parenti (1993) quoting Karp (1974) suggests that:

When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed.

Sunstein and Vermeule (2008) assume a well-intentioned government may decide to defuse conspiracy theories “if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so” (p. 15), yet they concede that governments themselves may be purveyors of conspiracy theories. The beneficiaries of said social welfare may be, as Parenti (1993) suggests, an entire class interest. Following this reasoning, conspiracy theories may be eliminated to prevent exposure of particular factions, or furnished to enable a certain objective. According to Parenti (1993), the term conspiracy theory can be used to dismiss: “(1) the idea of a conscious design by policy makers; (2) a hidden, but knowing intent; (3) a secret plan; (4) a secret interest.”


And Kagan's what you call a conspiracy entrepreneur.

From an article written by Cass Sunstein, the administrator for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:

2. Rumors and speculation. Of course it is necessary to specify how, exactly,
conspiracy theories begin.. Some such theories seem to bubble up spontaneously,
appearing roughly simultaneously in many different social networks; others are initiated
and spread, quite intentionally, by conspiracy entrepreneurs who profit directly or
indirectly from propagating their theories.
An example in the latter category is the
French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book “9/11: The Big Lie” became a bestseller and
a sensation for its claims that the Pentagon explosion on 9/11 was caused by a missile,
fired as the opening salvo of a coup d’etat by the military-industrial complex, rather than
by American Airlines Flight 77. Some conspiracy entrepreneurs are entirely sincere;
others are interested in money or power, or in achieving some general social goal.
Still,
even for conspiracy theories put about by conspiracy entrepreneurs, the key question is
why some theories take hold while many more do not, and vanish into obscurity.

Sunstein, C. R. & Vermeule, A. (2008). Conspiracy theories. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387, pp. 9, 10.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585


The Rule of Four says that at least four Supreme Court Justices must agree to hear a case before it can be reviewed. So which one (or more) of the four allegedly liberal Justices refused to hear it? Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan?

Court Won't Hear Siegelman, Scrushy Appeals
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/court-hear-siegelman-appeal-16490322
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014135600

The Supreme Court will not take another look at the bribery conviction of former Ala. Gov. Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy.

The high court on Monday turned away the two men's appeals. Siegelman was convicted of selling a seat on a hospital regulatory board to Scrushy in exchange for $500,000 in donations to Siegelman's 1999 campaign to establish a state lottery.

Siegelman's lawyers wanted to argue that campaign donations can't be bribes unless there's a clear agreement between the donor and the politician, and that there was no such agreement in Siegelman's case. Siegelman has been free on bond while appealing his conviction, while the courts refused to free Scrushy.

The appeals were turned away without comment.


Supreme Court Lets Stand Telecom Immunity In Wiretap Case
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_WARRANTLESS_WIRETAPPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-09-09-58-20
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=260709

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is leaving in place a federal law that gives telecommunications companies legal immunity for helping the government with its email and telephone eavesdropping program.

The justices said Tuesday they will not review a court ruling that upheld the 2008 law against challenges brought by privacy and civil liberties advocates on behalf of the companies' customers. The companies include AT&T, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.

Lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation accused the companies of violating the law and customers' privacy through collaboration with the National Security Agency on intelligence gathering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 07:07 AM

57. Cass Sunstein

He scares me the most of all of Obama's advisors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 11:06 AM

70. did not know this... thanks...i guess...

Hartmann: "I don't understand why when Barack Obama became President of the United States and Eric Holder became Attorney general, they did not ask for the resignations of these Bush holdovers who are still in office...I mean the woman who prosecuted, who initiated the prosecution against you, whose husband was the campaign manager of your opponent and Karl Rove's best friend since college, she, Laura Canary, she's still a Federal Prosecutor down there, who's still coming after you."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #70)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:01 PM

79. US Attorneys

They serve at the pleasure of the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PotatoChip (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:39 AM

41. And when Republicans were indicted, Fox News would call them Democrats

and put a (D) after their name.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:06 PM

9. This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

When we turn over the rock and chase the creeps into the light? When will the people take back control of their government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:32 PM

11. 1,000 DU Recs.

Well composed,
thoroughly documented.

This should be pinned to DUs Front Page.






Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Secret Laws/Secret Courts and Democracy can not co-exist.

Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
It IS that simple.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:35 PM

24. Agree Bvar! PIN this Puppy to the Wall! (In CAPS!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 09:48 PM

28. Thank you! I might borrow this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:19 AM

37. Totally agree. This might be the most important post on DU in years.

Deserves many kicks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:51 AM

44. If this were in the Progressive Group, it could be pinned. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:01 AM

45. Where's the Progressive Group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:02 PM

14. Republicon "values" come right out of the cesspool

...as they demonstrate over and over and over...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 04:05 PM

15. Somebody quick tell us how they would never abuse the information.

It's all for our protection on National Security, or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:41 PM

18. A hearty kick!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:44 PM

19. then how do you explain Elizabeth Warren's election? Or successful establishment of Volker rule and

 

Financial Consumer Protection Agency with rules writing now occurring to regulate banking practices?

I don't think coup is the right word for it. And didn't Bob Ney go to jail for some crimes?

For a coup, they sure don't have their thumb on everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:16 PM

21. "Coup" may be hyperbole, but this certainly qualifies as a rigged system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:10 PM

31. I disagree. I think coup is the right word. They dont control "everything" because they

arent stupid. But they seem to be controlling enough for the wealthy to be transferring all the wealth from the lower classes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:15 PM

32. So you think everything is peaches and cream because Bob Ney spent a couple of weeks at a country

club jail and Sen Warren got elected? They dont control everything, but enough to drain the wealth from the lower classes, or arent you paying attention??? Are you going to wait until they everything before you become concerned? That was rhetorical. I know you are tickled pink with the status quo. They arent machine gunning people in the streets yet so why worry.

Wake up and smell the oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #32)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:41 PM

35. Nope. I just thought 'coup' was a bit dramatic.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 05:51 PM

20. Yeah, but we're supposed to <3 the NSA now.

Because we have a Democratic president. Or the terrorists win. Blame America First! Love it or leave it! Whaaaargarbl!

If you'd posted this in 2007, people would've been furious. Now the NSA is (allegedly) headed by our guys, so not only are they doing nothing wrong now, but anything they ever did wrong in the past is totally forgiven, to the point that even bringing it up is considered being petty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:26 PM

22. "375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted"

excerpting for emphasis:


375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. “U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:33 PM

23. "DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks."

again, excerpting for emphasis:


On the other hand, this is a genuinely sinister turn of events with a whiff of science-fiction nightmare, one that has sounded loud alarm bells for many people in the mainstream legal world. Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law professor who spent 18 years as a federal judge and cannot be accused of being a radical, told Reuters she finds the DEA story more troubling than anything in Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks. It’s the first clear evidence that the “special rules” and disregard for constitutional law that have characterized the hunt for so-called terrorists have crept into the domestic criminal justice system on a significant scale. “It sounds like they are phonying up investigations,” she said. Maybe this is how a police state comes to America: Not with a bang, but with a parallel construction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 08:09 PM

26. K&R

I agree with posters up thread, this should be pinned and we should all be reading this.

Well done and thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 08:43 PM

27. Recommend..Well worth Read for Uninformed over this Weekend!

Refreshing the Memory is always a good thing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:39 PM

34. When you see someone asking for proof of NSA abuse...

direct them to this thread.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:20 AM

38. You make a persuasive case...sadly...

Nice job, well researched, and I agree with your conclusion...we've been had...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:37 AM

39. "of 375 ... 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats"

"of 375 elected officials investigated and/or indicted, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 12:49 AM

42. ".. never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:11 AM

46. And yet

 

one risks being labeled a "nutjob" for questioning the official version of the events of 9/11, which directly led to the passage of the so-call "Patriot Act".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to debunkthis (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 03:49 AM

50. Exactly...

...although I'm not sure we are allowed to talk about that here (consp thry).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 02:37 AM

48. Pretty sure the Gov't takeover happened, slowly and silently, WELL BEFORE 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 07:00 AM

55. It started as soon as Bush took office,

at the same time that Cheney was violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act with his secret National Energy Policy Development Group meetings.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/OnyxCollie/17

While it would seem that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would be the obvious place to start when discussing electronic surveillance under the Bush Administration, allegations made by former Qwest Communications International CEO Joseph P. Naccio and a statement made by Attorney General Michael Mukasey demand attention.

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS

In May 2006, USA TODAY reported that the three telecommunication carriers, AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth had cooperated with the National Security Agency to secretly amass a database of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans (Cauley, 2006). The information was then analyzed to detect calling patterns in an effort to thwart terrorism. Following the reporting of this story, Mr. Nacchio’s attorney, Herbert Swan, released a statement that said the government had approached Qwest Communications to turn over customers’ calling records:

Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act. (Nakashima & Eggen, 2007).


Mr. Nacchio was convicted in April 2007 of 19 counts of insider trading, selling shares of Qwest stock before the value dropped.

In October 2007, The Rocky Mountain News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times reported that in court filings made by Mr. Naccio, the National Security Agency had approached Qwest Communications to turn over customer’s call records on February 27, 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).

“’The Nacchio materials suggest that the NSA had sought telco cooperation even before 9/11 undermines the primary argument for letting the phone companies off the hook, which is the claim that they were simply acting in good faith after 9/11,’ said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group.” (Vuong, 2007).


In return for cooperating, Mr. Naccio asserts, Qwest Communications would receive lucrative government contracts (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).

In a May 25, 2007 order, U.S. District Court Judge Edward W. Nottingham wrote that Nacchio has asserted that ‘Qwest entered into classified contracts valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, without a competitive bidding process and that in 2000 and 2001, he participated in discussion with high ranking representatives concerning the possibility of awarding additional contracts of a similar nature.’ He wrote, ‘Those discussions led him to believe that would award Qwest contracts valued at amounts that would more than offset the negative warnings he was receiving about Qwest’s financial prospects.’” Nakashima & Eggen, 2007.)


Mr. Naccio’s conviction, he contends, was retaliation for refusing to cooperate with the government (Burnett & Smith, 2007, Nakashima & Eggen, 2007, Shane, 2007).

U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham would not permit the classified information about the contracts into the court, thereby sinking Mr. Nacchio’s retaliation defense (Burnett & Smith, 2007. In March 2008, a federal appeals court overturned the 19 insider trading convictions after concluding that the trial judge improperly excluded expert testimony that would have helped Mr. Nacchio advance his defense (Johnson, 2008).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 08:39 AM

62. It started when President Kennedy was murdered by a CIA-Military coup.

It's the military in charge of NSA. Always have been and always will be. Talk about putting a civilian in charge and watch the collective blast. That's the problem and it goes back to the inception of the NSA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:24 PM

77. Eisenhower warned about it in the 50s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 03:06 AM

49. The government coup happened on 1/20/1981.

They didn't need an elaborate plot to overthrow FDR - they just needed a presidential candidate that could be easily bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 04:38 AM

51. Rec'd. It's why we have torture camps, rigged markets, austerity measures, for-profit everything

There are the 1000s of propaganda stooges that infest every website there is too; I call them "stooges" because most don't even know they're just mouthpieces for misinformation.

Kudos to you and all others who try to break through it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:13 AM

52. du rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 05:26 AM

54. the coup never ended

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FatBuddy (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 08:09 AM

59. Bingo! It's all just waves of fresh assaults in the war that has been waged here since

 

reconstruction at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FatBuddy (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:35 AM

68. Nope, it's still going on. It's a rolling coup, started by Reaganites and

allowed by spineless or naive Democrats, and then enforced by Republicans in every office from dogcatcher to local judge to President.

The howling mobs of Republicans seem to be able to mess with any Democrat who gains office by either voting or appointment, so where does that leave us voters? In the shits, that's where. I have come to believe that it would be dangerously naive to think that we could actually vote in any substantial number of Democrats, even at a local level, because the system is infested with Republicans who have sworn to diddle with the election system, do dirty tricks at every turn, use false accusations to get Dems fired, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 07:11 AM

58. k&r n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 08:28 AM

60. Well done, OC. The coup has been playing out before us and many have been excusing it away,

all the while, we are left footing the bill and arguing principles, while criminals get bailouts and do nothing politicians reap rewards. The coup is finally being seen for what it is. There are more revelations undoubtedly to come.

Maybe a US spring is in the forecast?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:09 AM

66. Some DUers laugh at the BFEE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #66)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:48 PM

78. Propaganda and manipulations work, but not forever. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 08:33 AM

61. KandR. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 08:52 AM

63. Time for the Counter-Coup, then

It's not over until we are all dead. So get cracking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 09:23 AM

64. Bush 2000

coup d'`etat. Period. And not a whimper from a majority of god fearing, democracy loving americans. I was ignored and told to shut up, at work and public venues, whenever I spoke up. The lies of 9/11 and WMD's were eaten up like candy. And we wonder how this centrist democratic and RW rethuglican corporate driven government system gained such power over all of us. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 09:25 AM

65. There have always been dark secrets

This entire country was founded by secret societies meeting in the darkness. In a true democracy there would be full transparency. The US is a pseudo democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 10:59 AM

69. k and r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 11:39 AM

72. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 11:46 AM

73. It started with Reagan...

... Poppy Bush was the real puppet master of that show. Pure blind fury when the Democrats got Clinton elected making Poppy a one termer. So the right wing think tanks went into overdrive to come up with a way to end this democracy crap once and for all. That way was Chimpys administration. I'm not an educated man, but it appears to me that more changes (for the worse) in the way our government functions were made in Bush 2's 8 years than I've seen in my 50 some years.
The OP is spot on, and sadly I don't think it is something that can be fixed because the means of fixing it have been destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to warrprayer (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:02 PM

75. "sadly I don't think it is something that can be fixed...

because the means of fixing it have been destroyed"

This is what worries me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)


Response to OnyxCollie (Original post)

Sat Jan 4, 2014, 06:33 PM

81. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread