Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alberto Has Purged Before. He's no Virgin in this Activity

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 10:32 PM
Original message
Alberto Has Purged Before. He's no Virgin in this Activity
As long as we're talking about impeaching Alberto Gonzales, let's not forget an incident that happened some time before his tenure as Attorney General began. It's an incident with which Gonzales is not normally associated, but which, in hindsight and in light of recent developments, it seems almost certain he played a large role in.

See, it seems our pal Alberto is hardly a virgin when it comes to replacing U.S. attorneys whose activities don't suit George Bush and his political cronies.


occams hatchet :: Alberto Gonzales Has Purged Before

(Also available in Orange)

Many of you are familiar with the demotion of Frederick Black, who in November 2002 had been the acting U.S. attorney for Guam for more than 11 years, appointed by George H.W. Bush. Black, in his tenure on Guam (whose jurisdiction includes the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands), had been very active in pursuing corruption. He never had a problem keeping busy.

In early November 2002, Black's office requested assistance from the Department of Justice to investigate alleged illicit lobbying activities by Jack Abramoff with respect to legislation that would have neutered the Guam Superior Court. No assistance from the DOJ was forthcoming, so Black commenced his own investigation. On November 18, 2002, Black's grand jury on Guam issued its first subpoenas in the investigation.

The very next day, November 19, 2002, Black was demoted and President Bush announced his replacement, a Guamanian whose uncle was one of the area's most notorious organized crime bosses.

TPM Muckraker's excellent summary page says this:


The Guam Superior Court covertly hired Abramoff to stop congressional legislation that would put the Guam Supreme Court above the Superior Court.

The deal was made between California lawyer Howard Hills, Superior Court Judge Alberto Lamorean, and Abramoff at Abramoff's restaurant, "Signatures." The Superior Court paid Abramoff through Howard Hills to avoid suspicion . . .

After being denied assistance from the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice, Black went ahead with an investigation. On November 18, 2002, Black subpoenaed the contract between Abramoff and the Superior Court despite the Department of Justice having refused to help him.

The next day he was demoted to Assistant U.S. Attorney and his 12-year position was taken by Assistant U.S. Attorney Leonardo Rapadas. His investigation of Abramoff was dropped.

After much howling by some members of Congress, the Department of Justice launched an "investigation" into the demotion. The investigation determined that Abramoff had had nothing to do with the demotion.

Yuh. Right. Okay. Whatever.

Regardless of that, the investigation also revealed that Alberto Gonzales had a large role in the selection of Black's successor. From the DOJ report:


According to Sampson , the panel usually developed a consensus regarding the strongest candidate. After the panel agreed on a candidate, the panel would seek concurrence from the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General. If they concurred with the panel's recommendation, Sampson would seek approval for the nomination from the White House Counsel . . .

Sampson said that after the White House Counsel approved a nomination for U.S. Attorney, Sampson would send an e-mail to EOUSA asking it to prepare the paperwork regarding the candidate for inclusion in a binder submitted to the President containing names of candidates being recommended for appointments as federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals. Sampson said he would then discuss the U.S. Attorney candidate recommendations with the President. If the President agreed with the recommendation, Sampson would inform EOUSA that the President had expressed his "intent to nominate" the candidate pending the successful completion of the background investigation process. However, the "intent to nominate" would not be publicly announced until after the background investigation process was completed and the candidate's background investigation was "cleared" by the White House Counsel, as described below . . .

According to Sampson, many background investigation memoranda stated that there were no issues with the candidate. Sampson told the OIG that in such cases the White House Counsel's office would state that the candidate was "cleared."

Guess who the White House Counsel was at the time Frederick Black was abruptly yanked? Here's a hint: Guess whose name appears nowhere in the above-cited Department of Justice "investigation" report? Further hint: Guess who was in charge of that very same Department of Justice that prepared the above-cited report?

That's right, you guessed it: none other than ace legal scholar and paragon of integrity Alberto Gonzales.

So, there can be no doubt, based on the DOJ's own investigation, that Gonzales played a huge role in the selection of Black's successor, including "clearing" that nominee in spite of his well-known blood connections to organized crime on the island.

The question that's worth pursuing is, Did Alberto Gonzales, while serving as White House counsel, have anything to do with the firing of Frederick Black, and if so, did that firing have anything to do with quashing an investigation into Jack Abramoff's activities, an investigation that died with Black's tenure as acting U.S. attorney on Guam?

It would be worthwhile to fax, phone and/or e-mail (but mostly fax and phone) John Conyers, Patrick Leahy and Henry Waxman about this. Just a quick note, a reminder that, in addition to the smell emanating from the Attorney General's office surrounding the most recent fired U.S. attorneys, there is the matter of Mr. Gonzales's involvement in a similar firing over four years ago.

.

Y'know, when you get a chance, you really should read the entire DOJ report on the "investigation" into Black's demotion; it's a laff riot. Here, for instance, is a portion (emphases added):


White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) staff member Leonard Rodriguez was assigned to handle appointment issues involving the territories, including the Guam U.S. Attorney's position . . .

When we asked Rodriguez why Rapadas was recommended to the White House by Guam officials and why he forwarded the name to EOUSA as a candidate, Rodriguez said he could not specifically recall the discussion s he had with the people he consulted about the nomination, but that in general the discussions concerned whether a candidate would fall in line with the President's philosophy. Rodriguez stated that Rapadas was viewed as someone who would be strong on law enforcement . . .

Rodriguez told the OIG that he kept Abramoff aware of information relevant to Guam, including potential nominees for the U.S. Attorney position. Rodriguez said he did so at the behest of Ken Mehlman, the White House Political Director, who "recommended or suggested that I reach out to make Jack aware" of issues related to Guam . . .

Black also attached to his response a letter dated January 7, 2002. In the letter, which was addressed to the Attorney General, Black asserted that "the local power brokers" had proposed Rapadas in an "attempt to neutralize" the U.S. Attorney's office regarding public corruption matters. He raised concerns about Rapadas's family connections and raised the likelihood of a recusal of Rapadas or the entire office from a major corruption investigation if Rapadas was appointed . . .

Rapadas was re-nominated on January 28, 2003 (shortly after a new Congressional session began). In March 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested a letter from Rapadas outlining how he would deal with the conflict of interest issue raised in his background investigation. In April 2003, Rapadas and Margolis each sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee discussing the conflict issue and the plan to recuse Rapadas from certain investigations if Rapadas was confirmed.

On May 9, 2003, the Senate voted to confirm Rapadas, and he was sworn in as U.S. Attorney on May 23, 2003.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that Alberto Gonzales's hands are dirty on this one, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
solara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-12-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Definitely k&r
:kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kurth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. The chimp's little Mexican houseboy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 03:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-13-07 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. k&r (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC