"DC Madam" Palfrey in Status Conference With District Judge Kessler Today (And So Much More)

Washington D.C.--It appears that things are beginning to finally get moving with the dismissal of Preston Burton as "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's criminal representation. What's unclear is how it's all going to play-out. Will civil attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley take the proceedings into areas Burton was unwilling to? It appears so from this newsletter from Ms. Palfrey and counsel, and a status conference is probably occurring in DC while this is being written:

Subsequently, Judge Kessler entered an order indicating that she would take up Jeane's selective prosecution argument. In essence, Jeane is arguing that as the only one of some eighty-three (83) escort agencies operating in the metro-DC area, the government's decision to prosecute her was based upon political considerations arising before the November 2006 elections.To support this contention, Jeane will be offering a composite exhibit of statements, news articles and a memo from Monica Goodling which collectively detail the politicization of the Department of Justice in a manner which lends credence to Jeane's argument of selective prosecution. At the conclusion of the argument, Jeane will be asking the Court to issue subpoenas and conduct an evidentiary hearing into these allegations. (10.21.2007 newsletter, 'Palfrey Update #29-Hearing Tomorrow on Selective Prosecution')

It's unclear how District Judge Gladys Kessler--a Clinton appointee to the bench--is going to rule on these coming motions. If you've been reading this site, little of this is going to come as a surprise. There are ample signs of politicization of Palfrey's case, partly due to the timing, and partly due to who her prosecutors are or who they might actually be. The playing filed is extremely foggy in many areas.

Take the example of Ms. Goodling, a graduate of Regents Law School (formerly part of Oral Roberts University. Roberts is currently being accused of embezzlement), a phony institution used to train political-operatives to be inserted into the federal bureaucracy by sundry conservative elements--approximately one-sixth (at one count, 150 at Justice) of all graduates of Regents are serving as Bush appointees to the Justice Department, providing reasonable suspicions to support Palfrey's claims. Similar examples in her case are there, waiting to be reported by the media. As far as anyone can tell, these appointments are all still in-place at the Department of Justice.

But remember Monica Goodling? She was disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's top aide who resigned this Spring and pleaded the Fifth amendment at congressional hearings over her and the boss's role in the U.S. Attorney firings scandal. Monica is going to be back in the spotlight again, and likely to be subpoenaed for Palfrey's trial(s), if only in document form.

She won't be alone: so will employees of defense/intel contractor, SAIC (search this site for more). Again, remember that Regents is considered the lowest of the low for law schools, and that Goodling's 1999 class had a bar exam failure rate of 60%. Karma being what it is, we can rest assured that the GOP's Monica will deliver the goods Bionic Woman-style. Small wonder that they're all being caught at wrongdoing. But how did they all get in there? Thanks to leap-frogging appointments, naturally, a nineteenth century atavism

.Not long ago, it was rare for Regent graduates to join the federal government. But in 2001, the Bush administration picked the dean of Regent's government school, Kay Coles James , to be the director of the Office of Personnel Management -- essentially the head of human resources for the executive branch. The doors of opportunity for government jobs were thrown open to Regent alumni. (The Boston Globe, 04.08.2007,

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full)

How else do you keep investigations of obvious criminal behavior at bay? There's nothing clever about it, the game is based more on audacity and the unwillingness of atrophied congressional incumbents to believe that an administration like that of George W. Bush is even possible. This is what they were banking on all-along: that the opposition in the political sector would become frozen and make half-hearted attempts at stopping them to preserve the power of the executive branch for themselves. Where does Palfrey figure-into all of this? Nobody is quite certain of this, but this author has some ideas.

First: the aforementioned "legal firewall" was created and maintained by political appointees like Goodling to keep the genuine, uncompromised forces of law and order in the bureaucracy (and the outlying society) at bay. This has played-out in numerous arenas, including the war in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay conditions, illegal rendition, torture--virtually every case of Bush and GOP wrongdoing and incompetence.

Second: Karl Rove's (and likely the vice president's, and many others in the RNC...) knowledge of numerous GOP incumbents' scandalous behaviors have allowed neoconservatives to continue a process of political blackmail of said incumbents throughout the Bush years--it's unlikely they invented the process, as the historical record is studded with examples thanks to J. Edgar Hoover. Someone, somewhere is keeping-tabs at all times of compromising behavior.

Third: while blackmailing these incumbents has meant that these congresspersons are de facto captives of the neoconservatives, some are being discovered through the incompetence of Bush appointees in the Justice Department, a failure in cloaking their behaviors. They're also being caught because they cannot control themselves. On top of this, there has also been whistle-blowing by long-term employees at Justice, many of whom have resigned since 2001. The bureaucracy has been fighting-back. Deborah Jeane Palfrey could be the person who could free these compromised incumbents from the clutches of the neoconservative plague. If you wonder why some in Congress continue to vote the way they do, you should wonder no more.

After all, American culture is still decidedly Puritan, and especially so when it comes to the GOP's voting base. With the promise that "we'll keep things quiet about your immoral behavior," the Bush administration has secured the voting behavior of an unknown segment of incumbents in Congress. Besides quashing investigations into the possible criminal behaviors of GOP incumbents, we know from Judiciary Committee hearings and solid investigative journalism that a push for partisan-based investigations of Democratic incumbents occurred as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal.
This is evident in the firing of former U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias who was pressured by standing Senator Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Both incumbents attempted to pressure Iglesias into investigations of state Democrats before the 2006 elections, surely experiencing their own pressures from the White House and Karl Rove.

In back-to-back hearings in the Senate and House, former U.S. 8attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted specific instances in which some said they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and one said a Justice Department official warned him to keep quiet or face retaliation. Iglesias's allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate ethics committee inquiry. Yesterday he offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat. (The Washington Post, 03.07.2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600606.html )

It should also be remembered in this context that it was one Monica Goodling who helped pave the way for Rove protege Tim Griffin as a U.S. Attorney. Griffin is now aiding Fred Thompson in his campaign...nearly the only campaign whose offices will never be burglarized during the entire run-up to the 2008 elections, a prediction of this writer. San Diego is burning. Perhaps with some luck, it will take SAIC's headquarters with it.

TOP BUSH AND ROVE AIDE, DAN BARTLETT JUMPS SHIP

The White House, March 13th, 2007...

Q Dan, can you talk a little bit about, by the White House's own account, Senator Domenici at some point went to the President and urged him to fire the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, specifically? What did the President do with that information, after Senator Domenici asked him? And what did the President say to Attorney General Gonzales, when they did speak about this?

MR. BARTLETT:It's important to back up a bit. The issue of U.S. attorneys, as many of you know, these U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Many of these U.S. attorneys have served four-year terms. There was a management review process and there was a determination made to remove seven U.S. attorneys for cause. And the members of the Justice Department have been sharing that information, the particulars on each of those cases, as to why those U.S. attorneys were removed, which is completely within the managerial discretion of the Attorney General and something that the President supported.

Particularly, as you can imagine, at the White House, when it comes to complaints, we receive a lot of complaints, whether it be from members of Congress, state leaders, local leaders. Oftentimes that is the job description of a White House employee, is to field complaints. That is not limited to U.S. attorneys. And over the course of several years we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys, particularly when it comes to election fraud cases -- not just New Mexico, but also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...."

Washington D.C.--Long-term presidential adviser Dan Bartlett has announced he will no longer give counsel to the president after July 4th. His reasons are the same as those of convicted former-congressman Bob Ney (ex-R-Oh.): "I have to take-care of my family now." He didn't sound scared, not at all, and neither does Bartlett when he says it.

This is coming the day after congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) asked the BBC for former U.S. Attorney (like the pattern here?) Tim Griffin's e-mails on "caging" techniques that caused thousands of Black Americans to be stricken from voting rolls, generally having their votes challenged and disqualified. What we could have here is a nationwide attempt that successfully stole the 2004 elections through disenfranchisement. There were serious questions in 2000 as well, though any serious investigations have yet to occur on that front. Greg Palast writes in a mass e-mail I received today that:

Tim Griffin, formerly right hand man to Karl Rove, resigned Thursday as US Attorney for Arkansas hours after BBC Television ‘Newsnight’ reported that Congressman John Conyers requested the network’s evidence on Griffin’s involvement in ‘caging voters.’ Greg Palast, reporting for BBC Newsnight, obtained a series of confidential emails from the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. In these emails, Griffin, then the GOP Deputy Communications Director, transmitted so-called ‘caging lists’ of voters to state party leaders. ... [John]Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the firing of US Attorneys, met Thursday evening in New York with Palast. After reviewing key documents, Conyers stated that, despite Griffin’s resignation, “We’re not through with him by any means.” ('US Attorney Resigns Following Conyers’ Request for BBC Documents,' Greg Palast, 06.01.2007)

Yes, it's dueling e-mails on the internet these days, and Tim Griffin sent some of his own out containing general information on voter caging to a satirical website that had a similar Internet address as the Bush campaign's. The results are already explosive with two prominent Bush appointments dropping two days in-a-row, it being a new record for the administration and the GOP. The rest of the media in the United States don't want you to know this, and they're doing their best to white-out the caging scandal with Lindsay Lohan's drinking-binge, but it's not working.

Surely Bartlett is leaving because Karl Rove ordered these caging techniques--he was once employed by Rove's consulting firm, and joined the Bush inner-circle in 1993. He sees the writing on the wall. This man is only 36, but looks 47. I look younger than he does. Luckily, he has a family that prosecutors will be able to dangle over his head (like the fact that he won't see them for 20-30 years if he doesn't start talking). But it's going to be Tim Griffin who talks first, as House Judiciary Chairman Conyers will surely be issuing him a subpoena within the next two weeks.

Serving as counselor to the president, Bartlett also worked in Bush's first campaign as governor of Texas and two subsequent presidential races. Before joining Bush, Bartlett worked for presidential adviser Karl Rove's company back in Texas, an Austin-based political consulting firm. Bartlett graduated from the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in political science. (FOX/AP, 06.01.2007)

You know, besides Charles Whitman, that's the worst strike against Austin yet, how sad. Bartlett and Rove are pretty close to the president--they're the keys to the kingdom of all the crimes committed under the authorization of George W. Bush. Bartlett's former boss Karl Rove will be following him shortly on the subpoena list, but you never know: he might precede him.

They'll all plead the Fifth amendment on numerous points in their testimony and all will claim ignorance as Attorney General Gonzales has. We'll be seeing a lot of people claiming memory-loss regarding specific incidents, conversations, and evidence contradicting previous statements. How do I know this? Because I'm psychic, of course.

Republican incumbents will have no basis to complain since the evidence is already ample to investigate, but they will anyway as we all know. Part of the reason is that this is familiar territory: Watergate, Iran-Contra, the war in Iraq, warrantless surveillance, the continued suspension of habeus corpus, and more. The RNC--and the GOP generally--act very much like Bolsheviks, and it's time they were collared by the rule of law.

Again, let's get back to Dan Bartlett and his family, who he seems to suddenly want to be with more:

Bartlett said he was leaving for no other reason than to get a job in the private sector and concentrate more on his family. He has retained Washington lawyer Robert Barnett to help him in his search. "I've had competing families. And unfortunately, the Bush family has prevailed too many times, and it's high time for the Bartlett family to finally prevail," Bartlett said. (Reuters, 06.01.2007)

Well, that's kind of mean. He decided this after 13 years and nine months? Surely, something prompted it. And you know, I always get a lawyer when I'm looking for a new job--especially if I thought I might be making license plates soon. Wouldn't you? Sure you would...

Reuters today: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWBT00707320070601?src=060107_1507_DOUBLEFEATURE_

FOX/AP Today: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276998,00.html

Greg Palast, the last living American journalist spotted this year: www.gregpalast.com

Dan Bartlett, letting-on about more than he suspected on March 13th, 2007: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-4.html

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS ISSUED OVER FIRINGS OF US ATTORNEYS

Washington D.C.--Finally, finally, finally, the Democrats get some guts. Not one committee member of the GOP was present for this move on the House Judiciary committee, but that's because they know that the game is over.

Nobody is impressed with this "symbolic gesture." For at least four years (longer for Foley), the former GOP majority in Congress had obstructed justice in the investigations surrounding the Bush administration, as well as within their own ranks: Mark Foley, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Ney are just a few examples of this fact.

The US Attorney who convicted former congressman Cunningham was part of the mass of firings by President Bush (Attorney General Gonzales will appoint new ones "indefinitely" under a law the GOP had hidden in a renewal of the Patriot Act at the end of the 109th Congress).

But, the subpoenas aren't for anyone in the Bush administration--yet. They're being issued to question all of the US Attorneys who were fired, to get their side of the story. We've already begun to hear about some of what happened from former US Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico.

He has stated bluntly he will tell the committee the names of two GOP congressmen who pressured him to investigate a Democratic congresswoman under oath. It's going to be pretty hilarious to see their reactions. They'll be the next-ones being subpoenaed.

Democrats contend the removals were politically motivated. They say a flaw in the Patriot Act allows the president to sidestep Senate confirmation of U.S. attorneys in some cases. "Is this an effort to diminish the independence of the people who uphold our laws? It's very troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent here," said Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif). She heads the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law. Republicans said the hearing was a case of "political grandstanding." The committee's top Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, said the GOP would not help "provide votes for political subpoenas." (AP, 03.02.2007)

Funny, the vote was 7-0, so he must be lying again and the subpoenas are going through. After all, you're not driving the bus now.

Blather all you want GOP, but the truth is coming-out. Former US Attorneys "Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. "Bud" Cummins of Arkansas and John McKay of Seattle" (ibid) are all going to testify. Corrupt congresspersons can expect the worst, and the GOP is going to get their jaw-jacked. The committee meeting on the subject lasted less than five minutes, which is impressive.

In the case of Iglesias, he was never told of why he was fired, but he had a pretty good idea why:

Two months after the firings first began to make waves on Capitol Hill, it has also become clear that most of the prosecutors were overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters, prosecutors and other officials said. (Washington Post, 02.19.2007)

Yeah, I know, the laws don't work in your favor, so you violate, obstruct, and change them. If Democrats are guilty, investigate and convict them too. It's indefensible in any developed nation that claims to be one of law and order to have these firings.

These claims of upholding the law no longer have any weight with the GOP that they used to, and this is just one example of why. You hire a man, and he tries to do the job you hired him for--what the hell were they thinking? Jaw-jack time is coming, yet it's really all about upholding the law of the land.

The Washington Post 02.19.2007:

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57249.html

AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070301/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors_7