DC Madam trial transcript links

Ed.-I posted these not long ago, it's just down the page a few posts, but to newer readers (?), this should make things easier: http://chickasawpicklesmell.blogspot.com/2012/12/dc-madam-trial-transcripts.html

 For reasons unknown, I was the first to post these online in their totality. Insofar as I can tell, no one else has followed suit. 

Songs from the Site Meter: All roads lead to San Diego III - The Return of the Return of Qualcomm...

San Diego, Cal-i-forn-ia--I have no idea why they're back. It couldn't be over an ethics investigation into them since Congress is so hopelessly corrupt right now, so maybe they were bored. Check the label "Qualcomm" for more and for contextual links. There's a very weird connection that I stumbled upon to the DC Madam scandal thanks to them and others coming around. Oh sure, they were just coming around the mountain to read my satire, all in my head, look into the mirror and repeat after me...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		65.214.169.# (Qualcomm)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Diego Lat/Long : 32.7191, -117.1607 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 8.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Mar 8 2010 10:13:21 pm
Last Page View		Mar 8 2010 10:13:21 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...oeRhQPwtlEZDuC5auTcg
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		j to the power of 7
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...esmell.blogspot.com/
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-6:00
Visitor's Time		Mar 8 2010 9:13:21 am
Visit Number		70,726

From September 9, 2009...

This one's very interesting and had me perplexed until I realized that Qualcomm and SAIC are frequently mentioned in the same breath as government contractors.

Here's the score: SAIC has been around before reading about the DC Madam scandal and what I've been posting and writing, and now Qualcomm's doing likewise, snooping around. The other commonality? San Diego, that point-of-intersection that kept cropping-up again and again during the scandal and in my own research into it. San Diego was also where Jeffrey A. Taylor served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney from 1995-1999, possibly where he became familiar with other players involved in the DC Madam scandal. People like Brent R. Wilkes, convicted briber of former California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now sitting in the federal pen where the majority of politicians in America belong.

Unsurprisingly, Taylor connects the megafirm of Ernst & Young to Qualcomm since many of its founders and past executive partners have gone on to Qualcomm, almost an interlocking-network of the same names. Keep in mind that I discovered these connections very casually, thanks to whomever this reader was. Interestingly, Taylor is going to be doing the same kind of work as the peculiar Sam Deskin at his new job:

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor will join Ernst & Young as the Americas leader of the Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services area, the Blog of the Legal Times reports. Taylor announced his resignation today, effective tomorrow, and will reportedly join Ernst & Young’s Washington, D.C. office next month. (Securities Docket, 05.28.2009)

The question that I have is: why would someone at Qualcomm want to do a search on Montgomery Blair Sibley, Palfrey's former counsel who was fired at the 11th hour by his client? Who exactly persuaded her to do this? My money's on Preston Burton and Federal Judge James Robertson, but that doesn't mean others weren't involved in this.

Say what you want, but I would have loved seeing the circus that would have come out of his defense and would have applauded it. But no, journalists seem to fixate on things like kilts, small offices on K Street, acrimonious divorce proceedings, but nothing to do with the former clients they allowed to get off scot free. Pathetic, but one of numerous reasons why I couldn't care less that the newspapers are dying. Another final question for the day: has Mr. Deskin ever communicated with Jeffrey A. Taylor either personally or professionally? I'd really like to know. Sammala? Jeff? And what of Mr. Burton and his gigantic firm, Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe? Do they all know each other? I wouldn't be surprised...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		65.214.169.# (Qualcomm)
ISP		Verizon Business
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : California City : San Diego Lat/Long : 32.7191, -117.1607 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1024 x 768 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 10 2009 2:45:27 am
Last Page View		Sep 10 2009 2:45:40 am
Visit Length		13 seconds
Page Views		3
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...bley&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		montgomery blair sibley
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...ontgomery-blair.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...9_09_01_archive.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 9 2009 2:45:27 pm
Visit Number		59,574

Jeffrey A. Taylor: Curiouser and curiouser...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS178428+28-May-2009+PRN20090528

http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeff-taylor-in-dc-resigns/

http://www.securitiesdocket.com/2009/05/28/us-attorney-jeffrey-taylor-to-join-ernst-young-in-dc/

Qualcomm, meet Ernst & Young, together again and again (and again): http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Qualcomm+Ernst+%26+Young&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=a52f6f39e4c8144b

Why won't President Obama fire the remaining Bush/Cheney loyalists?

Washington D.C.--This has been perplexing me for months now, but recall that when George W. Bush entered office, one of the very first things he did back in 2001 was to fire virtually all of the 93 standing U.S. Attorneys. What was he thinking? He didn't want anyone who wasn't on the same page or loyal to him--that's not legitimate, incidentally, not in the public interest.

That's why President Obama needs to fire every single standing U.S. Attorney now, but he won't. That speaks volumes about him if it continues much longer, that he's no different than George W. Bush and his administration. But it's possibly worse than that.

But why do mass firings and what's the problem? Very simple: It's becoming obvious--for example--that embedded appointees within the DOJ are working against the new president as well as at the Pentagon and even within the confines of the CIA and throughout the federal bureaucracy, working against him, his party, and the public will. This doesn't appear to concern President Obama.

Is he crazy? Is he nuts? Is he stupid? No.

I think the 2008 revelations about Attorney General Eric Holder and his connections to the Chiquita Brands International Inc. corporation as an attorney representing their interests in a recent civil suit states-it-plainly: the Obama administration is riddled with the same kinds of scumbags from the corporate world and the realm of the political operative, the corporate gutter. Oh yeah, and included many of the very same scumbags that were there in the bureaucracy under Bush II. This is unacceptable and shows so far that the Obama administration has no problem with politicizing law enforcement, a very dangerous road to go down in a democracy. But it's all about money, isn't it? Yes it is.

For years, Chiquita was paying off right wing paramilitaries (AUC, listed as terrorists at the time by our government) not to attack their banana plantations in Colombia during their "dirty war" with Marxist guerrillas, FARC. In the interest of fairness, both sides (the paramilitaries are generally allied with the drug-smuggling oligarchs in the North) sometimes run cocaine to fund their activities. So, Chiquita was breaking the law--did I mention there have been allegations that they were also reported running cocaine in some of their shipments? It appears that they wanted to pad their bottom line, but this is still unconfirmed.

At the time--March 2007--I and most of the nation began noticing the DC Madam scandal and her prosecutor, the moronic U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor who'd been unethically appointed through a provision of the Patriot Act as an interim U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush while Congress was out of session, sometime in late September 2006. Just a few months later, Taylor was expediting the plea agreement for Chiquita...and bringing an indictment against Palfrey (no, I'm not drawing a connection here). Jeffrey was very busy during those months, covering-up for a gaggle of corporate bigwigs, Bush II appointees, government contractors, and not just with the DC Madam scandal--he had his work cut-out for him, but he's a rock, a skilled sycophant. Well...not exactly: he's also been known to file under the wrong statutes, but that's another story for another time.

And so, many other names that will be familiar from the Bush II years that never really ended were also involved in the Chiquita settlement; even the DOJ's/DHS's Michael Chertoff, but it was Holder and Taylor who brokered the deal that gave Chiquita a very tiny fine considering that they were paying off terrorists for several years, basically giving them material support. Holder has a lot to explain as their former attorney, and fine, he's going to claim attorney-client privilege so he's going to have to be investigated eventually if it ever even happens.

No criminal holding public office has ever been known to allow the prosecution of themselves, other than Richard Nixon, and he didn't go down quietly. Obama isn't going to fire these standing U.S. Attorneys from the Bush II years soon because he answers to the same bosses, and so does his Attorney General. Why fire the appointees after that? The current president is just another fraud. Power concedes nothing without a demand. Beware these businessmen who come at you with knives: they're you're businessmen.

"The Department of Justice, Corporations, Buying the Law-Part II: Strange Bargains," Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, Rawstory, 07.21.2009: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/21/buying-the-law/

Songs from the Site Meter: They're looking for Diana Oo, Democratic House Judiciary counsel

Site Meter--I wondered when someone, anyone, would notice. My question to Ms. Oo and whomever was looking-up on her is: why in the hell didn't you do anything to help the DC Madam (or people like Don Siegelman)? Are you stupid? Are you being blackmailed? Time to end the game, uphold the Constitution of the United States as you swore an oath to do.

Attorney Diana Oo was the one that Rep. Conyers and company sent, then they got cold feet and dicked-out on her and the rest of us in late 2007. Henry A. Waxman and his staffers did likewise. "We're interested, but we're not interested," they seemed to have been saying. That's called covering your ass so you can say you tried to do something when someone comes around asking later on. Without being too prolix...

Domain Name		(Unknown)
IP Address		143.228.129.# (Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives)
ISP		Information Systems, U.S. House of Representatives
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.8933, -77.0146 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Firefox Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1680 x 1050 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 4 2009 2:46:14 am
Last Page View		Sep 4 2009 2:50:49 am
Visit Length		4 minutes 35 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...nr1jeZ_pFgREJCnf5sTw
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		diana oo
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...tees-democratic.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 3 2009 2:46:14 pm
Visit Number		59,290

The House Judiciary Committee releases the Rove/Miers interviews related to the U.S. Attorney firings (with some excerpts from the Miers testimony)

Washington D.C.--And so, we finally have a window, a real window, into what was going on at the DOJ during the time leading-up to the U.S. Attorney firings in that culminated in December 2006.

The House Judiciary Committee has today released what several scholars and pundits were saying would never see the light of day: the transcripts of the interviews with Bush II political operative and adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel (the president's legal adviser until early 2007), as well as emails and other documents and materials relating to what appears to be politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, thus endangering their abilities to enforce the law correctly without undue or illegal political influence and/or obstruction through a general abuse of office.

Some highlights of the Miers testimony from June of this year:

(Beginning P.7) ...Q Yes, and also prior to that time. Let me -- why don't I start out asking you, before your work in the White House in any capacity, did you have any role in the selection of U.S. Attorneys or in the discharge of U.S. Attorneys?

A Not that I recall. (pg. 8) ...

(P.14) ...Q Now, there could be inappropriate reasons why a U.S. Attorney would be let go, as well, right?

A Yes.

Q If the Department of Justice were to recommend removal of the U.S. Attorney for a political partisan purpose, that would be an inappropriate basis for removal, right?

A I don't know what that term means. U.S. Attorneys are, by their nature, political.

Q Well, would you find it proper to remove a U.S. Attorney to stop him from prosecuting a friend of the President?

A I would not expect the Department to recommend removal for the U.S. Attorney doing his or her job. And if his or her job was investigating someone and there was an effort to cause that 15 person to step down because of that reason, I would view that as inappropriate.

Q So if the Department of Justice were recommending a U.S. Attorney be forced to resign because he was investigating a friend of the President, that would be an inappropriate reason for the Department to recommend his removal?

A If the reason was to interfere with a prosecutor's ongoing investigation of a particular matter, I would consider that inappropriate.

Q And, along those lines, if a U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute a political opponent of the President, that would also be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A If the reason for a recommendation to ask a person to step down or to take action against the person was to cause them to take action that was inappropriate, then, yes, I would consider that not something that should happen.

Q Well, I just wanted to be very clear on this. If a U.S. Attorney is asked to resign because he refused to prosecute an opponent of the President, that would be improper, wouldn't it?

A If it was to cause the U.S. Attorney to take some action that the U.S. Attorney and others believed to be appropriate -- or inappropriate, then I would consider that something that should not happen. ...

P.16) ...Q And if, by the same token, a prosecutor refuses to bring a meritless prosecution against an opponent to the President, that would be improper also, right?

A If someone is asked to step down because they weren't bringing something that they, in good faith, thought they shouldn't and the examination concluded that that was a legitimate 17 position, then I would not expect them to be asked to step down.

Q Let me ask you also about the timing of prosecutions. Would it be improper to remove a U.S. Attorney because that U.S. Attorney failed to bring a prosecution that would aid a candidate during election time?

A It would be inappropriate to interfere one way or the other, either by asking somebody to bring an action they shouldn't bring or to not bring an action that they should, in both instances it would be inappropriate.

Q And particularly so if it was done with a design to influence an election?

A If that was the purpose, then I would think it would be inappropriate to attempt to influence an election.

Q Are there circumstances in which it would be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney based on purely partisan political considerations? A I would have difficulty answering that question.

Q Would it be proper to remove a U.S. Attorney because he refused to use his office to assist Republican candidates for elective office?

A If the sole purpose of asking someone to leave or to step down is to influence an election or do something the individual thought shouldn't be done, and the examination indicates that is correct, or to not do something, I think any of those things would have been inappropriate. ...

(P. 18) ...Q Would it be appropriate to remove a U.S. Attorney simply because one of the President's political allies or supporters has asked that U.S. Attorney to be removed?

A That would depend on the circumstances.

Q If the sole reason that the President removes a U.S. Attorney is because a supporter asked, would that be appropriate?

A U.S. Attorneys are serving at the pleasure of the President. And so, if anything is presented to him, then he has the ability to remove that person. ...

(P.21) ...Q Under what circumstances do you think it would be appropriate for the origination of the idea to remove a U.S. Attorney to come from the White House?

A I would think that would be perfectly appropriate from any other source. ...

(P. 27) ...Q Well, let's say you had a U.S. Attorney who refused to bring meritless cases.

A Well, you can stop right there. No one is going to condone bringing meritless cases.

Q And so, removing them for the failure to bring meritless cases would be an inappropriate reason to remove them?

A I believe we have already covered that. And I said you should not ask someone to leave because they won't bring a meritless case. ...

(P.38) ...Q And what about the Office of Political Affairs' role in the decision to let U.S. Attorneys go. What role did they play in 39 the process?

A I would say providing information.

Q And what type of information would they provide?

A Whatever they had in any particular situation. And if they had any, I would think many times they would not, but if they had any they may well have let their views be known. And in fact, and I apologize for not thinking about this at the time, someone from that office frequently attended the Judicial Selection Committee. So they were always there to provide the political sense with respect to the environment in any particular state.

Q And who was it from the Office of Political Affairs that attended the JSC meetings?

A Sometimes Karl Rove himself participated, but he may have had on his deputy chief of staff hat. But the Office of Political Affairs reported to him, so he could have been there. I don't really have a recollection of Sara Taylor being there, but she would have been logical. I remember Scott Jennings being there.

Q Do you recall any of the JSC meetings where it was clear Mr. Rove attended for the specific purpose that a U.S. Attorney removal was the issue to be discussed?

A I don't have a recollection of that.

Q Do you recall any case where the suggestion for the removal of a particular U.S. Attorney originated in the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice? 40

A I think that's a good question. And I know that, for example, with respect to Mr. Iglesias that there were comments made about him and his performance. And those comments certainly could have been made at a Judicial Selection Committee meeting, but I don't recall it.

Q And did you raise the case of Mr. Iglesias because the first suggestion that he be considered for removal came from the Office of Political Affairs rather than the Department of Justice?

A I don't know whether it did or not come from the Department of Justice or whether that was just one more voice if, in fact, it happened. But I don't really know who came up with the idea. But certainly there were comments about Mr. Iglesias coming from the political office, or the deputy chief of staff for that matter. ...

(P. 41) ...Q But it was a call that Mr. Rove originated, you didn't call him? A Well, unless I called him back. But, yeah, he instigated the call. 42

Q And tell us the best you can about what you recall what Mr. Rove had to say when he called?

A My best recollection is that he was very agitated about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico. I don't know that I knew the gentleman's name at that time.

Q And what did he tell you about the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico?

A That he was getting barraged by a lot of complaints about the U.S. Attorney and his not doing his job.

Q And who were the complaints coming from?

A People that he was in contact with, which I assumed, of course, and he may have said, were political people that were active in New Mexico.

Q These are Republican Party activists?

A They were the people that he would have been interfacing with as political leadership of the State, is my assumption.

Q And who would that have been?

A I have no idea.

Q Would they have been Republican Party activists?

A All I can tell you is that Karl was reporting multiple people complaining about Mr. Iglesias.

Q And did he identify any of the people who were complaining to him about Mr. Iglesias?

A I don't recall that.

Q Did he tell you what they were complaining about? 43

A That he wasn't doing his job. I do recall that.

Q Do you recall what specifically the complaints were that he wasn't doing his job?

A I don't recall the specifics of what he was saying.

Q Did Mr. Rove raise with you complaints about voter fraud prosecutions?

A That's my best recollection, that he did.

Q And what did he say about that?

A I don't know what he said. I know it's my impression that he talked about the complaints that the guy wouldn't do his job. And I believe he mentioned voter fraud.

Q What else do you recall that Mr. Rove said about the complaints, if anything?

A I'm giving you all the information that I can about that call. That's my best recollection that that happened.

Q And you said Mr. Rove was agitated. What led you to believe that he was agitated?

A He was just upset. I remember his being upset.

Q Was it the language he used or was it the tone of his voice that told you he was upset?

A I can't tell you. It's my recollection that he was upset. And how that was conveyed to me I can't tell you.

Q Did Mr. Rove tell you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney gone?

A I don't have that specific recollection. And I'm under 44 oath and I'm not going to swear to something coming out of his mouth that I just can't remember. The clear import was that he was upset with how this individual was performing.

Q And was the clear import also that he wanted him removed from his position?

A He was getting complaints about the guy. And he wanted to express, I think, and this is my general sense about the New Mexico situation, that there were complaints about how he was performing.

Q Ms. Miers, wasn't the clear import of his conversation with you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed from office?

A I can't say with certainty that he ever used that language. He may well have. I don't recall it.

Q Well, I'm not asking about specific language, but you were able to tell us the clear import of part of his conversation was that the U.S. Attorney was not doing his job and he was getting an earful?

A That's correct.

Q If Mr. Rove communicated to you that he wanted a U.S. Attorney replaced, you would recall that, right?

A Not necessarily.

Q Well, in this case did Mr. Rove communicate to you in whatever language he used that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A I can't put those words in his mouth. 45

Q I'm not using any specific words. But when you hung up with the -- when you hung up the phone call with Mr. Rove, was it clear to you that he wanted this U.S. Attorney removed?

A It was clear to me that he felt like he had a serious problem and that he wanted something done about it. And whether he said, and the answer is ask the guy to be removed, I can't -- I don't recall that, I just don't recall it.

Q But you do recall he wanted something done about it? A Yes, sir. I think he was calling for that purpose.

Q And he may have asked you, or he may have told you that he wanted the U.S. Attorney removed?

A That's speculation. And I can't put those exact words in his mouth. I mean, he was complaining about the guy.

Q The clear import was that he wanted something done about it, right?

A Yes, sir. That was his purpose in calling me.

Q And at this point, you can't rule out whether he asked that he be removed from office?

A I can't swear that he did or did not say that. Q So he may have? A I can't swear one way or the other.

Q So he may have asked for him to be removed, you just can't recall?

A I don't recall his using words like I want him fired or words of similar import. I just don't have that recollection. 46

Could he have said that, I can't rule it out. I probably should say that he may have said can't we get rid of this guy or something like that.

Q And do you recall what your response would have been?

A I don't recall him saying even that, so I certainly don't recall my response.

Q But he may have said that?

A I can't rule it out.

Q If Mr. Rove wanted him removed, what would the next step have been?

A If he had said that he wanted us to consider removing the guy, then I would have relayed that along with whatever else I believe I called Paul McNulty about. Because my belief is that I called Paul McNulty and reported this situation.

Q So at some point after your conversation with Mr. Rove, you called Mr. McNulty at the Justice Department?

A That's my belief. That I took whatever information he gave me and I called Paul and gave it to him. ...

Not a pretty picture at all, and these are just excerpts. I'm assuming Rove's transcript has some relevant material but that it's generally a lot of skirting around his culpability/guilt in the affair. And yes, we can expect them to protect the president at all costs...unless, perhaps, it means that they're going to to go to prison.

Keep in mind that this woman was nominated for the Supreme Court. Now we know why she declined.

The House Judiciary Committe's Rove/Miers interviews and materials: http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_WHInterviews.html

Songs from the Site Meter: The Beginning of a New Era?

Site Meter--Investigate U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor and the rest of the Bush II appointments. Just do it.

Domain Name		comcast.net ? (Network)
IP Address		68.48.0.# (Comcast Cable)
ISP		Comcast Cable
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English en
Operating System		Macintosh MacOSX
Browser		Safari 1.3 Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_4_11; en) AppleWebKit/525.27.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.1 Safari/525.27.1
Javascript		version 1.5
Monitor		Resolution : 1440 x 900 Color Depth : 24 bits
Time of Visit		Jan 20 2009 2:56:33 am
Last Page View		Jan 20 2009 3:02:13 am
Visit Length		5 minutes 40 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...or&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		us attorney jeffrey taylor
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Jan 19 2009 2:56:33 pm
Visit Number		48,346

The ACORN "scandal"

Indiana--We don't even know what really happened, yet Fox News (as far as anyone can tell, the first source of the story) has been crowing about it louder than any other news outlet, even making easily debunked speculations on a variety of issues. Does the story look like a coordinated media campaign from the outside? Yes. Do we truly know yet what happened? No.

A modest proposal (no, not eating Irish babies, silly): create an independent inquiry from outside the United States to investigate the ACORN allegations and the all of the polling problems that plagued the 2000-2006 national elections, and hold to the recommendations regardless of the outcome. But the conclusions must be based on solid evidence, not hearsay, and so far that's all we're getting.

How do we even know the registration forms are real and not bogus evidence that was planted? What was the chain-of-evidence? Why the timing? Why does it once again benefit the GOP? How do we know ACORN wasn't infiltrated by provocateurs? It's happened in our political history. In other words--don't think we didn't notice this is being treated differently from those questionable activities by GOP operatives in past elections, because we do. Let the chips fall where they may, it works for me.

Or, is it that ACORN also went after predatory mortgage lenders and that we're also seeing some payback? You tell me. You had better be right. You had better not be lying, because we're going to find-out soon. This has all the markings of a Karl Rove job. We might ask where he and Tim Griffin have been these days.

The bailout negotiations, sex-for-contracts, and getting laid in D.C.

Washington D.C.--Why would anyone expect the people who created this mess in the first place to act otherwise? One of the things to appreciate in all of this is that apathetic Americans are finally all affected by the corruption in Congress, the White House, and in the judiciary. There's nowhere left to run and hide, responsibility is coming. Lies won't do it. Threats won't work. Everyone sees-through the manipulations now. For all these reasons, the Spitzer scandal deserves a radical reappraisal in the context of our current economic crisis.

As New York's state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer went a very long way indeed in apprehending white collar criminals on Wall Street. In fact, he was so good that these same individuals and institutions pulled-strings in Washington D.C. to see if someone was already surveilling the attorney general, then known as "the Sheriff of Wall Street." Ah, but they almost always are, as Senator David Vitter discovered in the summer of 2007. Yet, Vitter escaped Spitzer's fate. Why is that? Besides the fact that he's an obvious egomaniac with delusions of adequacy, someone had his back. That doesn't speak well of New York Democratic Party leadership and their own relationship with Wall Street, not at all. What you have here is a bipartisan form of political corruption with numerous compromised players, just everywhere.

Yet it's worse than that for those hoping for some real solution to the problem of corruption on Wall Street. The perpetrators want to blame those who discovered the bad investments in the first place:

"It's easy to blame accounting because it doesn't fight back," said Jack Ciesielski, author of the Analyst's Accounting Observer, a financial newsletter. "Now that there's somebody out there putting some light on the financials, it's shoot the messenger."

Lynn E. Turner, a former SEC chief accountant, said he remembered fielding questions about the accounting provision six months ago from lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

"What the banks are telling everyone is that the accounting has caused the problem," Turner said. "The only thing fair-value accounting did is force you to tell investors you made a bunch of very bad loans."("Wall St. Points to Disclosure As Issue," The Wall Street Journal, 09.23.2008)

But these same elements--again, we'll say that they're "bipartisan" in their corruption--couldn't get Spitzer on anything until his own sexual indiscretions got caught on the FBI's radar. One could even imagine the taps were done as part of the war on terror, a catch-all excuse to spy on one's political enemies, and practiced by both major political parties. When you're doing these things when you're in power, oversight is not desirable, hence we get none with the FBI and other police agencies.

And so finally, someone did answer-back to these unknown business and finance criminals from their field outpost that they had Spitzer on some surveillance logs, cherry-picked with tenderness and care so that the GOP's own wouldn't be caught-up in the net and the inevitable press coverage. Hey, wouldn't you? Why sure you would, quit shitting yourself. So, they--some of whom must surely populate the ranks of the now-dead financial institutions these days, some still standing--got their man, namely Eliot Spitzer. Why? Spitzer wasn't going to stop the investigations into Wall Street, naturally, and he was now governor. Who needs rules? That's for the public. As we know, former Governor Spitzer had a problem over "getcha little somethin' that you can't get at home," like the aforementioned Sen. David Vitter, a Republican. We've had a lot of selective investigation and prosecution under the Bush II administration, but knowing this takes some deduction and investigation on-the-part of the public, never mind the press's coverage and their take on these stories, which was absurdly narrow. None of this is news to this writer.

My own experience with the Palfrey scandal has taught me the hard lesson that the press often don't want to know the details about corruption and that they're being leaned-on heavily not to look too closely into such stories by editors and ownership. In the context of all of this, it should be crystal-clear these days that the prosecution of Deborah Jeane Palfrey was damage control by an already embattled political and economic establishment. The Bush administration were merely the expediters for someone else, and it all could have happened under a Democratic presidential administration that controlled the Justice Department. That's how entrenched the corruption is, and has been for some time.

With the recent revelations of sex-for-contracts at offices of the Interior Department in Colorado and in Washington D.C., Palfrey's stories about Brent Wilkes, Randy Cunningham, and even Shirlington Limo don't seem so wild any more. While it's true that she didn't know exactly what was in her phone records, she did make what I believe was a valid claim to have spoken with Brent Wilkes on a few occasions over the telephone. He's hardly the only shady government contractor in her phone records, however, and there are many others waiting to be discovered.

Some researchers have probably already found all of the realtors that pepper the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates, making for a charming snapshot of a totally corrupt boom period. The bailout, the bailout, I know. It's the coda to all of this. Had Palfrey waited long enough, she might have lived to see the system that had judged her collapse. What I find surprising is that some of the other members of the Palfrey defense team from the Sibley period are so silent about these possible connections to the financial scandal, and others. I question their sincerity in these areas. Perhaps they're biding-their-time for that big book with HarperCollins, Knopf, Time-Warner (TV rights! coffee table books, Amway product tie-ins!), or some other gargantuan conglomerate that threatens to topple in the current economic climate anyway. Who knows? Better spend that money while it's worth something, a certainty.

The need for a bailout came from this whole mess of corruption surrounding the political process and its intersections with the business and financial world.That's right, the world of lobbying.

Some Democrats still want a provision allowing bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. Thune said that would be "a deal-breaker" for Republicans.

The compromise legislation that seemed to be emerging Saturday "is not the proposal that we got from Secretary Paulson," Reid said. But lawmakers said it would be much closer to Paulson's original plan than to the alternative offered by House Republicans several days ago. ("Senate leader: Significant progress on bailout," AP, 09.27.2008)

Why should the public get something for nothing when that's the traditional role of corrupt American business? It's all about the lobbying, and as Brent Wilkes showed, many of these government contractors do their own lobbying which often includes getting people laid.

We need to start asking the question: How widespread are these corrupt practices in the halls of Congress, in the bureaucracy itself in the form of crony appointees, and the White House? The intersections are everywhere in this, and yes, even in the sexual ones. A bailout isn't going to fix entrenched-corruption or a political culture rife with it. This opens-up terrifying implications that most of us suspected all-along about American civilization.

If the system isn't run on merit--something most of us likely knew a long time ago--what holds it all together? It doesn't appear to be business acumen, so what is it? These are the same kinds of issues that appeared in the collapse of the Soviet system. After this kind of connections-based crony-capitalism proliferates to a point, does it implode? How do you "fix" such a system if it's just going to keep perpetuating the same old mistakes over-and-over as part of how it's able to exist at all? At the end, then, it's all based on the belief of the public in that order, and that belief is eroding rapidly. There's every good reason for it to do this, namely from a lack-of-accountability in the halls of business and government. All they're trying to do in Washington is to bail themselves out, ultimately. Being mostly criminals, they will fail in this endeavor, the crisis will deepen, and objective-reality will correct things. The public is part of that reality.

Eventually, certain mechanisms of law and order are likely to kick-in. If this doesn't occur, then the chances of insurrection are substantial, and there is no military force on this earth that's capable of pacifying even half of the American public if they are up-in-arms over the way things are bound to be headed. The examples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and just about every popular uprising prove that it's an unwinnable situation. Welcome back history, we missed you.

"Wall St. Points to Disclosure As Issue," The Wall Street Journal, 09.23.2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202688.html

"Senate leader: Significant progress on bailout," AP, 09.27.2008:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080927/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

Songs from the Site Meter: The DOJ Returns to Read on D.C. Interim-Appointed US Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor

Washington D.C.--This is interesting, and they did a long read, and from Washington D.C., rather than from Potomac, Maryland as they often do. I'd imagine this is some of the brass reading. Strange, because they've read this article before. I guess they wanted to see if it was still up. Uh, yep.

To Mr. Taylor: if Barack Obama wins the presidential election, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. And get a lawyer, you're probably going to need one...or not.

Domain Name		usdoj.gov ? (U.S. Government)
IP Address		149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP		US Dept of Justice
Location		Continent : North America Country : United States (Facts) State : District of Columbia City : Washington Lat/Long : 38.9097, -77.0231 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 6.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DI60SP1001; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution : 1280 x 1024 Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit		Sep 3 2008 5:02:45 am
Last Page View		Sep 3 2008 5:14:14 am
Visit Length		11 minutes 29 seconds
Page Views		2
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...%22Jeffrey Taylor%22
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		jeffrey taylor us attorney
Visit Entry Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Visit Exit Page		http://chickasawpick...y-in-palfrey_30.html
Out Click
Time Zone		UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time		Sep 2 2008 5:02:45 pm
Visit Number		40,702

Why the Suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey Was Not Unexpected

J-7/Tarpon Springs, Florida--I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of the deceased Ms. Palfrey. This writer never met Jeane--as she liked to be called by friends--and I only spoke with her a few times telephonically--our correspondence occurred through the Internet. That doesn't make this any easier to write.

Jeane claimed--she claimed a lot of things, most-of-which were accurate--that James Grady, author of "Three Days of the Condor" told her (paraphrased), "They've handed you a gun to blow their heads off with." He wasn't wrong, and this story opened a door into things that most of us assumed were going on in Washington D.C. It confirmed our suspicions. Expect it to keep delivering.

What's disturbing is what Jeane told myself and others on the defense team: that she had had contact with Brent Wilkes, the convicted Poway defense contractor who bribed GOP Rep. Randall Cunningham, and likely many-many other congressmen, primarily Republican ones.

Predictably, the comment boards are already flowing with a lot of ignorant speculation that Jeane was somehow "murdered" by a "conspiracy." Larry Flynt has told this to Fox News, but what do expect from Larry Flynt? This is not only disrespectful to the memory of a human being who felt compelled to kill herself by hanging, it's cracked and has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's all about patriarchy-run-amok. There were other names that Jeane told me. Ironically, she had conveyed them to Wayne Madsen very early-on in this story. One of them is Vice President Richard Cheney, though Jeane claimed that it was during the late-1990s when he was CEO of Halliburton. Whenever I asked if she could prove this and other things, I got silence. Take from that what you will.

Here's why: being a researcher on her defense team gave me an inside-view of things. Just weeks before the trial, Jeane sent this e-mail out to Jason Leopold--formerly of Talkout, whose editors forced him from covering the story this year--and forwarded it to the rest of us on the legal defense team. It contains an entire exchange in it for context. From February 28th, 2008 (paragraph-breaks added):

Jason… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. –Best, Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: jasonleopold@hotmail.com [mailto:jasonleopold@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:40 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com; 'Justice League'
Cc: myboigie@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Jeane

I have no doubt that you will prevail. Your fighting spirit is infectious. I am in the process of setting up my own shop. I will actually be in DC for your trial and would love to get you on camera theb for the new nesit if possible.

Best

Jason

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----

From: "Jeane Palfrey"

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:25:30

To:"'Justice League'"

Cc:,

Subject: RE: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Bil… thanks for the kinds words. If USA’s can’t file racketeering charges, then who can? More specifically, who filed them in my case? -Jeane

-----Original Message-----

From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:11 AM

To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com

Cc: jason leopold

Subject: Re: "D.C. Madam trial scheduled for April 7th" (Jeane Palfrey)...

Good Morning Jeane:

Thanks for your update and concerns in your case. I am copying Jason. I will post your email on my blog and on the Newsinkling.org. Jason and I know that you are innocent. Just remember. This is a battle of a much corrupted justice system. And we are with you on the long haul no matter what happen. Keep in mind that your case is in the hands of 12 jurors. You are innocent until proven guilty.

Also, I wanted to bring this to you and Jason. I was watching a webcast of the House Judiciary Committee hearing that was held on Tuesday about the matter of the procedures of a Special Prosecutor. There were two panels of attorneys that were experinced attorneys that dealt with a Special Prosecutor or was a Special Prosecutor or Independent counsel. I watched carefully to the last person to testify in the second panel: USA and Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. One the committee asked this question to Fitzgerald that was interesting:


Cannon: Distinction between special counsel and normal prosecutor.

Patrick Fitzgerald: One common misunderstanding is that we didn't follow DOJ guidelines. I was bound by those guidelines. Many of the procedures I was the decision maker. When you prosecute as USA, you have to follow the guidelines. In an ordinary case, USA has an awful lot of power. In many cases, the volume of our cases, we can bring charges that will imprison people with out possibility of parole. No wiretap without DOJ, no immunity for witnesses, no govt appeal or attorney or member of the media. USAs can't file racketeering charges.

I found the last part of Fitzgerald's statement about racketeering charges interesting. And I appreciate him explaining what the role of as an USA. His statement is a very clear indication on why certain USAs were fired, why certain USAs were selected as interims, and what role within the WH and AG played in allowing certain charges to stick on certain individuals for political and personal means, and finally the handpicking of certain judges in certain cases. It would be interesting on how much power [especially USA Taylor] the selected USA interims with the DOJ by the WH. Here is the link of the webcast. Fitzgerald's testimony is about 15 minutes toward the end: 2:20.52

http://judiciary.edgeboss.net/real/judiciary/commercial/comm022608.smi

Bil

On 2/28/08, Jeane Palfrey > wrote:

My and defense counsel's various efforts the past 17 months to resolve the charges levied against me by the Department of Justice have been unsuccessful. Therefore, a full-jury trial is scheduled to take place on April 7th, in Federal District Court, in Washington, D.C.

I intend to defend myself vigorously against the charges of racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. I will call witnesses to testify on my behalf about the legal, sexual nature of my former business – Pamela Martin & Associates. These witnesses likely will be culled from the existing research – conducted over the past 8 months - by a variety of press/media, bloggers and interested third parties.

It should be noted ALL charges are predicated upon the seldom utilized Travel Act, which allows the Government to claim jurisdiction for ANY crime – including misdemeanor offenses such as prostitution – when state lines are crossed. In the course of regular business operation in the Washington, D.C. area, state lines are crossed routinely by any number of businesses, including escort services. In fact, all one has to do is quite literally cross the street in hundreds, if not thousands of locations in the vicinity to cross a state line.

The Travel Act is important here because – unlike the state misdemeanor crime of prostitution – the Travel Act can be used to satisfy the requirement of an SUA (specified unlawful activity), which must be in place in order for the Government, not only to claim jurisdiction, but to be able to charge racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy. Federal law recognizes dozens of SUAs. Normally, such activities involve murder, treason, rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking, white slavery, extortion, embezzlement, etc and subsequently are utilized to support broader crimes like racketeering and conspiracy.

Perhaps, it also should be stated (and clarified) the racketeering charge is based in part upon the belief my previous business – to this day - is an ongoing criminal enterprise. Pamela Martin & Associates ceased to exist the day phone service was disconnected by me, in August of 2006. Any/all affiliated parties went their separate ways, at this time. The money laundering charge has been built upon the fact that payment transaction was done through the U.S. Mail.

Since I did not live in the Washington, D.C. area, during the 13 year period, PM&A was a viable concern – there realistically was no other logistical way for the women in my employ to send agency revenue onto me. Lastly, conspiracy – from what I have been able to ascertain – ostensibly occurs when two minds agree to commit a crime. Strangely, a person also can conspire with himself/herself, without the inclusion of a second individual.

Without doubt, I am in the fight of my life.Unfortunately, the Government will not capitulate, nor will I in this extremely bizarre case; one,where no person other than myself–including all former clients and escorts-is being charged with any crime here. Technically the Government has been successful in making the charges against me work on paper.

As a result, I have no choice- nor have I ever had any alternative - but to fight on and clear my name via the facts of the case, particularly since - if convicted, federal sentencing guidelines allow for a maximum sentence of 55 years imprisonment. Realistically, it has been calculated I would receive 8 to 10 to 15 years. Nonetheless for me at age 51, such a harsh penalty would be tantamount to a virtual life sentence – stripping me of some of the most productive years remaining in my life.

Jeane Palfrey

There's an image I have of Blanche Palfrey finding her daughter's body, hanging in the shed outside of her residential trailer. It's an image that should stick in the minds of all the "Johns," the privileged ones, forever. This is the real face of our elected (and appointed) representatives, and Republican Senator David Vitter is hardly alone in all of this. It's also the face of privileged businessmen, most of them whom would be nothing without a prostitute-facilitated government handout. Just ask Brent Wilkes. This is the face of lawlessness, a profoundly sexist patriarchy...it is the face of a homegrown American Fascism that so closely resembles a 19th century mining town.

I once told Jeane that she resembled the femme fatale movie star Joan Bennett (of Fritz Lang's "Scarlet Street"). Her response made sense: she she seemed to convey that she was both flattered and taken off-guard. It's horrible to see how accurate the statement was. This political and economic system uses women like Deborah Jeane Palfrey and her former escorts to facilitate government contracts. 

When things get uncovered, the press acts as the gatekeepers that they are (including people like David Corn), and they throw them away through prosecution. Jeane, I hardly knew you, but you didn't deserve this ending. I have to wonder what the dirty political prosecutors told you about sentencing, and whether it contributed to your decision to kill yourself. Your story will be told, and what I've learned in all of this will become public. This I vow.