Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (40447)	9/27/2005 8:50:32 AM
From: T L Comiskey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362352

The NY Times September 27, 2005 Demotion of a Prosecutor Is Investigated By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 - The Justice Department's inspector general and the F.B.I. are looking into the demotion of a veteran federal prosecutor whose reassignment nearly three years ago shut down a criminal investigation of the Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, current and former department officials report. They said investigators had questioned whether the demotion of the prosecutor, Frederick A. Black, in November 2002 was related to his alert to Justice Department officials days earlier that he was investigating Mr. Abramoff. The lobbyist is a major Republican Party fund-raiser and a close friend of several Congressional leaders. Colleagues said the demotion of Mr. Black, the acting United States attorney in Guam, and a subsequent order barring him from pursuing public corruption cases brought an end to his inquiry into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying work for some Guam judges. Colleagues of Mr. Black, who had run the federal prosecutor's office in Guam for 12 years, spoke on condition of anonymity because of Justice Department rules that bar employees from talking to reporters. They said F.B.I. agents questioned several people in Guam and Washington this summer about whether Mr. Abramoff or his friends in the Bush administration had pushed for Mr. Black's removal. Mr. Abramoff's internal e-mail messages show that he boasted to clients about what he described as his close ties to John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, and others at the department. Mr. Black's colleagues said that similar questions had been raised by investigators for the Justice Department's inspector general's office, which serves as the department's internal watchdog. Spokesmen for the department in Washington have said there was nothing unusual about the timing of Mr. Black's reassignment in 2002. They said it was appropriate for the Bush administration to want to replace him with a permanent, Senate-confirmed United States attorney. Mr. Abramoff, once one of the capital's best-paid lobbyists, is now the subject of a broad corruption investigation by federal prosecutors in Washington focusing on accusations that he defrauded Indian tribes and their gambling operations out of millions of dollars in lobbying fees. A spokesman for Mr. Abramoff said he had "no recollection of being investigated in Guam in 2002" but would have cooperated if he had been aware of any inquiry at the time. Mr. Abramoff had a lucrative lobbying practice on Guam and the neighboring Northern Mariana Islands, another American territory; his lobbying clients paid for luxurious trips to the islands for several members of Congress. Justice Department officials said they knew of no evidence to suggest that Mr. Ashcroft was involved in the decision to reassign Mr. Black. A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft said the former attorney general and his aides at the Justice Department had done nothing to assist Mr. Abramoff and his clients and had had no significant contact with him. Reached in Guam, Mr. Black, who continues to work as an assistant United States attorney, declined to answer questions about his 2002 reassignment. The Los Angeles Times and news organizations in Guam have reported on questions about the circumstances of Mr. Black's demotion. The recent inquiries by the F.B.I. and by the Justice Department's inspector general had not been previously reported; nor had Mr. Black's contacts in November 2002 with the department's public integrity section about his investigation of Mr. Abramoff. In a statement on Monday, the department said it was natural for the Bush administration to replace Mr. Black, whose assignment to run the United States attorney's office was never meant to be permanent, with a White House selection. The department said the vetting process for Mr. Black's replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, the current United States attorney, was "well under way in November 2002," when the nomination was announced. Colleagues said they recalled that Mr. Black was distressed when he was notified by the department in November 2002 that he was being replaced. The announcement came only days after Mr. Black had notified the department's public integrity division in Washington, by telephone and e-mail communication, that he had opened a criminal investigation into Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities for the Guam judges, the colleague said. The judges had sought Mr. Abramoff's help in blocking a bill in Congress to restructure the island's courts. The colleagues said that Mr. Black was also surprised when his newly arrived bosses in Guam blocked him from involvement in public corruption cases in 2003. Justice Department officials said Mr. Black was asked instead to focus on terrorism investigations, which had taken on new emphasis after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Whatever the motivation in replacing Fred, his demotion meant that the investigation of Abramoff died," said a former colleague in Guam. The Justice Department's public integrity section is responsible for cases involving government corruption. It is now overseeing the larger investigation of Mr. Abramoff in Washington. Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who has long focused on issues involving American territories in the Pacific, said the disclosures about Mr. Black's demotion raised questions about a possible conflict of interest at the Justice Department in its investigation of Mr. Abramoff. "What this starts to suggest is that Abramoff's ability to corrupt the system was far more pervasive, certainly than we knew at the time," Mr. Miller said.

To: American Spirit who wrote (40447)	9/27/2005 10:26:04 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362352

Here's an interesting perspective... _____________________________________________ Is Bush weak or strong? He's both BY MICHAEL TACKETT Chicago Tribune WASHINGTON - (KRT) - So let's just be clear: President Bush is strong because he is weak. He has remarkably low standing in the polls. His signature domestic proposal of a sweeping overhaul in Social Security - complete with private accounts - is sinking, if not sunk. Support is waning for the war in Iraq. And the administration is still trying to recover from a poor initial response to Hurricane Katrina. If the president ever had the political capital he claimed from his re-election, it long has been depleted. It would seem, then, that this would be the time to make an actual accommodation, prove up the uniter-not-a-divider rhetoric and nominate someone to the Supreme Court who is in the mold of the justice about to be replaced, Sandra Day O'Connor. Which is to say, not a doctrinaire conservative who would simply ignite a partisan firestorm and give the Democrats something they have so desperately lacked, namely a coherent national forum for criticizing the president. But, apparently, this is no time to make sense. No, this is the time to make history, at least as defined by conservatives. The way many of them see it, Bush needs them now more than ever, and as such he needs to deliver for them. What do they want? The second coming of Antonin Scalia as a first choice or Clarence Thomas as a close second. In other words, no one like the woman nominated to the Supreme Court by none other than their hero, Ronald Reagan. Democrats have already prepared the battlefield for just such a fight. They lust for the chance to heap truckloads of ridicule on Bush over a broad range of issues. Many of them will think they have ready cover to savage Bush's next choice when they vote to confirm his first, John Roberts Jr., as chief justice of the United States this week. To which the conservatives say: So what? "Since the Democrats are going to go after the next guy whoever it is, I think the smart move for the Bush White House is a very serious, solid person, not someone you try to buy Democratic votes with because that ain't happening," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. No time, in other words, for Bush to start rewarding his enemies. "The one group staying loyal are conservatives," said a Republican strategist with strong ties to several conservative groups, including those pressing the White House on the Supreme Court. "So it would really be a mistake to tick them off at this point. In fact, it almost argues for picking a conservative now because Roberts went over so well with the country. People think Bush did a good job on picking judges." But if the White House has another Roberts in waiting - a genial, brainiac conservative with a non-threatening manner - that will be a revelation in itself. At least one Democrat who already has voted for Roberts, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a member of the Judiciary Committee, is cautioning the president to reject the conservatives' special pleadings. For example, either of two federal appeals court judges recently approved by the Senate after an unusual procedural compromise, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, would be huge mistakes, Feingold said. "He would be asking for a very difficult fight, including from people like me, who gave him the benefit of the doubt on John Roberts," Feingold said. Under a strange agreement earlier this year, the Senate decided that it would not filibuster a judicial nominee unless there were "extraordinary circumstances." Count on that term having an expansive definition in the Democratic dictionary. Many conservatives believe that Democrats will try to eviscerate any nominee that Bush puts forth, so why try to dance? Instead, blow up the filibuster, which would mean 40 Senators could no longer block a nomination, and move on with essentially a party-line vote. Who will remember the vote margin 20 years from now? But everyone will remember the impact of the court. Not that conservatives aren't exerting their own form of pressure. They have their own list of nominees they deem unacceptable, and to many, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tops the list. "For whatever reason, people who care about judges don't think he is a Scalia or Thomas," Norquist said. "You've got a half-dozen people who the movement thinks would be perfect and would be comfortable with. Is it possible that Gonzales is Scalia? I suppose. It's also possible that he is (moderate Justice David) Souter. "So because the stakes are so high and the appointment is forever, the standard of proof is higher. And it's not as if you went with a guy who is 10 percent less conservative you would have 10 percent less opposition." And while Norquist said that conservatives might give Bush some quarter on other issues, there is no margin for error among them when it comes to the court. "If the issue is we must invade Grenada, fine, we trust you," he said. "Invading Grenada is not forever. Supreme Court justices are." Conservatives feel like they can roll the president just as some liberals feel they can roll the leadership of the Democratic Party. Why? Because success in the midterm elections in 2006 is dependent on turning out core voters in large numbers. So any senator facing a difficult election wouldn't likely reject any nominee who doesn't excite the base. "The No. 1 desire of the pro-family movement is to overturn Roe v. Wade," the strategist said. "The No. 1 fear is legalization of same-sex marriage. There is no wiggle room." So Republicans and Democrats each have a self-interest in perceiving the president as weak. Which means the president is actually strong. And can make almost any choice he wants.