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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (78281)	3/11/2010 1:12:56 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

GOP wants Eric Massa investigation reopened By JOHN BRESNAHAN & JONATHAN ALLEN \| 3/11/10 12:12 PM EST House Minority Leader John Boehner and other top Republicans will offer a resolution calling on the ethics committee to reopen its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.). "The American people expect that their members of Congress are held to the highest ethical standards," Boehner told reporters on Thursday. Boehner said there are "unanswered questions that have been raised" about the handling of the Massa case by Democrats. POLITICO reported on Wednesday night the Massa's chief of staff, Joe Racalto, contacted an aide in Pelosi's office back in October to discuss problems with Massa's behavior. This was four months before another Massa aide went to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office (D-Md.) with a specific harassment allegation against Massa. Massa resigned from the House on Monday following allegations that he sexually harassed multiple staffers, including alleged "groping" incidents. Massa later publicly admitted to improper behavior but said it wasn't sexually motivated. The ethics committee began an investigation into Massa's conduct but decided to end it on Wednesday following Massa's resignation. Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) said Democratic leaders should be forced to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it, as Republican leaders did in the Mark Foley affair in 2006. He said Pelosi called the Foley situation "abhorrent" and pressed for an investigation. "The same standard should apply," Cantor insisted. "I think the American people expect more," he said, noting that Pelosi "promised more." The GOP resolution calls for a full investigation of "which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge prior to March 3" of allegations against Massa and what actions each person with knowledge took; establishment of an investigative subcommittee within 10 days; requires full cooperation by members and staff and preservation of records; instructs that the Chief Administrative Officer of the House to ensure no destruction or deletion of electronic records, including texts, emails and voicemails; and calls for a final report by the ethics committee to be issued no later than June 30. Republicans stated that "the possibility House Democratic leaders may have failed to immediately confront Rep. Massa about allegations of sexual harassment may have exposed employees and interns of Rep. Massa to continued harassment." GOP leaders added that the Massa incident, and the resulting media uproar since POLITICO first reported on the harassment allegations on March 3, "have held the House up to public ridicule." politico.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78281)	3/11/2010 1:41:39 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

'In preparing thousands of pages for submission, it was unfortunately and inadvertently missed.' By: Kathryn Jean Lopez The Corner After not responding to NRO for comment, the Department of Justice did respond to Fox News yesterday about our Burck/Perino piece on Eric Holder's non-disclosure of his Jose Padilla amicus briefs during his confirmation hearings. It's not like these were dental records Eric Holder left out. It's a little more than "unfortunate." It's disingenuous. And it just happens to be about our national security. And he just happens to be attorney general now. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78281)	3/11/2010 1:51:09 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Sessions 'Deeply Concerned' Over Holder Oversight By: Daniel Foster The Corner Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on the news of Attorney General Eric Holder's non-disclosure: <<< I am deeply concerned by Attorney General Holder’s failure to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee his third-party brief in support of Jose Padilla’s Supreme Court case. Not only was the Attorney General required to provide the brief as part of his confirmation, but the opinions expressed in it go to the heart of his responsibilities in matters of national security. This is an extremely serious matter and the Attorney General will have to address it immediately. It is essential that we have full confidence, and receive full candor, from the official leading the Department of Justice. >>> corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78281)	3/11/2010 2:15:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Sticks and Stones Bill Burck & Dana Perino The Corner We’ve been called war criminals by left-wing bloggers because we worked in the Bush administration and believe that President’s Bush’s national security policies kept the nation safe after 9/11. We don’t think we are, and we hope our friends and family don’t either, but we’re grownups and can handle name-calling. We’ve chosen to enter the political realm and the public debate, so that kind of thing sort of comes with the territory. That’s one reason why we are having a hard time sympathizing with the lawyers at Justice who represented Guantanamo detainees or other suspected terrorists. They are not in cahoots with al-Qaeda. They should be allowed to work at the Department of Justice and advise Attorney General Eric Holder on detainee issues, assuming they comply with their ethical obligations to avoid conflicts of interest. But they are political appointees hired in large measure because of their political viewpoints and policy preferences; they are not career officials for whom such considerations would be prohibited. So, forgive us if we think they should have a bit thicker skin. Like us, they chose to enter the fray. They are trained advocates who can defend themselves, and we are sure they are more than capable of withstanding a little bit of political heat. Not to mention that many of them were more than happy to be identified by name in more friendly settings. Go online and you can find numerous press releases from their law firms, law schools, and advocacy centers celebrating the lawyers for their work on behalf of detainees. Congress is entirely within its rights to know who advises the attorney general on matters of national security — not so these people can be driven out of government or to shut them up, but so the public knows who is helping shape policy. What legitimate grounds could there be in a democracy to hide from the public the identities or responsibilities of political appointees? Because Keep America Safe might put up another ad? Please. We wrote a piece yesterday about Supreme Court briefs Holder signed onto in 2004 and 2005 supporting Jose Padilla. Holder failed to disclose these briefs as he was required to during his confirmation hearings, and the Department of Justice has admitted this. As we discussed, the briefs provide a roadmap to many of Holder’s current policies, but one of them is also notable for admitting there might be trade-offs between protecting the individual rights of suspected terrorists and protecting national security, which Holder denies (as does the president) now that he’s atop the Justice Department. We expect most people would agree that Holder’s policy views are very relevant to how he operates as a public official. So are those of the political appointees he chooses to surround himself with. We suspect many of them believe, as Holder did in his brief, that there is some level of risk we should be willing to bear to protect the rights of suspected terrorists. There’s no reason to think that this is anything other than an honestly held view. But how much risk they are willing to take is a legitimate topic for public debate. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (78281)	3/11/2010 2:17:23 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Eric Holder vs. John Adams Marc Thiessen The Corner I have a piece up for the Washington Post explaining why the al-Qaeda lawyers are wrong to wrap themselves in the mantle of John Adams. Thanks to the spade work of Bill Burck and Dana Perino, we now know why Holder was stonewalling on the identities of the “Al Qaeda 7” — he was one of them! If Holder and co. are simply carrying on the traditions of John Adams, why were they hiding their roles in seeking the release of enemy combatants? If they are proud of their work, why don’t they stand up and say so? corner.nationalreview.com