premeditation?

Posted on Saturday 15 December 2007


The Justice Department’s voting rights chief stepped down Friday amid allegations that he’d used the position to aid a Republican strategy to suppress African-American votes. John Tanner became the latest of about a dozen senior department officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who’ve resigned in recent months in a scandal over the politicization of the Justice Department in the Bush administration. In recent months, McClatchy has reported on a pattern of decision-making within the department’s Civil Rights Division, of which the Voting Rights Section is a part, that tended to narrow the voting rights of Democratic-leaning minorities.

Tanner has been enmeshed for months in congressional investigations over his stewardship of the unit that was established to protect minority-voting rights. He drew increased focus this fall after he told a Latino group: "African-Americans don’t become elderly the way white people do. They die." In addition, the Justice Department opened an internal investigation into allegations that Tanner unfairly had deprived two veteran African-American staffers of bonuses and that he and a deputy had misused tax dollars on official trips.

Department spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement that Tanner, of his own accord, "made the decision to pursue (an) opportunity" to work in the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices. But his transfer to a lower-profile job appeared to continue a quiet housecleaning that began after retired judge Michael Mukasey took over as attorney general early last month with a vow to rid the agency of partisanship.
Shortly after he became section chief in 2005, Tanner reversed the recommendation of the career staff that the department object to a Georgia law requiring voters in that state to produce photo identification cards. The staff had argued that the law would disenfranchise minority voters. A federal judge later blocked implementation of the law, likening it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax because poor minority voters, who are most likely to lack driver’s licenses, would be required to buy photo IDs. This October, after making his comments about the shorter life span of blacks while defending the Georgia law, Tanner apologized for his "clumsiness" before a House Judiciary subcommittee.

Tanner also drew harsh criticism for directing a crackdown to force states to purge hundreds of thousands of names from voter registration rolls, an initiative that critics charge was aimed at disenfranchising minority voters, who move frequently. He’s facing an investigation by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility into multiple allegations that he mistreated staff and abused his travel privileges. At least two of the inquiries stem from formal complaints from members of his staff. In late November, the Web site TPM Muckraker reported that Tanner had made taxpayer-funded trips to Hawaii for three straight years, twice staying a full week although his work was completed within a couple of business days. The Web site said he’d made 36 trips covering 97 days since taking the helm in May 2005.
The Department of Justice must sound like an echo chamber, so many people have left this year. Last week marked the anniversary of the U.S. Attorney firings that led to the investigation that sent so many of them packing. In some ways, John Tanner is collateral damage. As the investigation proceeded, it became apparent that one of the biggest travesties of Justice in the Department was the conversion of the Civil Rights Division into an agency that took away Civil Rights and limited Minority Voters access to the voting booth. This was the scandal that finally "got somewhere." To me, the great irony of this scandal is that its victims were, to a person, loyal Republicans, Bush appointees. Their sin was doing their job, or worse, falling behind in the business of prosecuting Democrats and "voter fraud" [Rove’s code word for Minorities]. The cover was the charge that Democrats were registering unlawful voters to pad the vote. In all of this investigation, I’ve yet to hear of an instance where that was true. It was, in fact, consistent with other Bush run scams – a self righteous campaign fighting some made-up, or trumped up, or exagerated evil to justify their own agenda. Now Bush is stonewalling, not allowing Karl Rove [recent resignee] and Josh Bolten to testify about their role and the President’s knowledge of the lead-up to the U.S. Attorney firings.

Clearly, the Department of Justice was actively invaded to pursue Republican political aims. Clearly, there was Obstruction of Justice along a variety of premiditated axes. But what I wonder is if they infiltrated the Depatment of Justice, in order to avoid investigation or prosecution of themselves, the Executive Branch. Did they actually know they were going to come under legal scrutiny sooner or later? Was their populating the DOJ with political operatives specifically to make them bulletproof from prosecution [meaning that they knew they were on thin ice from the start and planned for it]? Recall that President Bush issued this Executive Oreder in November 2001:
Presidential Records Act Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures implementing section 2204 of title 44 of the United States Code with respect to constitutionally based privileges, including those that apply to Presidential records reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President’s advisors, and to do so in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), and other cases, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Sec. 3. Procedure for Administering Privileged Presidential Records.

Consistent with the requirements of the Constitution and the Presidential Records Act, the Archivist shall administer Presidential records under section 2204(c) of title 44 in the following manner:

(a) At an appropriate time after the Archivist receives a request for access to Presidential records under section 2204(c)(1), the Archivist shall provide notice to the former President and the incumbent President and, as soon as practicable, shall provide the former President and the incumbent President copies of any records that the former President and the incumbent President request to review.

(b) After receiving the records he requests, the former President shall review those records as expeditiously as possible, and for no longer than 90 days for requests that are not unduly burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester during this period of review or when requested by the former President to extend the time for review.

(c) After review of the records in question, or of any other potentially privileged records reviewed by the former President, the former President shall indicate to the Archivist whether the former President requests withholding of or authorizes access to any privileged records.

(d) Concurrent with or after the former President’s review of the records, the incumbent President or his designee may also review the records in question, or may utilize whatever other procedures the incumbent President deems appropriate to decide whether to concur in the former President’s decision to request withholding of or authorize access to the records.

(1) When the former President has requested withholding of the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President’s decision to request withholding of records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. The Archivist shall not permit access to those records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President’s decision to request withholding of the records as privileged, the incumbent President shall so inform the former President and the Archivist. Because the former President independently retains the right to assert constitutionally based privileges, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

(2) When the former President has authorized access to the records:

(i) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President concurs in the former President’s decision to authorize access to the records, the Archivist shall permit access to the records by the requester.

(ii) If under the standard set forth in section 4 below, the incumbent President does not concur in the former President’s decision to authorize access to the records, the incumbent President may independently order the Archivist to withhold privileged records. In that instance, the Archivist shall not permit access to the records by a requester unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 4. Concurrence by Incumbent President.

Absent compelling circumstances, the incumbent President will concur in the privilege decision of the former President in response to a request for access under section 2204(c)(1). When the incumbent President concurs in the decision of the former President to request withholding of records within the scope of a constitutionally based privilege, the incumbent President will support that privilege claim in any forum in which the privilege claim is challenged.

Sec. 5. Incumbent President’s Right to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the incumbent President’s right to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(B).

Sec. 6. Right of Congress and Courts to Obtain Access.

This order does not expand or limit the rights of a court, House of Congress, or authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress to obtain access to the records of a former President pursuant to section 2205(2)(A) or section 2205(2)(C). With respect to such requests, the former President shall review the records in question and, within 21 days of receiving notice from the Archivist, indicate to the Archivist his decision with respect to any privilege. The incumbent President shall indicate his decision with respect to any privilege within 21 days after the former President has indicated his decision. Those periods may be extended by the former President or the incumbent President for requests that are burdensome. The Archivist shall not permit access to the records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 7. No Effect on Right to Withhold Records.

This order does not limit the former President’s or the incumbent President’s right to withhold records on any ground supplied by the Constitution, statute, or regulation.

Sec. 8. Withholding of Privileged Records During 12-Year Period.

In the period not to exceed 12 years after the conclusion of a Presidency during which section 2204(a) and section 2204(b) of title 44 apply, a former President or the incumbent President may request withholding of any privileged records not already protected from disclosure under section 2204. If the former President or the incumbent President so requests, the Archivist shall not permit access to any such privileged records unless and until the incumbent President advises the Archivist that the former President and the incumbent President agree to authorize access to the records or until so ordered by a final and nonappealable court order.

Sec. 9. Establishment of Procedures.

This order is not intended to indicate whether and under what circumstances a former President should assert or waive any privilege. The order is intended to establish procedures for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.

Sec. 10. Designation of Representative.

The former President may designate a represen-tative (or series or group of alternative representatives, as the former President in his discretion may determine) to act on his behalf for purposes of the Presidential Records Act and this order. Upon the death or disability of a former President, the former President’s designated representative shall act on his behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges. In the absence of any designated representative after the former President’s death or disability, the family of the former President may designate a representative (or series or group of alternative representatives, as they in their discre-tion may determine) to act on the former President’s behalf for purposes of the Act and this order, including with respect to the assertion of constitutionally based privileges.

Sec. 11. Vice Presidential Records.

(a) Pursuant to section 2207 of title 44 of the United States Code, the Presidential Records Act applies to the executive records of the Vice President. Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this order shall also apply with respect to any such records that are subject to any constitutionally based privilege that the former Vice President may be entitled to invoke, but in the administration of this order with respect to such records, references in this order to a former President shall be deemed also to be references to the relevant former Vice President.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not be deemed to authorize a Vice President or former Vice President to invoke any constitutional privilege of a President or former President except as authorized by that President or former President.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant, limit, or otherwise affect any privilege of a President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice President.

Sec. 12. Judicial Review.

This order is intended to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party, other than a former President or his designated representative, against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

Sec. 13. Revocation.

Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 1, 2001.

  1.  
    joyhollywood
    December 15, 2007 | 11:24 PM
     

    I don’t think our founding fathers envisioned a president like George W and a vice president like Dick. I’m really bummed out by the hopelessness of the whole situation from the beginning of their reign till now. As far as Josh Bolten being a recent resignee, if my memory serves me, Josh Bolten is still Bush’s chief of staff having replaced Andrew Card.

  2.  
    joyhollywood
    December 16, 2007 | 1:13 PM
     

    Check out the site warandpiece.com today it writes about Valerie Plame and some of her CIA associates trying to testify in the case.

  3.  
    December 16, 2007 | 10:20 PM
     

    Whoops. I was thinking of Card [they’re all beginning to run together]…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.