They Did What !

All people in this country must be able to trust that criminal prosecutions are based on an unbiased prosecutor’s estimation of the strength of the evidence and the application of the law, and not on someone’s political portfolio. Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers

On October 23, 2007 a House Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing on "Allegations of Selective Prosecution: The Erosion of Public Confidence in Our Federal Justice System.”

• A Republican former Attorney General of the United States described his deep concern that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has misused its prosecutorial power for political reasons.
• A former U.S. attorney recounted disturbing facts suggesting that DOJ officials may have overridden the judgments of local career prosecutors for political reasons.
• Witnesses described investigators who seem to have targeted individuals to find crimes, rather than investigating crimes which led to the individuals.
• Numerous cases from various states were mentioned where individuals stepped forward to present facts giving rise to fears that justice itself has been compromised - for political reasons.
• There was data from a Ph.D. professor showing a massive disparity in investigations and prosecutions of Democrats over Republicans during the Bush Administration.

Below are just a few examples of the selective prosecutions brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee.

U.S. V. DONALD SIEGELMAN (M.D. ALA) Forty-four former attorneys general, both Democratic and Republican, petitioned the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to investigate the circumstances surrounding the investigation, prosecution, sentencing and detention of Don Siegleman, former governor of Alabama. A sworn affidavit by a lawyer who worked in the campaign of Siegelman’s opponent in the 2006 gubernatorial contest, stated that the spouse of the federal prosecutor in this case said his wife and another federal prosecutor would “take care of” Mr. Siegleman and that he had talked with a political operative for the White House concerning such assurances. There are disturbing questions about partisanship in the judicial system concerning the involvement of three sitting federal judges. One of these concerns the federal judge who heard the case. He was, at the same time, a federal contractor dependent on the administration for those contracts, an obvious conflict of interests. This same judge previously accused Siegleman of being responsible for an investigation into his accounting practices when he was district attorney resulting in an embarrassing situation for him. Evidence has emerged that Karl Rove was in direct contact with the head of the Public Integrity Section of the DOJ and explicitly encouraged him to go after Mr. Siegleman.

PROSECUTION OF GEORGIA STATE SENATOR CHARLES WALKER, SR. This case reeks of political motivation with racial undertones. The U.S. Attorney who started the investigation, seemingly at the behest of Walker’s political opponent, was himself investigated and found to have abused his office resulting in his resignation. The judge whose nomination had been opposed by Walker, was known to have belonged to clubs that discriminated on a racial basis. His interference with jury selection resulted in four jurors who knew they had been stricken being reinstated therefore creating a racial biased jury.

U.S. V. THOMPSON, CASE NO. 06-CR-20 (EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN) State procurement section chief Georgia Thompson’s prosecution was a flimsy case that was overturned on appeal. But before she was cleared, Thompson’s defense cost her all her life savings, her job and her home. In addition to thin evidence, the timing and location of her prosecution is suspect. Ms. Thompson was brought to trial in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) although she lived and worked in state government in the Western District (Madison). The ongoing investigation was announced in the fall of 2005, She was indicted in January 2006, the trial began that summer and Thompson was sentenced in September before the gubernatorial election in November. During that entire period, millions of dollars of Republican ads ran depicting Ms. Thompson as a symbol of corruption in the incumbent Democratic governor’s administration.

UNITED STATES V. FIEGER, DOCKET NO. 07-20414 (E.D. MICH) : Geoffrey Fieger was targeted by the DOJ based on his financial support to the John Edwards 2004 presidential campaign. With the express approval of AG Alberto Gonzales, nearly 100 federal agents raided the Michigan law office of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney and Johnson. Simultaneously federal agents appeared at the homes of nearly all the employees of the Fieger firm. Convening a 2 year grand jury, federal prosecutors, trashed First Amendment protections, compelling individuals, under threat of the DOJ, to reveal for whom they voted in the presidential election as well as their history of donations to political candidates. One charge against Mr. Fieger was making contributions “in the name of another” because he gave bonuses to his employees who voluntarily made contributions to John Edwards in their own names and with their own funds. With this theory, the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department has free reign to charge almost any employer or corporate employee with a crime. Or to put it simply, you are vulnerable if you receive a bonus from your employer and also make political contributions.

PROSECUTION OF OLIVER E. DIAZ, JR. PRESIDING JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI A federal prosecutor decided to look into the financial activities of a specific citizen, Paul Minor, in an attempt to see if those transactions could be construed as a federal offense. This U.S, Attorney had personal and political motivations to see that Minor and his co-defendants were convicted. Minor was an attorney who had successfully represented clients suing the family business of the prosecutor. Minor was also one of the largest donors to John Edwards and the largest single donor to Democratic candidates in Mississippi including Judge Diaz in his campaign for the Mississippi Supreme Court. As a judge on the Court of Appeals, Diaz had ruled against this same federal prosecutor in several cases. Diaz was indicted, tried and fully acquitted twice. The three other men, including Minor, have been sentenced to lengthy terms in federal prison. They were selected for prosecution based solely on their political activities, charged when others who have done the same things were not. One of those not charged is Trent Lott’s brother-in-law.

RECENT STUDY BY TWO UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS Authors: Donald C. Shields, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota, 1974) is Professor Emeritus, Department of Communication, University of Missouri - St. Louis. John F. Cragan (University of Minnesota, 1972) is Professor Emeritus, Department of Communication, Illinois State University.

Study data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops. This is a politicized ratio that is completely unparalleled by any other Public Integrity Section in recent history.

As Phil Smith wrote in his Report from Birmingham:

“This is ultimately not about Republicans or Democrats, because when the already high price attached to the blood sport of politics and public service has been elevated to an individual’s complete destruction, a ruined career, and imprisonment, everyone loses. Everyone.”

The cases listed above are from documents found on the House Judiciary Committee website.
(Google: house judiciary oversight selective prosecution)

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you do, then you will have to help preserve it. There is something very important going on and it will take each of us stepping up to stop it. FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin continues his campaign to hand over our airwaves to Big Media. He is pushing once again to weaken the rules that govern cross-ownership of media outlets. Independent journalism is disappearing as media ownership becomes more and more consolidated. This consolidation gives us “managed” news. The conglomerates decide what we hear about and what we don’t. They decide what is in the public’s best interest. Are you satisfied with others deciding that for you?

The past two decades have witnessed the number of major corporations that dominate television, movies, music, radio, cable, publishing and the Internet dwindle from 50 to less than two dozen — with power concentrated especially in 10 huge conglomerates. While enriching investors, these changes have endangered democracy – which demands an informed citizenry with access to a variety of voices and viewpoints. ( http://www.freepress.net/issues/ownership )

Bill Moyers continues to speak out against the FCC’s justifications for further media consolidation:

First, the claim that newspapers are in dire financial straights depends on your definition of dire. The average profit margin for publicly-traded newspaper firms last year was 17-18 percent – that’s higher than the average Fortune 500. Second, Chairman Martin says his new rules would just affect the 20 big markets. Not so. A giant loophole buried in the fine print could open the back door to runaway consolidation in nearly every market, large and small. Third, it’s the FCC’s charge to ensure ‘competition, localism and diversity’ in media. These new rules fail on all three accounts. The FCC’s own data shows that markets with cross-owned outlets provide less news as a whole. And when it comes to diversity, these new rules will make a disgraceful situation even worse. The very few commercial TV stations owned by people of color – hardly 3 percent of the total – will be in the crosshairs of the media giants. Fourth, who do these guys work for, anyway? As you will see on our website at PBS.org, one FCC commissioner after another has gone to work in the media world. How can you serve the public when in the back of your mind you think that one day Rupert Murdoch may have a big job for you? Remember Michael Powell? He was the last FCC chairman who wanted to let big media have all it can eat. Powell is now in the pay of “the world’s leading private equity firm focused on media, entertainment, communications and information investments.” Finally, whatever your position on this, you have until December 11th –December 11th – to let the FCC, Congress, and the White House know what you think; that’s when the FCC’s public comment period closes. Check it out on our website. ( From Bill Moyers Journal, November 16, 2007: )

We need to flood the FCC, Congress, and the White House with calls, letters and emails insisting they stop the growing consolidation of media ownership. We need to do it NOW. December 11 is only two weeks away. Please take a few minutes now and let them know you value a free press and you want the FCC to stop selling out to Big Media. For your convenience contact information for the FCC, Congress and the White House is listed below.

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554
Chairman Kevin J. Martin:
KJMWEB@fcc.gov
202.418.1000

Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
202.418.2000

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein
Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
202.418.2300

Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate
dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
202.418.2500

Commissioner Robert McDowell
Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov
202.418.2200

Members of Congress::
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
PHONE COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
EMAIL: comments@whitehouse.gov

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Milton Friedman is the man we can thank (or not) for the Free Market Theory that fueled deregulation and globalization. Just as Marxism sounded good to the idealistic in the 40’s, the free market premise sounds good to the idealists of today. Marxism was supposed to produce a worker’s utopia. The free market is supposed to create a thriving capitalistic economy that serves everyone.

We know how well Marxism worked in practice. Friedman’s belief that economic self-determination raises the overall quality of life and will automatically self-correct when problems occur is another pie in the sky dream. It might work in a perfect world but the problem is, we do not live in a perfect world.

Just a cursory glance reveals two problems with Friedman’s theory: First, markets seek only to maximize profits therefore the greater good plays no part in their decisions. Second, in a world peopled with humans who have those pesky traits of greed, ambition, and selfishness, the ideal will always become distorted.

Need some factual proof? The crash of 1929 and the great depression came about in a market that was regulating itself. It was this man made catastrophe that brought about recognition of the need for the very government regulations that Friedman calls spoilers. More currently, the sub-prime mortgage crisis decimating today’s housing market is the result of deregulation of the lending industry.

While proponents tout the advantages of a free market, they seem oblivious to their own words versus actions contradictions:

• They grant tax breaks and subsidies that benefit certain corporations.
• They ratify trade agreements with other countries that benefit the wealthy but continue suppression of the poor,
• They allow control of our economy by banks through the Federal Reserve and removal of the gold standard for our currency.
• They allow inequity that crushes the honest competition on which a true free market is based, by giving corporations the rights of an individual.

Do you suppose they are not really oblivious to these contradictions, but rather are deliberately misleading the people? That would mean they know that these actions turn the free market into a managed market – managed for the benefit of the wealthy few without regard for the effect on the poor and middle class many.

Would they really do such a thing? Take a look at the world around you, then you tell me.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We need to rename the Decider. He should be called President Dooh Nibor (that’s Robin Hood backwards) because he and his anything-but-merry men have been robbing the poor to provide for the rich and fighting against justice and democracy.

Have you noticed the Catch 22 these wretched people have created that makes us look like puppies chasing their tails? It is a pattern they repeat over and over and it goes like this:

• They do something that is unconstitutional or downright illegal.
• An investigation is started, subpoenas are served, and hearings are held.
• They assert executive privilege, allege state secrets, and claim National Security interests.
• The investigation is blocked, the truth remains hidden, and the assault on democracy continues.
• Or if all else fails and there is actually an indictment ending in conviction, a presidential pardon is issued.

This president and his henchmen remind me of a line from Star Trek’s Captain Jean-Luc Picard. It’s as if they utter the words “Make it so” and black becomes white, up becomes down, and lies become truth.

The state-secrets privilege was meant to be a narrow evidentiary privilege and there may be a legitimate need to keep some information secret. But it was never meant to be used as a shield for illegal actions.

The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution but some consider it to be an element of the doctrine of separation of powers. In the United States vs Nixon, 1974, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege." In a Supreme Court decision in 2004, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power not to be lightly invoked.”

President Bush apparently does not agree with the court’s evaluation of this privilege, invoking it whenever his cronies, (Rove, Myers, Cheney, et al), are asked to produce documents or testify before Congress.

Obviously, National Security requires that some things not be made public but it is not the blanket excuse for secrecy that this administration has made it. The total lack of transparency in our government during the Bush-Cheney years should be alarming to everyone who believes in our democratic way of life. Republicans particularly should be alarmed because this administration has undermined just about everything the Republican Party stands for:

The party of family values, has become the party of scandals both sexual and financial.
The party of fiscal responsibility has become the party of spending and large deficits.
The party of small government has become the party of an huge and incompetent bureacracy.

What will finally be enough? What do Bush-Cheney have to do to make the American people stand up and demand they stop? Are we going to wait until they attack Iran and embroil us in yet another “preventive” war? God help us and the rest of the world if that is what it takes.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 05:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

More and more these days, I feel like I’m in Wonderland and the Mad Hatter is in charge. There will be a startling item in the news, in a commentary, or in an article. It will be about an issue of real import but after that initial mention, it just fades away, rarely if ever to be heard about again. Even more astounding is the frequency with which the obvious and logical consequences that should result from the issue never materialize.

A case in point is all the debate about waterboarding. It is torture, it isn’t torture, and back and forth it goes with the administration, lawyers, legislators, and pundits, all joining in.

Then comes the news that a man named Daniel Levin, in his capacity as acting assistant attorney general, was assigned the task of determining the legality of the various techniques referred to as “enhanced interrogation.” After subjecting himself to waterboarding to help with his decision, Levin declared that it is torture. He did not say, it might be torture, or perhaps under some circumstances it could be torture. He said IT IS TORTURE.

So that settled it. Well, not exactly. His report didn’t see the light of day, he lost his job; the administration, while claiming “The United States of America… does not torture,” continued to allow waterboarding, and the debate continued to rage.

Once Levin’s conclusion did surface (three years after the fact) surely then, the debate ended and waterboarding was banned... Right? Wrong.

The debate continues, the new almost-Attorney General isn’t sure if waterboarding is torture, and we can only assume the use of waterboarding continues as well. Are we living in some kind of a nut house? Has the entire populace gone mad? How is it possible in this, the land of the free, that we allow this kind of thing to go on?

How can an honorable man do the job he is given, be fired for doing it well, and we allow it ?

How can a technique that any sane person knows is torture be used by our government and we allow it ?

How can our country charge, convict, and sentence to 15 years, a Japanese officer for war crimes for using waterboarding,* then later claim it is not torture, and we allow it ?

How can this administration act like they can do whatever they want regardless of what the Constitution says, and we allow it ?

We can complain to one another about the administration, about the weak congress, or anything else that is going on. But until we recognize that our lack of action, our refusal to speak truth to power, enables these things to continue we are just tilting at windmills.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.”

That was never more true than it is today.

* See Washington Post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

Posted by Trish Purcell at 07:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In early 2007 Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 which he claims is to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” It is one of the most alarming things he has done.

This document gives the President the authority to decide what constitutes a “catastrophic emergency” leaving it so vaguely defined that even a big earthquake or hurricane could qualify. And once such an emergency is declared, the president then has the authority to do whatever he thinks is necessary to guarantee the continuity of government.

Under this directive, he can suspend the Constitution – not just habeas corpus, but the entire Constitution; he can cancel upcoming elections; he can even launch a nuclear attack. And he can do all this without input or oversight from the legislative or judicial branches of government. The President’s hubris doesn’t stop there. Apparently there are several clauses in this document that he refuses to disclose on grounds of, yep, you guessed it, “national security concerns.”

Have you heard anything about this Presidential Directive on the news? Have you heard of any congressional oversight committee holding hearings on it? Neither have I and it is impossible to understand why.

Since when, in America, does a President have the power to declare himself King if he and he alone, decides there is an emergency. Isn’t that what President Musharraf just did in Pakistan? Isn’t that what all dictators do when they take over an elected government? Unless I am mistaken, it is called a coup and unless that is what Bush has in mind, why does he need to issue such a power grabbing directive?

Where is your oversight, Congress?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

If I know a company is using slave labor, child labor, or their equivalents, to manufacture their products, what is my moral responsibility?

• If I “hear about” a company’s use of slave labor does that qualify as “knowing” they are using such practices?
• If I don’t make an effort to confirm or refute such information does that excuse me from moral responsibility?
• If I opt for willful ignorance – choosing not to be informed – does that carry less moral liability than knowing but ignoring the facts?
• If I know about abusive labor practices in other countries can I just shift the moral responsibility to the shoulders of the countries and companies contracting the labor?
• If I buy products made under such conditions am I condoning and encouraging these labor practices?
• If my financial situation is tight does that mitigate my responsibility for condoning and encouraging these abusive labor practices?
• If I accept the Free Market theory does that absolve me of moral responsibility or is it just a label created to slap over ugly truths to hide them from view?

If I start down this road of recognizing the connectedness of what I do and the effects it has worldwide, it is hard to go back to believing that I can do and have anything I want without consequences to others.

Even refusing to go down this road, refusing to acknowledge the connectedness of everyone and everything in the universe does not bring absolution from responsibility because simply reading this piece has opened the door to hearing about it. The first step toward knowing about it.

Gotcha!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)