Still Hating America.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

• WASHINGTON - Two weeks after Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was ordered to give up his post, he sent an e-mail to a top Justice Department official asking how to handle questions that his ouster was connected to his investigation of Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz.
  
  . . .
  
  In October, Justice Department officials confirmed that Renzi was the subject of an inquiry into a land swap that would benefit a friend and business associate. Renzi has denied any wrongdoing. He could not be reached Tuesday.
  
  Renzi is a Bush loyalist. When Renzi was locked in a battle for his congressional seat last year, the president came to Arizona to campaign for him.
  
  When the first list of U.S. attorneys targeted for ouster was drafted, Charlton's name was not on it. But his name was on a subsequent list, drafted in September. Although the Renzi inquiry was not yet public, it is likely the Justice Department was aware of the investigation, said a former U.S. attorney who is familiar

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...orney0321.html

Using that expensive education that your mother gave so many blow jobs to pay for, can you see a pattern emerging?

It's such a shame that Ronnie Earl is just a local, elected prosecutor. It seems like he fits the profile.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Q: what makes a sink accessible?

Ooooh, oooh! Height and/or type of faucet handles?

or did I whiff?

S_A_M

P.S. That's just what she told your Dad . . .

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


link

The front-runner for the Libertarian Party nomination in 2008 visited the Capitol today . . . .

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Perhaps, but it suggests there's at least something there.

Not very strongly. Having served on a grand jury, I can say, the decisions were pretty much based on whatever the prosecutor, or maybe a single police officer, said.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One of Tyler Cowen's readers asks him who he's backing for President. I like his answer:

• Who do you want for the GOP ticket in '08 Dr. Cowen?
  
  So asks Chris in the comments. Right now I don't have favored candidates in any of the parties, either here or abroad. Furthermore I will deliberately resist developing such favorites, and insofar as I can't help having them, I won't tell you who they are. I don't mean this in a libertarian "they are all crooks" sort of way, though that may be true. It still really does matter who governs, and so we should take this process of candidate evaluation seriously. It is just that I don't want to be part of it.
  
  As a blogger rather than decision-maker I am allowed my small space for protest. I wish to protest our excessive tendency to choose sides with one group of people rather than another. I wish to protest excess partisanship, and in particular excess partisanship motivated by the construction of "imaginary good" and "imaginary bad" political personalities.
  
  As biological creatures we are programmed to respond to faces, voices, names, and identities. We praise them, follow them, condemn them, figure out what side they are on, just like good ol' East African Plains Apes. Who is not excited to see a President of the United States attending a Wizards game in a nearby box? I know I was, and I didn't even vote for him. Chimps will give up bananas, just to be able to gaze at photos of high-status other chimps.
  
  I would like for my posts on MR to be one small space where these necessary but ignoble human tendencies toward personalization are resisted and sometimes even criticized. I am biased, just as you are. But for aesthetic reasons I would rather my biases be played out in the realm of ideas, rather than directed at people. And at the margin, some of you should be just a little more like me.

Why did you feel the need to share this? Some guy who blogs is an idiot. Got it. Not surprised.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You haven't had the lectures about the new federal rules of civil procedure and preservation? Our litigation people get mini heart attacks when they hear about how much information gets stored on disaster recovery backup tapes.

ETA: It appears I should have read a couple hundred posts before jumping in on the discussion. Still, I've stopped sending as many e-mails at work lately when a phone call will do.

Thankfully, i have not yet had to deal with the new FRCP, having focused more recently on discovery matters that don't necessarily involve a court directly. But, as your edit seems to suggest, there is a difference between disaster recovery tapes and forensic reconstruction. Which violins seems to have more direct experience with than I.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop


link

Meet Barack Obama's running mate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
Why did you feel the need to share this?

Sorry you didn't like it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Ooooh, oooh! Height and/or type of faucet handles?

or did I whiff?

S_A_M

P.S. That's just what she told your Dad . . .

the 2 sinks seemed identical. type of handles? elaborate please.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
eta: More here. Archives officials seem to be clear on what was in the documents he took, unlike the 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes. Rosemary Woods took that info to her grave.

This is patently false. They may have known what documents he took, but even the article you linked to indicate that record-keeping was so poor, they have no idea.

The consensus is that he took numerous copies of the same document because some may have contained hand-written notes that would have been damning to the Clinton administration.

So no, they are not clear on what was in those documents.

I hope you realize that you're getting to the point where you will defend anything the Dems do. Fucking A.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you've done enough litigation to know you should just give up all documents- none of them are that bad. but the people that hide them, or go into the national archives and smuggle them out in their underwear- they know they're guilty.

So you've never had a guilty/liable client?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the 2 sinks seemed identical. type of handles? elaborate please.

If the sinks appeared identical this would not apply --

but some handicapped-accessible sinks I've seen have faucets that can be turned on and off by means of longish slender handles that can easily be moved right or left -- as opposed to the standard twist in/out model.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
This is patently false. They may have known what documents he took, but even the article you linked to indicate that record-keeping was so poor, they have no idea.

The consensus is that he took numerous copies of the same document because some may have contained hand-written notes that would have been damning to the Clinton administration.

So no, they are not clear on what was in those documents.

The Washington Post says the government's investigation determined otherwise:

• The documents he took detailed how the Clinton administration had responded to the threat of terrorist attacks at the end of 1999. Berger removed a total of five copies of the same document without authorization and later used scissors to destroy three before placing them in his office trash, the National Archives inspector general concluded in a Nov. 4, 2005, report. . . .
  
  [T]he Justice Department concluded that other copies of the documents at issue existed and that they were provided to the Sept. 11 commission. He also said the Justice Department affirmed that Berger had no intent to hide the contents.
  
  . . . In September and October, Berger was able to sneak papers -- slight variations of a report titled "Millennium Alert After Action Review," which looked at U.S. vulnerabilities to terrorists, as well as the notes he took from other classified documents -- into his pockets, the report said . . . .

In other words: Not like the 18-minute gap on the Nixon tape.

I hope you realize that you're getting to the point where you will defend anything the Dems do. Fucking A.

I'm not defending Berger at all here. But your comparison was wrong.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not defending Berger at all here. But your comparison was wrong.

That said, I'm wondering if Rove's emails will turn up in the back of a White House closet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Context:

• Last June, just as the race for governor was heating up, Georgia Thompson was convicted of improperly steering a state contract to the Adelman Travel Group, which is run by a politically involved family that has a history of favoring Democrats.
  
  Predictably, almost daily headlines blaring the latest developments in the “travelgate” saga were used in campaign advertisements against Doyle. Mark Green supporters—right-wing WTMJ radio talkers and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel included—plumped up the allegations against Thompson and buried her defense, if it reported her side of the story at all. (In interviews after the verdict, juror Marvin Bizzelle claimed that Doyle had orchestrated the whole matter, even though Biskupic didn’t make that allegation. Gee, wonder where Bizzelle could have gotten that information? And why did he bring that information into deliberations, when jurors are supposed to render a verdict on the evidence brought forth in the courtroom?)
  
  The case was curious from the beginning. As Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley, noted, the state worker was a civil servant hired during Republican Gov. Scott McCallum’s tenure, making Thompson’s supposed bias toward Doyle seem improbable; she didn’t profit from the contract; no one else was named in connection with her supposed fraud; she didn’t name names or plead to a lesser charge to save herself; and the contract did, indeed, go to the lowest bidder, as is required. So where’s the crime?
  
  But other factors bothered us. Why was Thompson charged with federal crimes? As we noted in a news article last summer, Thompson’s attorney argued that “at best, the evidence demonstrates a violation of the applicable sections of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.”
  
  It also seemed curious that Thompson was tried in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee. She lived and worked in Madison and was a state employee, and the fact that Adelman Travel’s headquarters is located in Milwaukee has nothing to do with the case. Even though then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager and Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard helped to investigate the case, they declined to bring charges. But Biskupic, a Bush appointee, did, even though it really didn’t have anything to do with his jurisdiction. At the time of the trial, we wondered whether Biskupic truly believed he had a strong case, which would cause one to question his competence, or whether he knew that there really wasn’t a case but succumbed to Republican political pressure.

link