Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

**Bush invokes executive privilege to keep Justice Department documents secret**
AP ^ | 12-13-01 | John Solomon

Posted on 12/13/2001 6:02:13 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:12 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

06:57 PST WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has invoked executive privilege for the first time to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in cases ranging from decades-old Boston murders to the Clinton-era fund-raising probe, The Associated Press has learned.


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-389 next last
To: KirkandBurke; OKCSubmariner; Donald Stone
"Ever chase down that funny little thing about how Asa Hutchinson was a real dogged prosecutor back in Arkansas, except when it came to Barry Seals?"

No Person Is Above The Law - Sorry, Just Kidding

"My Friend Mexican President Vicente Fox"

The Crimes of Mena

Barry Seal, Air Contra, and Mena Airport - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

BOY CLINTON - Prologue

Celerino Castillo, the DEA Man Who Worked Too Well

CIA admits drug trafficking, cover-up

CIA Linked To Seal's Assassination - George Bush's Personal Phone Number Found in Seal's Trunk

Volume II - The Contra Story - CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIA AND THE CONTRAS IN COCAINE TRAFFICKING TO THE UNITED STATES

FBI Documents #147 #149 #150

When Uncle Sam was a drugs runner

DEA Shielded Tainted Informant Agency Paid Source for 16 Years Despite Arrests, Perjury

"What is one to make of the riveting assertion, made by a convicted Colombian drug kingpin at Manuel Noriega’s Florida drug trial, that the Medellín cartel gave $10 million to the Nicaraguan contras? Carlos Leader is a key prosecution witness; the U.S. government cannot lightly assail his credibility. Another cartel figure, Ramón Milián Rodríguez, also testified under oath that the Medellín cartel had given millions to the Contras."
The Washington Post - Editorial - 1991

From Here:
"A startling indication of Bush's role in these developments was the testimony given to a U.S. Senate hearing in 1987, where Medellín Cartel money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez revealed that he had given $10 million in cocaine profits to Félix Rodríguez, a long-term CIA agent who ran the drugs-for-guns exchange for George Bush. Milián told investigative journalist Martha Honey that Rodríguez had offered that, "in exchange for money for the Contra cause, he would use his influence in high places to get the [cocaine] cartel U.S. `good will.'. . . Frankly, one of the selling points was that he could talk directly to Bush. . . . The issue of good will wasn't something that was going to go through 27 bureaucratic hands. It was something that was directly between him and Bush."

Milián met with Rodríguez on Jan. 18, 1985. Four days later, Rodríguez met with Vice President Bush in the Executive Office Building.

The promised "good will" was not long in coming. Indicative is the role played by a former senior official of the Reagan-Bush Department of Justice, Michael Abbell. In November 1984, Medellín Cartel boss Jorge Ochoa and Cali Cartel boss Gilberto Rodríguez Orejuela were sitting in a Madrid jail on drug charges, facing extradition--and probable life sentences--in the United States. Abbell, who had been the acting director and deputy director of the International Affairs section of the DOJ's Criminal Division from 1979 through 1984, abruptly quit that post, and travelled to Spain to testify against the extradition of Ochoa and Rodríguez to the United States, claiming that his old employer, the U.S. Department of Justice, had filed faulty papers against his new clients, the drug lords. Thanks to Abbell, Ochoa and Rodríguez were sent to Colombia, where they were eventually set free."

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM C. DUNCAN
"9 Q. And it has been alleged that the Central Intelligence

10 Agency had some role in that operation. Is that the same

11 operation that you investigated?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And when you submitted the witnesses, the names of the

14 prospective witnesses to the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas, are you

15 referring to Mr. -- what was the name of the U. S. Attorney?

16 A. Asa Hutchinson.

...15 A. They were very frustrated, also. Mr. Whitmore, in fact,

16 made several trips to Fort Smith, Arkansas to complain to the

17 U. S. Attorney's Office.

18 Q. Did he relate to you the conversation he had had with the

19 U. S. Attorney?

20 A. On several occasions, and also related to me that the U.S.

21 Attorney wrote him a letter telling him not to come to his

22 office anymore complaining, that that was unprofessional

23 behavior.

24 Q. What was the conclusion of Mr. Whitmore concerning your

25 investigation and the manner in which it was handled by the U. S.

1 Attorney in Arkansas?

2 A. That there was a coverup.

3 Q. Are you saying -- do you agree with his-with Mr.

4 Whitmore's conclusion?

5 A. Absolutely.

6 Q. Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the

7 investigation in and around the Mena Airport of money laundering

8 was covered up by the U. S. Attorney in Arkansas?

9 A. It was covered up,"

BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC.
(501) 372-5115
[END OF PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT]

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUSSELL FRANKLIN WELCH - Re: Asa Hutchinson

"10blank.gif - 0.0 K I remember when he came in as U. S. Attorney, everybody was
11blank.gif - 0.0 K really relieved in western Arkansas because we had had some
12blank.gif - 0.0 K uneventful prosecutions prior to that apparently. And he did a
13blank.gif - 0.0 K good job. He had a lot of prosecutions. Well liked.
14blank.gif - 0.0 K My first uncomfortable experience was at the first grand
15blank.gif - 0.0 K jury session concerning money laundering where two witnesses,
16blank.gif - 0.0 K Jim Nugent and Kathy Corrigan, testified, and I was up there
17blank.gif - 0.0 K just for moral support more than anything else, and to see what
18blank.gif - 0.0 K was going on . And after they came out of the -- out of their
19 blank.gif - 0.0 K session with the grand jury, each individually expressed concern
20blank.gif - 0.0 K to Bill Duncan that they were disappointed, that they hadn't
21blank.gif - 0.0 K been asked the proper questions. They didn't like what happened
22blank.gif - 0.0 K to them in the grand jury room.
And that concerned me a little
23blank.gif - 0.0 K at the time. But Bill Duncan, I remember him telling them not
24blank.gif - 0.0 K to worry, that Asa Hutchinson knows what he's doing, and that
25blank.gif - 0.0 K there's a reason for what -- the way he's handling this. And
Page 21

1blank.gif - 0.0 K they tentatively accepted that. That was my first concern. But
2blank.gif - 0.0 K based on what Bill told them, I felt a little better about the
3blank.gif - 0.0 K situation. And I don't know what happened at the grand jury,
4blank.gif - 0.0 K when they said they didn't feel like they were asked the
5blank.gif - 0.0 K questions that they had been led to believe were the pertinent
6blank.gif - 0.0 K ones for their testimony.
7blank.gif - 0.0 KShortly after that -- I believe that's the last session I
8 blank.gif - 0.0 K can remember that Asa Hutchinson held with the grand jury
9blank.gif - 0.0 K concerning this investigation.
Shortly after that, I learned
10blank.gif - 0.0 K that he was quitting his position and was going to run for some
11blank.gif - 0.0 K political office, and that Mike Fitzhugh would be taking over."

Mena: The Oral Deposition of Richard J. Brenneke

A selective passion for truth

By Mara Leveritt
Feb. 12, 1999

Last week I suggested that, rather than probing ad nauseum the president's lies about his extra-marital alliance(s), Washington could do us a favor by turning its investigative lights onto a question with some genuine national significance, to wit:

Precisely what was the relationship between various branches of the government, particularly the CIA, and this country's super-cocaine kingpins, such as Arkansas's own Barry Seal, during the 1980s?

The column did not exactly provoke a stampede to pick up the gauntlet. As I had outlined, there are powerful, bipartisan reasons why the questions about Seal have languished.

Republicans don't want to touch them for fear of where the answers might lead. The trail already points to the offices of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Likewise, Democrats are not keen on kicking up a lot of dirt about Barry Seal, a major cocaine smuggler who, for reasons that remain a mystery, was allowed to base his multi-million-dollar operation in Arkansas, under the very eye of the Arkansas State Police, for four years while Bill Clinton was governor.

What did happen after that column appeared was that a reader called to remind me of the role played in the Seal saga by our own Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been lately so aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton in the Senate.

Having listened to Hutchinson expound repeatedly on his desire only to get at "the truth" of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, I am struck (as was my caller) by how remarkably unaggressive he was -- in fact, how surprisingly hands-off he was -- back in the 1980s when, as the U.S. attorney for western Arkansas, Hutchinson had the chance to prosecute Seal, the smuggler.

We now know that during the time that Seal headquartered his operation at Mena he was being watched by U.S. Customs officials, as well as by agents for the DEA, the FBI, and the IRS. Former IRS agent William Duncan has testified that Hutchinson, who was among the first to know of Seal's arrival in Arkansas, called a meeting in early 1983, at which Duncan was assigned to investigate Seal's suspected money laundering. Duncan did, and he tried to have members of Seal's gang indicted.

But when the IRS investigator asked Hutchinson to subpoena 20 witnesses who were prepared to testify about the alleged drug-trafficking at Mena, Hutchinson balked. Only three of the 20 were called, and of those, two later complained that they had not been allowed to present their evidence to the federal grand jury. The grand jury never indicted Seal or anyone else involved with him at Mena.

In 1991, five years after Seal was murdered, Duncan testified about his experience. "Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the investigation in and around the Mena airport of money laundering was covered up by the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas," he was asked. "It was covered up," he said.

Since then, I have spoken with Paul Whitmore, a former Chief of Criminal Investigation for the IRS, who was Duncan's superior. He oversaw the Seal investigation and concurs with Duncan's assessment that presentation of Duncan's evidence was blocked by Hutchinson's office.

At the time, and to this day, however, Hutchinson has cast himself as an anti-drug crusader. In light of that, I wrote to him after his election to Congress. I explained that I have had a Freedom of Information request pertaining to Barry Seal before the FBI for several years -- a request that the FBI has acknowledged should have been filled a long time ago. In light of that, I asked Hutchinson if he would intercede on my behalf to get the records released.

I was curious as to how hard Hutchinson would work to bring to light public records about a politically sensitive investigation in which he had played a significant part. As it turned out, he was not helpful at all. He replied that he had contacted the FBI concerning my request and that when he heard back from the agency he would "be back in touch" with me. That was more than a year ago. He has not been "back in touch."

By contrast, Rep. Vic Snyder, to whom I placed the same request, has been diligent in his support of my appeal. It seems to matter to Snyder that the Justice Department can flaunt a federal law, delaying by years, if it wants, the release of public information. The agency still hasn't budged on the Seal records, but Snyder's push for their release distinguishes him in this otherwise dark affair.

As for Hutchinson… I hope that some day he is held to account, as he would hold Clinton to account, for certain events of the past -- events that even this self-proclaimed seeker of truth might prefer would never come to light.

Copyright ©1998 Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc.
[End of Transcript]

Somebody has to help make sure Drugs Enter America.

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope.
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth,
and listen to the song of that siren
till she transforms us into beasts.
Is this the part of wise men,
engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?
Are we disposed to be the number of those
who, having eyes, see not,
and having ears, hear not,
the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost,
I am willing to know the whole truth;
to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Patrick Henry

"We're going to have to give up some of our liberties"
Frank Keating - September 11, 2001 - CNN Radio

"Compassionate Corruption"

Move on.

321 posted on 12/13/2001 5:32:54 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Ya got that?
322 posted on 12/13/2001 5:35:18 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
Thanks for the Head's Up.. here's a copy of the Letter President Bush sent to Attorney General Ashcroft:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The White House, President George W. Bush

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 13, 2001

December 12, 2001

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT:            Congressional Subpoena for Executive Branch Documents

I have been advised that the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives has subpoenaed confidential Department of Justice documents.  The documents consist of memoranda from the Chief of the Campaign Financing Task Force to former Attorney General Janet Reno recommending that a Special Counsel be appointed to investigate a matter under review by the Task Force, memoranda written in response to those memoranda, and deliberative memoranda from other investigations containing advice and recommendations concerning whether particular criminal prosecutions should be brought.  I understand that, among other accommodations the Department has provided the Committee concern-ing the matters that are the subject of these documents, the Department has provided briefings with explanations of the reasons for the prosecutorial decisions, and is willing to provide further briefings.  I also understand that you believe it would be inconsistent with the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and the Department's law enforcement responsibilities to release these documents to the Committee or to make them available for review by Committee representatives.

It is my decision that you should not release these documents or otherwise make them available to the Committee.  Disclosure to Congress of confidential advice to the Attorney General regarding the appointment of a Special Counsel and confidential recommendations to Department of Justice officials regarding whether to bring criminal charges would inhibit the candor necessary to the effectiveness of the deliberative processes by which the Department makes prosecutorial decisions.  Moreover, I am concerned that congressional access to prosecutorial decisionmaking documents of this kind threatens to politicize the criminal justice process.  The Founders? fundamental purpose in establishing the separation of powers in the Constitution was to protect individual liberty. Congressional pressure on execu-tive branch prosecutorial decisionmaking is inconsistent with separation of powers and threatens individual liberty. Because I believe that congressional access to these documents would be contrary to the national interest, I have decided to assert executive privilege with respect to the documents and to instruct you not to release them or otherwise make them available to the Committee.

I request that you advise the Committee of my decision.  I also request that the Department remain willing to work informally with the Committee to provide such information as it can, con-sistent with these instructions and without violating the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

GEORGE W. BUSH

# # #


323 posted on 12/13/2001 5:53:08 PM PST by Thanatos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Great to see you Unc. BUMP!
324 posted on 12/13/2001 5:55:12 PM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
"We have the evidence in the Boston case too. We know the FBI helped frame the men. "

Then their lawyers can get the information.
If what is claimed is true.

"The deliberative process privilege, a subset of the executive privilege, is designed to promote frank and candid deliberations among executive agencies....
Vaughn v. Rosen , 523 F.2d 1136, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1975)). The privilege is not absolute, and may be "overcome upon a showing of evidentiary need weighed against the harm that may result from disclosure." See Abramson v. United States"

As to why Bush is trying to return to the traditional use of executive privilege:
In 1993, then-Attorney General Janet Reno broke a long-standing tradition of protecting career employees from outside political pressure by allowing department lawyers to be interrogated by congressional investigators probing the elder President George Bush's record of prosecution in environmental cases...

Waxman, Reno and Clinton damaged the Constitution for their political gains. We need separation of powers, as Washingon, Madison, and Jefferson envisioned it- as Bush also sees it.
The Supreme Court will back him, see Nixon vs US.

325 posted on 12/13/2001 6:00:47 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Thanatos
Thanks Thanatos for your excellent post and all the links. BTTT
326 posted on 12/13/2001 6:02:09 PM PST by ChaseR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: motzman
To: motzman
I "wasted my vote" on Harry Browne.
# 300 by exodus

************************

To: exodus
No you didn't; you voted for who you believed to be the best man to lead the country. Harry turned me off quite a bit at the end there (seemed a bit "whacky") but I must say I agree with many libertarian principles, just not the Party.
# 303 by motzman

************************

You're alright, motzman.
You are hereby adopted into my family.

I consider myself a libertarian,
but I also have problems with the Libertarian Party.

Harry did kind of lose it at the end.
The Libertarians better have a better candidate next time.
Browne won't get my vote again.

327 posted on 12/13/2001 6:12:31 PM PST by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
I do love ya' though....just tired of the bitterness and petty sniping these days from Daschle and the NY Times when we're fighting some truly evil foes...it's near Christ's birthday and I quit smoking again on 12-1...Hugs.
328 posted on 12/13/2001 6:27:04 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: exodus
Harry did kind of lose it at the end. The Libertarians better have a better candidate next time. Browne won't get my vote again.

I've always thought the only way a third party (especially the Libertarians) could ever have a chance would be to have a really high-profile celebrity type lead the charge. The established parties have such well-establish political "machines" throughout the country, that the only way to compete would be to go directly over the heads of the establishment by means of a supportive media.

Libertarians have the increased disadvantage of trying to "take" power by giving it away (back to the people). It is the right thing to do, but difficult to accomplish considering theat both the GOP and the rats use political capital to "buy" votes in one form or another. It's kinda like the Tiger vs, the Dove thing.

And thanks for the invite to family; that's one thing you never can have enough of!
329 posted on 12/13/2001 6:40:52 PM PST by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

Comment #330 Removed by Moderator

To: Thanatos
My goodness, Thanatos, that memo looks so pretty. hehehe

Good to see you, pal.

331 posted on 12/13/2001 8:11:31 PM PST by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
Bump for FR's #1 Bush basher.
332 posted on 12/13/2001 8:11:41 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
...it's near Christ's birthday and I quit smoking again on 12-1...Hugs.

You're a wonderful woman. You don't need an excuse to be cranky. :)

333 posted on 12/13/2001 8:13:05 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Rockiesrider
I don't need him to tell me what's best for me...

Surprise--he's not trying to tell you anything--much less "what's best" for you. GW is concerned about what's best for the country. And he has decided not to hand over confidential Justice Department records to a bunch of slimeball Congressional demoshits just looking for a way to defeat his administration.

What part of that do you object to? Do you think it would be a good idea for GW to enable Little Dicky and Tom D'Asshole to destroy the first slender green shoots of a return to responsible adult government by sabotaging the executive branch?

No cause for paranoia here. Despite the help the leftwing crackpots are receiving from the whining adolescent pantloads on this thread, GW is way ahead of the game--as usual.

334 posted on 12/13/2001 8:48:25 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: goldilucky
Executive privilege has been well estabished for years. The reason you are confused is that the only time it has hit the news lately has been a crook covering himself, making it look like an illegitimate concept, rather than a responsible executive protecting his options.

The relevant issue is not "checks and balances." The relevant issue is "separation of powers." It is hostile to the Constitution to believe the Congress has absolute "oversight" power over the daily operations of the duly constituted agencies of the executive branch.

335 posted on 12/13/2001 8:56:08 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: ChaseR
If you love your country as mch as you imply, why do you want to destroy the effectiveness of the executive branch? I think we need it, just like the Founders did. Maybe you are wiser than they were, but I doubt it.
336 posted on 12/13/2001 8:59:27 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Then their lawyers can get the information.

The following is from the AP article about this.

That case stems from revelations that Joseph Salvati of Boston spent 30 years in prison for a murder he did not commit even though the FBI had evidence of his innocence. Salvati was freed in January after a judge concluded that FBI agents hid testimony that would have cleared Salvati because they wanted to protect an informant.

Mr. Salvati's lawyers did get the information, presented it in court, and got Mr. Salvati freed after he spent 30 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit. Nobody was prosecuted for what they did to Mr. Salvati. Dan Burton wants to know why. Was there a cover-up? Who made the decision to do nothing about this? What was the reason this crime was not prosecuted?

I doubt that Washington, Jefferson, Madison or other Founding Father condoned using executive privilege to cover-up a crime. As I said earlier, in both this case and in the Clinton/Gore case, we know crimes were committed, and that nobody was prosecuted. That is probable cause to believe another crime was committed in making the decision to ignore these crimes.

This should go to court. However, as I stated earlier, that requires a majority vote of the whole House. I seriously doubt that anywhere near a majority of House member are ethical, so that is not likely.

337 posted on 12/13/2001 9:19:47 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Inspector Harry Callahan
Hello Inspector. Hope all is well, and another bumperoo!
338 posted on 12/13/2001 9:28:21 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
No way BJ not have used something while he had the chance.

Don't be too sure, letting the idiot Al Gore in might have kept Hillary from running for president for 8 years instead of 4, and ironically Gore might not protect BJ from prosecution as well as the Bushes. Gore is an idiot who might just sacrifice clinton to save his own sorry ass, Bush has a vested interest in keeping BJ safe.

339 posted on 12/13/2001 9:39:43 PM PST by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: RedDragonRising
I've been on your site many times. Thanks so much. You've done an excellent job. God bless. Most folks don't know this:

U.S. barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia were bombed. U.S. officials believed Osama bin Laden was involved. Saudi officials differed. Billionaire bin Laden family's construction company was later hired to rebuild them. Osama's brother, Hasan bin Laden, is part-owner of Iridium LLC. Iridium is a communications group that has worked with Loral and has had four of their satellites launched on Chinese rockets. Osama is known to have ties with both Albania and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).

GOP Folds On Chinagate
"The GOP elites are apparently betting on continued complacency on the part of the American people. But a blasé attitude about these matters will predictably lead to our national destruction. It is bad enough that we have suffered the damage to our national security. But if we suffer it complacently, without howls of outrage that can be heard by our representatives up and down the country, then nothing will be done about it. And if business as usual proceeds, the shadow of our danger will deepen, the tentacles of foreign control, espionage and domination will lengthen, until we will in fact finally succumb to them simply because we are not defending ourselves."

I wonder if New Yorkers are interested in Chinagate yet?

340 posted on 12/13/2001 9:49:44 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381-389 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson