Category Archives: alberto gonzales leahy subpoena duces tecum destroyed e

senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


Advertisements

senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


senators leahy and whitehouse request DoJ inspector general’s summary public corruption case data

since comey’s testimony before the
house judiciary sub-committee was fairly
routine — that is, it simply confirmed
a lot of what was widely-suspected — i’ll
lead this afternoon with a letter that
senators leahy and whitehouse sent to
the internal investigation arm of the
DoJ — seeking to ascertain whether the
matters sworn to by alberto gonzales
on april 19, 2007, can be verified. . .

but first — here’s what the data, thus
far, tell us
— there is good cause for alarm:

now the letter-text:

May 2, 2007

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
The Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Inspector General Fine:

In his testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s April 19, 2007, oversight hearing, Attorney General Gonzales assured the Committee that the Department of Justice has been conducting public corruption cases without a partisan bias and urged us to examine the Department’s record of these types of investigations. However, due to the necessary confidentiality of these matters, there is no proper basis for us to make the examination that the Attorney General urged.

One of the principal questions raised by the Committee’s investigation into the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys is whether law enforcement at the Department of Justice has been corrupted by partisan politics. This question needs to be answered. At the same time, public corruption investigations are highly confidential, and need to be kept that way.

In order to reconcile these imperatives, we ask your office to prepare a review of the Department’s public corruption investigations commenced under the current administration, and prepare an analysis that is stripped of any identifying information as to target or district, but reveals the breakdown of cases by party affiliation of targets at key investigative points, such as opening of case, commencement of grand jury activity, charging, trial, and conviction.

This information will be a benefit to the Committee’s investigation by helping us assess the Department’s record on public corruption cases while protecting confidentiality necessary to these public corruption cases. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,