blueollie

More videos and men crushes…

This afternoon I did another hike at the Forest Park Nature center; 55:42 for the 3.5 mile outer loop. This is a more typical time for me, and my leg didn’t tingle or ache. I am on my way back; this gives me 20.5 miles “on foot” for the week.

I had to chuckle at something I read on the Smirking Chimp: it was a Cynk Uygur article on “man crushes”; these are men that you say “the hell with it; I don’t care if someone calls me gay, but I like this man”. Obviously, I loved my late father. And I have many male friends that I hold dear. And there are men that have a “beloved mentor” status for me; these include my graduate school Ph. D. advisor and the guy who taught me how to racewalk. My yoga teacher holds this status too, but she doesn’t count as she is a “she”. 🙂

Uygur writes:

A man-crush is an affinity that one man has toward another man that is completely non-sexual. It is the highest form of respect. It is one straight man saying to another, I am willing to have my sexuality questioned by admitting that I like you.

Only the coolest possible people deserve this honor.
As a straight man, I am willing to put myself out there and make the first ever man-crush list. These are the ten guys I have a man-crush on (in order):

Follow the link to see the list. I have some on my list as well, and in no particular order, here they are:

Michael Johnson
Ok, if I could pick one body for my own, this would be it. Interestingly enough, I told my wife that he and I were similar in size (I am 6 feet, he is 6 foot 1) and weight (I go 190, he is about 180). I said: “our physiques are similar too, right?” She looked at his photo and had a face splitting grin…and said “honey, I like your physique.”

Another time I said “if I had a body like his, I’d wear nothing but spandex.” She said “if you had a body like his, I’d want you to.”. 🙂

Photo and much more here.

But it isn’t just about looks; this guy overcame a bad Olympics (1992, when he got food posioning, though he picked up a gold in the 4 x 400 relay) to come back strong and dominate, winning individual golds in the 200 and 400 in 1996 and then another individual in the 400 in 2000, along with another one in the 4 x 400 meter relay.

Political Figures: Barbara Boxer doesn’t count; she is a great senator (and pretty hot too) but she is a “she”.

So I’ll go with these gentlemen;

The last good President we had together with the next one that we will have! Ok, I broke the rules; go to the Uygur’s list to see why.

Yes, he said “no” to the war from the start, and continues to stick up for the rest of us.

He is one reason I am not cynical about all Christians. He showed courage even when it cost him.

Men of Science


Stephen Hawking: not only do I love his work, but I admire the way he works with the disability that life threw at him.

A couple of videos: first is fluff from Star Trek (one of his favorite shows; a 2 and a half minute clip)

From a lecture at Berkeley; this is on the origins of the universe (about 10 minutes):

Richard Dawkins: from the life sciences. I’ve posted videos of his lectures and here is one where he is being interviewed about religion:

Yogi
Dharma Mittra

He is a very wise yoga teacher.

He is good at yoga too. 🙂

If you love yoga, buy his book on 608 yoga asanas (poses). There is some profound personal wisdom there too.

A guy I like for no reason at all:

Jaye Davidson; of “Crying Game” fame:

As the Dell character:

As himself:

More photos and other information here.

I guess I like the way he “is what he is”. I also admit that I wasn’t attracted to him before I knew he was a “him”; the butt was too small and skinny. I loved Miranda Richardson’s however… 🙂

Advertisements

March 18, 2007 Posted by | hiking, injury, obama, walking, yoga | Leave a comment

Video Sunday II

Workout Notes: usually, I get my swim stuff together the night before. Last night I decided to not do that; as a consequence I was chasing my tail trying to gather everything up and ended up getting to the pool a few minutes late and it was packed.

I ended up sharing a lane with Bob who is a short, 190 pound bulldog who can knock out a 3:16 marathon and a 90 minute half; he is also comfortable hammering out a sub 4:30 trail 50K.

I didn’t have it today; I did 5 x 3g/5g/50 free, 5 x 100 fist. I was going to try a hard 1000 yard set but wasn’t into it; I switched it to 4 x 250 when I hit the first 250 in 4:11. The others were 4:12-4:13 on a 5 minute interval. Then 10 x 100 on the 1:45; no. 4, 7-10 were 1:40-1:41; the others were 1:38-39. 100 back easy, 10 x 25 kick/25 free (fins), 10 x 50 on the 1 (52, then the rest were 48-49) focusing on form. Then 1000 pull in 16:57 (4:15, 8:31, 12:45) and 200 more to get 5300 (3 miles).

Update: It is strange what one comes up with when one does a google search. I did one on “big butts” (yeah, I like ’em, and my wife has one! 🙂 ). And what did I find? I found a website (at Ruth Kazez.com) which talks about a swimming program to build up to swimming a 4.4 mile open water swim. From reading the stories, the people in question are better swimmers than I am, though not by a huge amount. So this site was very useful to me.

The photo:

Sorry ladies; your butts aren’t big. Your training swims were big however, and you did great!

Later today I will do a light hike or walk/jog, depending on what my teacher wants or doesn’t want to do.

Injury wise, I notice that I get tingles when I do kick sets.

Politics

Here is an interesting article by Richard Reeves on John Edwards:

t may have something to do with being unchained from John Kerry. John Edwards was a good candidate as Kerry’s running mate for vice president four years ago, but he had nothing to say — or, more likely, was not allowed to say anything. Now he is a better candidate with plenty to say.

He packed them in here, right up to the fire marshal’s limit of 500, at Shutters Hotel on the beach earlier this month at $20 a head. The event was sponsored by the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, which got the proceeds, and most of the folks there seemed to think they got their money’s worth.

That may not seem much compared to the millions Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) are pulling out of Hollywood, Beverly Hills and Malibu. But the people who came to hear Edwards are loyalists willing to knock on doors and do other things beneath the bodyguarded dignity of, say, David Geffen or Steven Spielberg. “I know Clinton and Obama are the news,” said David Clement, a former president of the club, “but they are going to leave 170 Southern electoral votes on the table in November of 2008. Edwards can get those states.”

The front-runners are certainly soaking up media oxygen, and Edwards’ early caucus and primary strategy of being the anti-Clinton has been blown away by Hurricane Barack. That, however, just might work to Edwards’ advantage before this is over. His campaign is still pretty much below press radar, which should trigger comparisons to Jimmy Carter’s successful run in 1976. The former governor of Georgia managed to craft and refine his message before national correspondents descended on the campaign and began looking for cracks and flaws.
[…]
His Iraq lines drew applause, of course, but that was not enough for some in this West LA crowd. A number of chapters of Progressive Democrats of America have sprung up around here. When Edwards said that “everything is on the table” if he becomes president, the chairman of one chapter rose to attack “the permanent war economy” and asked him to pledge to bring home all American troops around the world.

“You want me to bring all American military home?” he said. “Are you serious? No. We can’t do that.”

There were boos. Edwards said: “You want me to tell you what you want to hear, or what I believe?”

Other than that, he came across as he wanted to, as a likable, pragmatic populist, charming and flexible. He will have to be that and more if he is to stand a chance against the front-runners. He had to change his anti-Clinton policy stance when Obama blew in. And he may have to change his political strategy — running well in the early (and less expensive) caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — if California moves up its traditional June primary to Feb. 5. Then the Democratic race will turn on raising big money, huge money for television.

Can Edwards survive that? I wouldn’t bet against him — not yet. He looks good, and he does not have to face up to the complex dangers of Senate incumbency anymore. He’s free at last!

Videos

Some candidate videos

Edwards in North Carolina

Hillary Clinton on health care for children

From the Barack Obama youtube site: clips from the Selma march

(How is that? A candidates video which does not show nor mention the candidate?)

Barack Obama in South Carolina

Political Comedy

The Red State Update series is pretty funny (and each one is short):
(I love the quote: “ma called something a “cult” if she didn’t want to drive you to it”)

March 18, 2007 Posted by | edwards, hillary clinton, injury, obama, politics/social, swimming | 1 Comment

Oh those fired attorneys!

My wife is in Kentucky visiting her brother. But my yoga teacher took good care of me; she took me and a friend to another yoga teacher’s pub for a St. Patrick’s day dinner.

Now I have the games on the TV; Georgetown and BC are in a barn-burner and VCU has come back against Pitt.

Earlier today, my team got eliminated from the NIT when they got bombed by Mississippi State; at the end of the game the Bulldogs were doing all sorts of showboat dunks and alley-oops.

Still, the Braves had a good season.

Political

General Pace’s comment about homosexuality being immoral:

Typical wingnut thinking: sex has more morality to it than the killing of other human beings. Idiots. (This cartoon and the others from Bob Geiger’s blog)

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’ve found out that our Attorney General Alberton Gonzales is catching heat because 8 United States Attorneys were fired.

Yes, these positions are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President, and yes, evey incoming President fires the previous attorneys and brings in their own staff. But it is highly irregular for a handful of these positions to be fired midway though a President’s term, and why they were fired is indeed disturbing.

Law.com’s article about David Iglesias, who felt he was fired by not working in a manner which would aid a Republican reelection effort:

New Mexico’s former U.S. Attorney accused Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., Tuesday of exerting political pressure on him about an ongoing public-corruption investigation just before Election Day last fall.

David Iglesias, who was asked to resign from the Justice Department with at least six other U.S. Attorneys on Dec. 7, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Wilson had telephoned him on Oct. 16, about three weeks before the elections, to inquire about the status of “sealed indictments” in a probe involving a Democratic state legislator.

When Iglesias told Wilson that he couldn’t speak about the existence of sealed indictments, “She was not happy with that answer,” he said, and their call ended a short time later.

Wilson was then in the middle of a heated re-election campaign against former New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid. Wilson won the election over Madrid by fewer than 900 votes.

Justice Department guidelines strictly limit what prosecutors can say about ongoing investigations. Nonetheless, two weeks after Wilson’s call, Iglesias testified that he received an unusual call from Domenici at his home in late October, just days before the November elections. The senator also wanted to know about the prospect of charges in the public-corruption case.

“Are these going to be unsealed by November?” Iglesias said Domenici told him.

Iglesias says that after he told Domenici it was unlikely charges would be brought before November, Domenici told him, “I’m very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

“I felt sick afterwards,” Iglesias said. “I felt leaned on.”

Asked why he did not immediately report the calls from Wilson and Domenici to his superiors at the Justice Department — as mandated by internal Justice rules — Iglesias said he felt torn between his loyalties to Domenici, whom he described as a mentor, and to Wilson, whom he said had been a friend. Domenici had supported Iglesias’ nomination to become U.S. Attorney in 2001.

Iglesias suggested that his firing, given his office’s high marks in internal Justice Department performance reviews, may have come as a result of Domenici or Wilson pressuring the White House or Justice to ask for his resignation.

“I suspect they felt I was not a help to them during the campaign,” Iglesias said. After he was fired, he said, he “began to put the dots together.” […]

Attroney in Washington canned because he didn’t help the Republicans out in the Washington Governor’s election:

President Bush says he is troubled by the Justice Department’s misleading explanations to Congress of why it fired eight U.S. attorneys, but that the dismissals were “appropriate.” In an exclusive interview with CBS News correspondent Sandra Hughes, one of the fired prosecutors says it certainly wasn’t in his case.

“I am disappointed with the president,” says John McKay, former chief prosecutor for western Washington state. “I am disappointed with the attorney general.”

McKay was fired in December for reasons he now believes had nothing to do with the way he did his job — but very much to do with politics.

“I asked for the reasons that I was being asked to resign and I was given no reasons,” he says.

McKay’s office convicted the “millennium bomber” who was planning to blow up the Los Angeles airport and won a conviction against James Ujaama, who was planning to build an al Qaeda training camp in Oregon. He was also lauded for cracking down on drug smuggling from Canada.

So when the attorney general said McKay was fired for performance reasons, he was livid.

“I knew that was false and I felt obligated to speak up,” McKay says.

CBS News obtained McKay’s most recent performance review, conducted just three months before his firing. In it, he was described as “effective, well-regarded and a capable leader.”

McKay feels “really proud of the work that was done in my office and the excellent run I had in five years.”

Justice officials say they had a problem with the way McKay shared information with local and federal law enforcement officials. But McKay believes it was what he didn’t do that got him fired.

A Democratic candidate won Washington state’s 2004 gubernatorial race by just a couple of hundred votes. McKay didn’t call a grand jury to investigate questions of voter fraud, and he heard about it when he sought a promotion.

“I did apply to be a federal judge last fall, and at that time questions were directed to me about the 2004 governor’s election in Washington state,” he says.

Shortly after, McKay was listed as a U.S. attorney “being pushed out” in an e-mail between the Department of Justice and the White House.

“Any individual prosecutor is replaceable,” McKay concedes. “What’s not replaceable is our reputation for fairness and our reputation for independence from political influences.”

Inglesias and McKay weren’t the only ones to feel pressure:

Six fired U.S. attorneys testified on Capitol Hill yesterday that they had separately been the target of complaints, improper telephone calls and thinly veiled threats from a high-ranking Justice Department 8official or members of Congress, both before and after they were abruptly removed from their jobs.

In back-to-back hearings in the Senate and House, former U.S. 8attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted specific instances in which some said they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and one said a Justice Department official warned him to keep quiet or face retaliation. […]

Yesterday’s testimony featured new allegations of threatened overt retaliation against the prosecutors, as former U.S. attorney Bud Cummins of Little Rock said a senior Justice Department official warned him on Feb. 20 that the fired prosecutors should remain quiet about their dismissals. Cummins recounted in an e-mail made public yesterday that the 8official cautioned that administration officials would “pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully.”

“It seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation,” Cummins wrote in the e-mail, which he sent as a cautionary note to fellow prosecutors.

[…]

“The whole series of events has been remarkable and unprecedented,” said Mary Jo White, who served for nine years as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York during the Clinton and Bush administrations. “It’s not a matter of whether they have the power to do it; it’s a matter of the wisdom of the 8actions taken. It shows a total disregard for the institution of the U.S. attorney’s offices and what they stand for.”

Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during the testimony that “if the allegations are correct, there has been serious misconduct in what has occurred.”

The Justice Department said initially that the prosecutors had “performance-related” problems, but more recently it asserted that they had not adequately carried out Bush administration priorities on immigration, the death penalty and other issues. The department has also acknowledged that Cummins, the Little Rock prosecutor, was asked to resign solely to provide a job for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove.

“In hindsight, perhaps this situation could have been handled better,” Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella said in prepared testimony yesterday in the House. ” . . . That said, the department stands by the decisions.”

Moschella said Justice did not intend to evade Senate oversight of U.S. attorneys, who under a new law can be appointed on an interim basis indefinitely by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

For the first time, Moschella detailed in public the department’s rationale for each of the dismissals (although most of the claims had previously been aired through anonymous comments and documents leaked to reporters). All but one of the fired prosecutors had received positive job evaluations, but Justice officials say those reports do not include all possible performance problems.

An overall article on the situation:

The Bush administration’s controversial firing of eight US attorneys sets up a major clash between the White House and the new Congress, as Democrats step up efforts to rein in new presidential powers.

At issue is whether the Justice Department’s decision to replace these top federal prosecutors was a political purge and, if so, what Congress can do about it.

As a start, lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year’s reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation. At the time, no lawmaker noticed. But dramatic testimony Tuesday from fired attorneys, who appeared only after Congress began issuing subpoenas, is fueling a push to strike the provision.

The back-to-back Senate and House hearings also raised questions about whether three Republican lawmakers tried to influence public corruption investigations, in violation of congressional ethics rules. […]

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill sponsored by Senator Feinstein that limits the term for an interim appointment to 120 days – returning the law to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

“That’s to create an incentive to go to the Senate for confirmation,” says Feinstein. If a nominee is not confirmed by the Senate in 120 days, the appointment would be made by the district court.

So far, Senate Republicans have blocked moves to take the bill to the floor for debate. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle predict that this week’s hearings will give the bill more traction.

What emerged from the hearings are two starkly different versions of events.

No one disputes that the president has the right to remove political appointees.

“Each of us was fully aware that we served at the pleasure of the president and that we could be removed for any, or no, reason,” said Carol Lam of San Diego, in a joint statement for herself and other fired US attorneys who appeared before Senate and House Judiciary panels. “In most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations. This hearing is not a forum to engage in speculation, and we decline to speculate about the reasons.”

But in a full day of questioning, lawmakers pressed witnesses on whether they felt pressured to lay off corruption cases against Republicans – or step up prosecutions of Democrats.

Ms. Lam, who served as US attorney from 2002 until this year, declined to speculate on whether she had been fired because of her prosecution of former GOP Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham for corruption.

In response to the same questions, US Attorney David Iglesias told lawmakers he had been contacted by Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, who wanted to know whether he planned to indict a local Democrat for corruption before last November’s elections. “I suspect they believed that I was not a help to them during the campaign, and I just started to kind of put the dots together,” he told the Senate panel.

Both lawmakers acknowledge the phone calls to Mr. Iglesias but deny that they tried to influence an ongoing investigation – a violation of ethics rules. Another witness, former US Attorney John McKay in Seattle, said a former aide to Rep. Doc Hastings (R) of Washington called to ask whether he would convene a grand jury to investigate voter fraud in the 2004 governor’s race. Congressman Hastings chaired the House ethics committee in the 109th Congress.

In testimony before the House panel, Justice Department official William Moschella told lawmakers that no US attorneys were “removed [or] asked or encouraged to resign in an effort to retaliate against them.” He also testified that the Justice Department never intended to use interim appointments to “circumvent the Senate confirmation process.”

The sharp questioning was to be expected, observers say.

“Many of those US attorneys had very strong evaluations from the Justice Department, so it shouldn’t be surprising that they’re questioning why they were fired,” says Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Republicans on both panels say they are troubled by the way the Justice Department handled the firings, especially its decision to inform seven US attorneys on the same day without citing a reason for the firings.

“To replace seven United States attorneys all at once is not exactly a discreet thing to do,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I’ll tell you from experience what one of the most harmful side effects will be: previously, I had blogged about my experience with getting tagged with a speeding ticket. Because I had been blatantly profiled in the past, I had no confidence that this state trooper had pulled me over soley for my speed. I wish I had confidence that my race had nothing to do with it, but I don’t have that confidence; this department HAD used racial profiling in times past.

A similar thing can happen here. The next time the U. S. Attorneys take a place, people are going to wonder if politics and/or political retaliation is a motive, and it really doesn’t matter if the next batch are appointed by a Democratic administration or another one (Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid) from the Republic Party.


As stated here:

As predicted, part of the fallout of the scandal surrounding the political dismissal of U.S. Attorneys around the nation is that every public figure under federal investigation on charges of public corruption (or anything else, for that matter) is now able to credibly claim that they’re the target of a partisan witch-hunt, and call the integrity of their local U.S. Attorney into question. After all, given what we’ve learned in the past few days, if you’re still on the job with this “administration,” you’re highly suspect. People will want to know how far and how often you’ve bent over backward in service to the Karl Rove agenda.

David Kurtz at TPM has picked up on the theme, finding the seeds of doubt being cast about the activities of the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh.

TPMmuckraker also has a letter from one of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys, Bud Cummins of the Eastern District of Arkansas, which makes the same observation:

[T]he public must perceive that every substantive decision within the department is made in a neutral and non-partisan fashion. Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not.

And indeed it is a natural inclination. And one which ought to be followed up on. The researchers at ePluribus Media — who published a study conducted by communications professors Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan demonstrating that federal investigations of elected officials and candidates under the Bush “administration” appears to have been outlandishly partisan — have undertaken to do just that, and they’re looking for volunteers to help them with the work.

And be prepared for Republic Party talking points; Media Matters has debunked all of those we’ve seen so far:

In December 2006, the Bush administration fired seven U.S. attorneys, having fired one previously. As Media Matters for America has previously noted, three of the dismissed prosecutors were, according to a March 1 Washington Post article, “conducting corruption probes involving Republicans” when they were asked to step down, while others have claimed that they felt pressured to speed up or initiate investigations targeting Democrats. Many news reports have suggested political interference in the justice system, and on March 6, both the House and Senate began hearings on the attorney’s dismissals.

In reporting on the scandal, media figures have advanced several false, misleading, or baseless claims about the attorneys’ dismissals:

1. Attorneys were dismissed for “performance-related” issues

On February 6, then-deputy attorney general Paul McNulty testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the dismissals were “performance-related,” despite conceding in the same testimony that performance played no role in at least one dismissal, that of H.E. “Bud” Cummins III. […]

2. Bush dismissals comparable to Clinton’s ’93 dismissals.

In fact, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that “legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.”

A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article — headlined “Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys” — further noted that “[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration.” The article added that “Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees.”

3. Clinton fired Arkansas U.S. attorney to avoid Whitewater investigation

In a March 14 editorial, The Wall Street Journal suggested that former President Bill Clinton “dismiss[ed] … all 93 U.S. Attorneys” upon taking office in 1993 and subsequently appointed ” ‘Friend of Bill’ Paula Casey” as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas in order to avoid an investigation into “the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings.” Following the Journal editorial, co-host Sean Hannity made a similar suggestion on the March 14 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes. Hannity baselessly suggested that Clinton “fire[d] the Little Rock U.S. attorney” in 1993 because he had launched an “investigation into … the Whitewater deal.” In fact, Casey’s Republican-appointed predecessor, Charles A. Banks, had refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, reportedly in defiance of pressure from George H.W. Bush administration officials in search of a pre-election issue with which to tar challenger Clinton.

Moreover, as Media Matters has documented, the extensive investigation into Whitewater — initiated shortly after Clinton took office — ultimately led the independent counsel to close the probe without charging the Clintons with any wrongdoing.

4. McKay shirked responsibility to investigate voter fraud allegations[…]

In fact, McKay testified that he did not convene a grand jury to investigate the matter because “there was no evidence of voter fraud.”

5. Under new law, Bush still cannot appoint interim U.S. attorneys indefinitely

On the March 13 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio’s Mara Liasson falsely claimed that under new rules governing the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration could appoint people to those positions, “but they couldn’t stay there” without Senate confirmation. She added that “Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them — every one of the new ones if they didn’t like them.” In fact, a law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed “interim” U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation — a change that lies at the heart of the current U.S. attorney scandal.
[…]

6. Since the president has the authority to fire any or all U.S. attorneys, the administration’s only problem is a failure to be “forthcoming”

But the president’s authority to fire U.S. attorneys per se is not in question, and possible misconduct goes beyond simply a failure on the part of the administration to be “forthcoming.” For example, regarding the alleged pressure on former New Mexico U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias by Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) to expedite a corruption investigation of state Democrats, according to the Washington Post, “Legal experts say it violates congressional ethics rules for a senator or House member to communicate with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation.” Second, Gonzales and McNulty may have given false testimony to Congress in January. […]

March 18, 2007 Posted by | Friends, politics/social | 2 Comments