NY Times calls for Attorney General's dismissal.

[Rex Kickass]

It's not too often that you see this kind of calling for heads to roll on a national level from the big newspapers....

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

 

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

 

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

 

First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.

 

The F.B.I. has been using powers it obtained under the Patriot Act to get financial, business and telephone records of Americans by issuing tens of thousands of “national security letters,” a euphemism for warrants that are issued without any judicial review or avenue of appeal. The administration said that, as with many powers it has arrogated since the 9/11 attacks, this radical change was essential to fast and nimble antiterrorism efforts, and it promised to police the use of the letters carefully.

 

But like so many of the administration’s promises, this one evaporated before the ink on those letters could dry. The F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, admitted Friday that his agency had used the new powers improperly.

 

Mr. Gonzales does not directly run the F.B.I., but it is part of his department and has clearly gotten the message that promises (and civil rights) are meant to be broken.

 

It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

 

The attorney general helped formulate and later defended the policies that repudiated the Geneva Conventions in the war against terror, and that sanctioned the use of kidnapping, secret detentions, abuse and torture. He has been central to the administration’s assault on the courts, which he recently said had no right to judge national security policies, and on the constitutional separation of powers.

 

His Justice Department has abandoned its duties as guardian of election integrity and voting rights. It approved a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a poll tax, a case in which Mr. Gonzales’s political team overrode the objections of the department’s professional staff.

 

The Justice Department has been shamefully indifferent to complaints of voter suppression aimed at minority voters. But it has managed to find the time to sue a group of black political leaders in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.

 

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

 

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

[Balta1701]

Ugh, does the NYT seriously think that replacing Gonzalez would do anything productive? I can think of basically 1 replacement in the entire Bush Administration where the person coming in seems to have been an upgrade; the removal of Rumsfeld.

 

Replace Powell, get Rice

Replace Ashcroft, get Mr. "Quaint" Gonzalez.

Replace Thompson, Get Chertoff.

 

As long as the same people at the top are making the decisions...replacing the lower-level guys does nothing.

[Rex Kickass]

I think there's a serious case to removing the current AG by his open flouting of complying the laws that he is charged with enforcing in regards to his report to Congress, as well as a number of other issues debated here previous. Frankly, he oughta not just be fired, but rather impeached. His utter contempt for the laws that rule how his office operates itself is disturbing.

[Balta1701]

I think there's a serious case to removing the current AG by his open flouting of complying the laws that he is charged with enforcing in regards to his report to Congress, as well as a number of other issues debated here previous. Frankly, he oughta not just be fired, but rather impeached. His utter contempt for the laws that rule how his office operates itself is disturbing.

Which is, of course, exactly why this administration nominated him. Nothing you said there couldn't have been said by me before he was even confirmed to the position.

[mr_genius]

pfft, NY times

 

this is the equivalent of FOX news suggesting some democrat should be replaced.

[kapkomet]

How The NYT Covered Reno’s Firing Of All US Attorneys

From those champions of justice at the New York Times:

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS

By DAVID JOHNSTON,

 

Published: March 24, 1993

 

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

 

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision” in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

 

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

 

Says He Won’t Resist

 

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General’s move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

 

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno’s actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

“This case has been conducted with integrity,” Mr. Stephens said, “and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations.”

 

Nonetheless, lawyers who have followed the investigation have said that Mr. Stephens has been concerned that the Democratic Administration might try to upset his investigation.

 

Has Denied Wrongdoing

 

Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton’s efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.

 

Mr. Stephens and his prosecutors began the investigation that led them to review Mr. Rostenkowski’s activities in mid-1991, focusing initially on low-level employees at the House post office who absconded with money. There have been several guilty pleas as prosecutors have worked their way up the ranks at the mailing operation.

 

Mr. Rostenkowski has been under scrutiny since last year, when his office records were subpoenaed in an inquiry into whether someone in his office used his expense account fraudulently to obtain cash from the post office. Since then, some of his aides have testified to a grand jury and investigators have examined his use of campaign funds. Denies Any Connection

 

In announcing her order at her first news conference as Attorney General, Ms. Reno denied there was any connection between her action and the Rostenkowski case and said Mr. Stephens had been treated like other United States Attorneys.”

 

Ms. Reno said United States Attorneys “are absolutely integral to the whole success of the Department of Justice,” and her aides said today that she did not intend to immediately remove any whose presence was required to complete an investigation.

 

One official suggested that even Mr. Stephens might be asked to stay on until a successor is named, saying Ms. Reno had made no decisions about who she may choose on an interim basis.

 

All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. Battles of the Past

 

Ms. Reno is under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the Justice Department. She was Mr. Clinton’s third choice for Attorney General and arrived after most of the department’s senior positions were already filled by the White House.

 

The comments of Ms. Reno and Mr. Stephens evoked the pitched battles of the past, when independent United States Attorneys resisted removal by new administrations.

 

In 1969, for instance Robert Morgenthau, now the Manhattan District Attorney, resisted efforts by the Nixon Administration to replace him as United States Attorney in New York until he was given what he called an “ultimatum” by President Richard M. Nixon to leave office.

 

In 1978, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell removed David W. Marston as United States Attorney in Philadelphia, provoking charges, never proved, that a lawmaker under scrutiny by Mr. Marston’s office had urged President Jimmy Carter to remove the prosecutor.

 

Four-Year Terms

 

United States Attorneys are appointed to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President. It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated the request for resignations or whether it was pressed on her by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a “joint decision.”

 

Ms. Reno said she wanted the resignations “so that the U.S. Attorneys presently in position will know where they stand and that we can begin to build a team.”

 

Some Administration officials dismissed Mr. Stephens’s veiled assertions about the Attorney General’s motives as “absurd,” as one put it, saying that what was surprising was that it had taken so long before the Justice Department could begin putting its own appointees in place. Abortion Clinic Violence

 

On other topics, Ms. Reno said she would work with Democrats in Congress to prepare legislation to give Federal agencies a larger role in protecting abortion clinics.

 

Her comments came after she had ordered a review of current law, which she said was inadequate “to prevent or to help prevent physical interference with access to abortion clinics.”

 

She also ruled out a Federal inquiry into the death of Dr. David Gunn, a physician who was shot to death as he entered an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., apparently by a man who said he was an anti-abortion activist. “Florida law on this subject is more effective than Federal law,” said Ms. Reno, a former Florida prosecutor.

 

Ms. Reno also said she had not decided whether to replace William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who has been found to have violated ethics rules.

 

Lest we forget.

 

But somehow, AG's issue is totally different, right?

[Rex Kickass]

Kap: Rostenkowski still went to jail.

[kapkomet]

Kap: Rostenkowski still went to jail.

But Janet Reno didn't have to "resign" like they're calling for AG to resign, now did it?

[FlaSoxxJim]

But somehow, AG's issue is totally different, right?

 

It is different on many levels and you know it.

 

Right or wrong, Reno's attorney purge was across the board (something Miers apparently suggested here as well), and it happened withing the first two months of Clinton taking office. Here, the purge was selective and occurred 5-6 years into the Bush presidency, so it's not a matter of setting a tone and building the tone at the start of a new administration. More to the point, all of AGs testimony that the firings were completely performance based and not in any way politically motivated is obviously hogwash in light of the email dialog between Miers, Kyle Sampson, and Scott Jennings that shows that it was very much politically motivated.

[southsider2k5]

So is firing all of them to cover up the fires that you really wanted to make, any better? Its all the same political movitations when it comes down to it. Once again, Bill Clinton just covered it up a little better.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So is firing all of them to cover up the fires that you really wanted to make, any better? Its all the same political movitations when it comes down to it. Once again, Bill Clinton just covered it up a little better.

 

I don't think it would be any better, but it would have provided better cover for their real motivations certainly. The point is, if this was an across the board federal prosecutor purge that happened in March of 2001 right after Bush had taken office there wouldn't be such an uproar over it. Right or wrong, that is a business-as-usual practice with an incoming administration, while the current scandal is only business-as-usual for this administration.

 

Don't mean for this tangent to merge with the last post but. . .

 

I figure AG AG is safe until Bush gives him a public "Heckuva job, Gonzo". At that stage he's a dead man walking.

 

White House turning on Gonzales?

 

From the NYT:

 

[Gonzales’] appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration’s domestic eavesdropping program.

 

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

 

“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.

[kapkomet]

The point is, if this was an across the board federal prosecutor purge that happened in March of 2001 right after Bush had taken office there wouldn't be such an uproar over it.

 

Bull s***. Stop it. You know damn well everyone would have gone nuts, just like everyone always does with anything the Bush Administration does that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

 

My point is what southsider's point was above. They all do it, and yes, it's wrong, but Reno gets a free pass because it was "everyone". Please.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bull s***. Stop it. You know damn well everyone would have gone nuts, just like everyone always does with anything the Bush Administration does that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

 

My point is what southsider's point was above. They all do it, and yes, it's wrong, but Reno gets a free pass because it was "everyone". Please.

 

It is unprecedented for so many federal prosecutors to be dismissed 5-6 years in. It would have been a minor story at the start of the administration whether it was 8 people or 93 and nobody would have gone nuts. Also if they'd not been better able to conceal the partisan political motivation.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bull s***. Stop it. You know damn well everyone would have gone nuts, just like everyone always does with anything the Bush Administration does that doesn't fit the liberal agenda.

 

My point is what southsider's point was above. They all do it, and yes, it's wrong, but Reno gets a free pass because it was "everyone". Please.

I agree with you that the only significant differences between Clinton/Reno's firings and these news ones are timing, and that the current administration is lousy at being smooth.

 

But the bias we are seeing, I think, is less about a "liberal agenda" and more about increasing levels of media exposure generally, and the soundbyte style of journalism. Whomever our next President is, I will guarantee right now, will be scrutinized even more than Bush was. Bet on it. And as our society gets more and more into the flash and dash style of information ingestion, the media will more and more being trying to create shock waves where none (or very few) should exist.

 

Here is a thought to ponder. All sorts of polls and studies indicated during the last 10 years a significant movement to the right of the country as a whole. And this was both the already-right-leaning folks, and the moderate or "swing" voters. That trend seems to be be reversing a bit now, but only just starting to. So... if you are a media business (paper, TV, radio, whatever) who is trying to make money by reporting to the broadest possible audience (in other words, I am not talking about the fringe ones here)... why on earth would you promote a "liberal agenda"? It makes no sense at all. Sure, there are always individual reporters and such that show some bias in their presentation, intentionally and unintentionally. But there is no "agenda" there other than to make money, generally through loyalty. And the way to do that is capture more audience, not less.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree with you that the only significant differences between Clinton/Reno's firings and these news ones are timing, and that the current administration is lousy at being smooth.

 

But the bias we are seeing, I think, is less about a "liberal agenda" and more about increasing levels of media exposure generally, and the soundbyte style of journalism. Whomever our next President is, I will guarantee right now, will be scrutinized even more than Bush was. Bet on it. And as our society gets more and more into the flash and dash style of information ingestion, the media will more and more being trying to create shock waves where none (or very few) should exist.

 

Here is a thought to ponder. All sorts of polls and studies indicated during the last 10 years a significant movement to the right of the country as a whole. And this was both the already-right-leaning folks, and the moderate or "swing" voters. That trend seems to be be reversing a bit now, but only just starting to. So... if you are a media business (paper, TV, radio, whatever) who is trying to make money by reporting to the broadest possible audience (in other words, I am not talking about the fringe ones here)... why on earth would you promote a "liberal agenda"? It makes no sense at all. Sure, there are always individual reporters and such that show some bias in their presentation, intentionally and unintentionally. But there is no "agenda" there other than to make money, generally through loyalty. And the way to do that is capture more audience, not less.

 

Drama and controversy sell papers more than actual news. I think the reason that there is this conspiracy about the leftist media is that they're generally anti-Bush (and his admin) because of what it creates. It's the popular thing to do now.

[Balta1701]

So, I think the salient points of this matter are being lost in the semantics here.

 

1. The Bush Administration was fully within its rights to remove the U.S. Attorneys. There is absolutely nothing illegal about Presidents removing U.S. Attorneys. The Clinton Administration removed all of them, but coming in after 12 years of Republican rule, that is not at all Surprising to me. The Bush Administration removed almost all of them when they took over in 01, IIRC.

 

2. The U.S. Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. Therefore, if the President wants to replace any U.S. Attorneys who are not taking enough steps to politicize their office to support the election of people of the President's party, that is also 100% legal and no one could be charged at all for that.

 

3. However, if it were to be known that the White House decided to fire a bunch of U.S. attorneys because they weren't sufficiently aggressive in bringing trumped-up voter fraud charges against Democrats or weren't leaking enough stories about Dems being investigated, or were simply being removed because they followed threads on an investigation of a prominent Republican (i.e. Duke Cunningham) this would be fully legal, but it would not paint the White House in a good light.

 

It would probably look even worse if the removed U.S. attorneys were given positive performance reviews before they were fired, and it would look even worse if they were replaced by totally inexperienced people who are just there to "fill out a resume" and who are close associates of Karl Rove.

 

4. Because these sorts of firings and replacements by political hacks would look bad, the Bush Administration, in an effort to avoid looking bad, had motivation to try to cover things up. This is a classic "Cover up is worse than the crime" case, in that the removal of the attorneys is not a crime, but lying to Congress is. AG Gonzalez, along with several other people, were called to testify on this matter before Congress under oath a few weeks ago. The AG said plainly that there was no political motivation behind the firings, they were all removed for performance issues. The emails and other documents obtained by Congress through subpoenas clearly show that this was a lie. There were a few other whoppers in his testimony, but that is the big one to my eyes.

 

5. There is another potential violation here, but not by anyone in the White House. It is a clear and plain ethical violation for members of Congress or the Senate to have contact with a U.S. Attorney and pressure them to act or not act on specific cases. There is testimony and evidence that several Republican Congressmen and Senators, most notably Senator Domenici, did exactly that; they called and spoke to the Attorneys to pressure them to move on specific investigations of Democrats before the election. This has led to CREW filing ethics complaints against 3 members of Congress, including Domenici and the ranking Republican on the House Ethics committee.

 

6. There is a legislative issue here which is also new and which has motivated many of these hearings. When a new President takes office and removes attorneys, those Attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate. However, in the Patriot Act, Arlen Specter slipped a little-noticed provision in allowing a White House to appoint a temporary replacement Attorney with no Senate approval. This is exactly what the White House did, and under the law it is perfectly legal. Now that it has been done and used to replace qualified attorneys with political soldiers for no obvious reason, the Congress and White House appear to have struck an agreement to remove that provision from the Patriot Act.

 

7. Last and finally, there is one other issue here; the politicization of the U.S. attorney's office. A study cited a few times in the last few days, including on the Colbert Report by one of the authors (guys @ University of Missouri I believe) shows that under the Bush Administration thus far, investigations of Democratic politicians have outnumbered investigations of Republicans by a factor of 5 overall, and a factor of 7 below the national level. While I do not have the data from the Clinton administration or earleir for comparison, this suggests a potential new problem in the U.S. Attorney's office; the politicization of those attorneys to the point where they use the presence of an investigation and leaks from the investigation to influence elections. (That guy's under investigation? Don't vote for him!)

 

It is also possible that the targeting of these investigations towards one side, if undeserved (it could well be that Democrats are just 7 times more corrupt, although I have trouble buying that without a lot of evidence) is allowing actual crimes by the other side to slip through unpunished because the Attorneys are too busy investigating political opponents to actually solve anything.

 

This potential problem suggests a new need for some level of reform in the system to try to decrease the politicization of that office in the future. To decide what is needed, Congressional hearings are certainly appropriate, to determine whether there is truly an abberration here and whether or not steps can be taken to rectify it.

 

So, that's my summary of the issues here. There was nothing illegal about the firing and replacement of the attorneys. However, you can't just go before Congress and lie about it. And, certain practices that have been illuminated by this controversy suggest that there is a need for further cleaning up of the Attorneys beyond just fixing the Patriot Act loophole Specter slipped in.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Drama and controversy sell papers more than actual news. I think the reason that there is this conspiracy about the leftist media is that they're generally anti-Bush (and his admin) because of what it creates. It's the popular thing to do now.

That's probably more true then anything else.

 

If Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected, though, her policies and "cover-ups" (unless it sells more papers, i.e. Monica!!!) will definitely not be as widely reported, though.

 

It is the "in" thing to rip George W. Bush. That's certainly true.

 

And Flaxx, at the heart of it all, GWB sucks ass at covering his ass, legal or otherwise. And his ass is getting bigger every day, if you know what I mean.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And Flaxx, at the heart of it all, GWB sucks ass at covering his ass, legal or otherwise. And his ass is getting bigger every day, if you know what I mean.

 

That is definitely true. It's gotten where every new scandal/crisis/screw-up is just one more thing and almosty nothing surprises anymore.

[kapkomet]

That is definitely true. It's gotten where every new scandal/crisis/screw-up is just one more thing and almosty nothing surprises anymore.

I do want you all to understand that I think GWB is an idiot, I did in 2000, and 2004, but I voted for him both times because the Goracle was laughable in 2000, and John Kerry is a blowhard jackass, IMO.

 

I really just wish we could get a real president that would represent what was best for the most Americans, and not all the special interests.

 

My whole thing is - there's so much s*** in our government on BOTH sides of the aisle, yet everyone wants to attack the Executive Branch with full vigor. That bothers me.

[Rex Kickass]

That's probably more true then anything else.

 

If Mrs. Bill Clinton gets elected, though, her policies and "cover-ups" (unless it sells more papers, i.e. Monica!!!) will definitely not be as widely reported, though.

 

It is the "in" thing to rip George W. Bush. That's certainly true.

 

And Flaxx, at the heart of it all, GWB sucks ass at covering his ass, legal or otherwise. And his ass is getting bigger every day, if you know what I mean.

 

If you think Clinton administration missteps won't be covered as harshly, you're forgetting that the previous Clinton administration was impeached based on a scandal from Star magazine.

[kapkomet]

If you think Clinton administration missteps won't be covered as harshly, you're forgetting that the previous Clinton administration was impeached based on a scandal from Star magazine.

I think I mentioned that in my post. Yep. I did.

 

It was "sex" and it sold.

 

And that's NOT why he was impeached, but nice try.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Interesting story item of the day:

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/14/rove-fitzgerald/

 

Patrick Fitzgerald Chosen As U.S. Attorney Over Rove Pressure

 

Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) revealed yesterday that Karl Rove pressured him in 2001 to choose a U.S. Attorney who he believed would be lenient in probing state corruption, the Chicago Tribune reports. Fitzgerald ended up choosing Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), who was later named Special Prosecutor in the CIA leak case.

 

[Rove told Sen. Fitzgerald] in the spring of 2001 that he should limit his choice for U.S. attorney in Chicago to someone from Illinois.

 

According to Fitzgerald, who was determined to bring in a prosecutor from outside the state, Rove “just said we don’t want you going outside the state. We don’t want to be moving U.S. attorneys around.”

 

Fitzgerald said he believes Rove was trying to influence the selection in reaction to pressure from Rep. Dennis Hastert, then speaker of the House, and allies of then-Gov. George Ryan, who knew Fitzgerald was seeking someone from outside Illinois to attack political corruption.

 

Fitzgerald said he announced his choice, Patrick Fitzgerald, a New Yorker, on May 13, a Mother’s Day Sunday, to pre-empt any opposition.

[southsider2k5]

To be honest, I don't know how Fitzgerald is still around. This guy has been so far up everyone's ass in Chicago, its amazing he is still alive. He has hunted down Daley guys, and Ryan guys equally. If he survives the 09 inevitable purge, I wouldn't be surprised to seem him indict King Richard himself.

[whitesoxfan101]

I personally don't like cronie Gonzales either, but if the NYT wants him gone, that confirms to me he should stay. What a joke of a "news" paper, they've turned into the left wings answer to Fox News Channel.

Edited March 14, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[FlaSoxxJim]

To be honest, I don't know how Fitzgerald is still around. This guy has been so far up everyone's ass in Chicago, its amazing he is still alive. He has hunted down Daley guys, and Ryan guys equally. If he survives the 09 inevitable purge, I wouldn't be surprised to seem him indict King Richard himself.

 

Speaking of. . . it looks like the Conrad Black case is starting up and you gioys should be able to enjoy that for a while, eh?