home

Accountability

Meteor Blades:

The future is what matters. Another decade or two of allowing the maggots to hollow out the Constitution could make that already dicey future grim indeed. Avoiding it, if that is possible, means, first off, putting away the perfume and inhaling deeply of the stink. Doing so properly requires not the wussy, half-hearted, half-assed, wink-and-a-nod investigation that we’re all-too-familiar with, but a thorough, ruthless, hard-core, full-bore, no-questions-evaded probe that not only digs deep but also goes as far back as needed to get the whole picture, even if that means taking up where Frank Church left off 33 years ago.

What MB said. Read the whole thing. It matters.

Speaking for me only

< The Veep Pick: Gore In 92 | Border Agents' Sentences Upheld >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You say: (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:58:50 PM EST
    Doing so properly requires not the wussy, half-hearted, half-assed, wink-and-a-nod investigation that we're all-too-familiar with, but a thorough, ruthless, hard-core, full-bore, no-questions-evaded probe that not only digs deep but also goes as far back as needed to get the whole picture, even if that means taking up where Frank Church left off 33 years ago

    I doubt that Obama, Dean, and Pelosi would get you there.  But then, MB himself said:

    Avoiding it, if that is possible, means, first off, putting away the perfume and inhaling deeply of the stink.

    Perhaps part of that is admitting that democrats are just as much beholden to telecome companies and are NOT going to impose any fundamental change (funny word, btw, isn't it?).

    Do you read this blog? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:00:24 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#9)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    You weren't criticizing this blog (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    I gathered.


    Parent
    I don't see a criticism of this blog (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by talesoftwokitties on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:36:35 PM EST
    Maybe a posit that Obama ain't gonna investigate nuttin'.  Okay, now I'll go read MB.

    Parent
    i want to agree with (none / 0) (#46)
    by sancho on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:26:38 AM EST
    meteor but who will be allowed to investigate who is not already in some way compromised? and how effective can the investigation be? cheney and rumsfeld became close pals during the nixon administration. so maybe--to choose another famous investigation--the watergate hearings did not work out as well as some may have thought.

    Parent
    MB is the best (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM EST
    I find that few are better at keeping everything in perspective and staying focused on the issues.  I don't think he gained that perspective overnight, either.

    He surely understands that there is no way he is getting anything remotely like what he asks for.  The candidate who promised an end to partisan gridlock and professed a desire to stop refighting the same old battles is not going to endorse a full-blown investigation of Bush Administration wrongdoing, no chance at all.

    But you'll never get anything if you don't ask.  People like MB understand that you have to keep up the pressure, you have to keep demanding people do what is right.  Obama may abandon the thought of investigating the GOP in order to win plaudits from the Broders of the world, but we don't have to be happy about it.  In politics, if you stop pushing then you simply lose.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    MB remains the best.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    When you push to the point of distorting other's positions you sometimes distort those positions to the point at which those positions (as distorted) are perceived (incorrectly) to be worse (or the same as) someone elses.

    And then someone ends up supporting someone else erroneously.  Actually betraying their own cause.

    For instance, I wrote recently that if Obama ends up keeping the war going through 2010 then I would easily conclude that Cindy Sheehan did her cause a huge disservice when she participated in lies about Clinton.  Calling her a war hawk, etc.

    From a certain perspective MB may be the best.  From another, he might not be getting what he wants because he chooses a tactic that forces himself and other people to support other people erroneously.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:17:42 PM EST
    As passionate as MB is, I have always seen him as more level-headed on these things than most others.

    I dunno.  Perhaps I missed some of his outstanding moments of Hillary-hatred.  Maybe this is his platform.

    Parent

    Nice sticker! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    He's called Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:27:35 PM EST
    A war hawk.  I have seen the rhetoric.

    Has he called Obama a war hawk?  Does he use the same rhetoric, or does he play blogging politics and he knows there's only so far he can go for the time being before he starts alienating some of his audience?  You be the judge.

    Pols are pols.  Guess what?  We are all pols just a little bit if we want people to listen to us.  

    I think I can say this:  If I wanted the war to end sooner rather than later, I would not team up with MB.

    I guess that explains why I have not.


    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:45:55 PM EST
    "War hawk" is pretty mild stuff in my book.  I guess I understand where you're coming from, but wow, your enemies list must be pretty darn long at this point.

    Parent
    I know how (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    He means it.

    And I know the context on the blog in which he posts.

    But if he thought she wasn't a warmonger and just a little too hawkish in his opinion, he was TOTALLY free to point that out to all the morons who responded "warmonger" to his call.

    hell.  I might have agreed with him then.  Taken him seriously.  I too think she's a little too hawkish.  Just in my opinion.


    Parent

    Good One (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:05:05 PM EST
    I am in.

    the future requires impeachment (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by pluege on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:32:11 PM EST
    To Speaker Pelosi,

    Your refusal to impeach bush and cheney is a multi-faceted failing on your part of historical proportions. Never in the history of the United States has there been a stronger case for impeachment; never has there been greater justification or urgency for impeachment; never has there been a more appropriate use of the capability written into the Constitution for the Congress to be able to protect the American people and the Constitution from a criminal executive.

    Speaker Pelosi, it is your duty, your sworn oath of office to protect the people and defend the Constitution; it is your job and your obligation as a person to do everything in your power to remove the criminals bush and cheney from their positions of power enabling them to inflict suffering and undermine the Constitution and rule of law. There can be no justification whatsoever for your refusal to initiate impeachment proceedings including if you and your fellow democratic leaders are implicated and complicit in bush regime crimes.

    Every person must live with themselves. It is far more important to live with a clean soul, no matter what the consequences, then to live a lie, to harbor a criminal conspiracy against the rightness of American ideals. America has been viciously attacked by the bush regime and their republican and democratic supporters. Congress is all the people have to defend themselves and protect their country and their ideals. You MUST do your duty and protect the people from these criminals, you MUST initiate impeachment proceedings immediately.

    Letting bush and cheney slink out of office without having been held accountable for their crimes is NOT an option. The message and legacy of such a strategy, the permanent damage to the US system of justice is that crime does pay, that the powerful and connected can undertake the most blatant, heinous crimes against the country and get away with it. You owe it to all of us, to humanity, to America to not let bush and cheney get away with their crimes unpunished.


    You're kidding, right? (1.50 / 2) (#14)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:44:05 PM EST
    Bush as the most impeachable president ever? Hardly. I put FDR number 1. I've talked about this already but it constantly amazes me that FDR gets a free pass for his horrendous treatment of over 100,000 U.S. citizens, bombing civilian areas such as Dresden and Tokyo, and not to mention suspending Habeas Corpus and the nuking of population centers with little military use. Oh, and threatening the Supreme Court!

    But yeah, Bush torturing a half dozen people and keeping 600 foreign detainees (and a few U.S. citizens) is far, far worse.

    Parent

    Accountability for Systemic Failure (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    I favor a Church II investigation.

     While I think impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Mukasey would be justified, I don't think bi-partisan support can be mustered before their terms expire (except, perhaps for Mukasey if the ground were kept narrow and specific).

    And I would give up seeing people like Karl Rove and Scooter frogmarched in exchange for a bipartisan commission that looks at the systemic failures, their causes and ways of preventing this from happening again.  I know that no commission will adopt all of the reforms necessary but at least it may staunch the bleeding.

    Individual accountability may not be achievable since so many were involved in either exploiting the weaknesses or permitting the exploitation.  And while I don't think that the fear instilled by 9/11 is an excuse for the systemic rot, many people on both sides of the aisle will buy that as an  excuse for personal culpability.  So take criminal liability off the table for any thing other than misfeasance, like the corruption of Abramoff and Dusty Foggo.

    I meant "malfeasance" not ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:39:44 PM EST
    "misfeasance".  People will be generous and  excuse misfeasance.

    Parent
    People's voting habits, at least (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by zfran on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    according to this article haven't changed much since the 1960s. Keeping everyone accountable for their actions has become, imo, a state of mind. I agree we must continue to do so, but we are treated as sheep, they expect us to act like sheep, and it's not getting any better. American Voters

    Lowered expectations (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    It's a good diary, not sure why it wasn't posted as a front-page story.

    But I don't see how it can possibly happen. Even after the election, for practical purposes it's still going to be the same Congress that happily passed the FISA Immunity.

    The whole period since the '06 midterms has been a big disappointment. Leading Democrats seem proud of how limited the party has been in its actions and intentions. And the seats we're likely to pick up this cycle are not likely to bring any real change of governing philosophy.

    We all know what should be done, but (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:43:16 PM EST
    I think the reality is that Congress, even if it is beefed up with a larger majority, is not going to take us down the road to truth and consequences.  

    Once this administration ends, there isn't going to be the will to hold the wrong-doers accountable - heck there's no will to do it now; the ongoing message will be that there are so many more important issues confronting the American people to waste it trying to pillory people who aren't even in office anymore.

    Sure, with a Democratic administration, there would actually be an AG who would - unlike Mukasey - enforce a contempt citation, but the GOP will beat the Dems over the head with the fact that they are wasting the taxpayers' time.  And since many of them will be running for office almost as soon as the election in November is over, there aren't going to be any big risk-takers.

    Year after year, with each revelation, I would think, "surely, this will make the Congress sit up and take notice," and each time, there is a lot of bluster and bravado, and then...nothing.

    I've been saying for more than 2 years that something needed to be done, not just to get to the truth and hold people accountable, but to draw a line on executive power that is going unchecked.

    I don't see the guy who voted for the FISA legislation, who has a whole quiver full of right-wing arrows, being the leader who tasks the Congress and the Democratic leadership with cleaning the stink out of DC - even if he is running to change the way things are done there.  I have a sinking feeling that the only change Obama is really interested in is the one that puts him in the White House.

    It may need to happen, but it's not going to - not with a President Obama and not with a President McCain.

    I don't believe that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    is power-mad or anything of the kind. I agree that he wants to be president and that the idea appeals to his ego. I think that has probably been true of everyone that has ever run. The problem as I see it is that he is not competent to be president. There is no way he will be a two term president. So, after four years, the Repugs will blame the Dem Party for his bungling imcompetence. This means that the POTUS in 2012 will most certainly be a Repug again. We get these fantastic candidates -- Gore, Kerry, Clinton -- but we can't get them elected.

    Of course he's not a powermad (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:37:07 PM EST
    dictator.

    And Clinton's not a warmonger.

    D'uh!!!!!!!

    My points are always so apparent to me.

    THe point is does the GREAT METEORBLADES have the guts to admit Clinton isn't a warmonger.

    C'mon. Even now after there's no political reason to polarize her on his demographic even more?  Even now that Unity might provide a benefit to a Democratic candidate?

    Maybe they really really believe in their heart of hearts of that Clinton is a warmonger.

    And maybe in my heart of hearts Obama believes Bush did nothing wrong in terms of executive authority.

    What are we gonna do?

    I hope change the way we care about issues.


    Parent

    Your point WAS quite apparent. (none / 0) (#44)
    by weltec2 on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:22:10 AM EST
    Sorry, I just phrased my comment clumsily.

    Parent
    Not going there. (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:41:54 PM EST
    The quoted paragraph seems fine, but I'm not going to go read the rest of it. That site is dead to me.

    Anyone expecting Obama to do much about this is going to be disappointed, I suspect. He's as much a part of the Washington swamp as anyone else there.

    Well, first you need to investigate ... (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by santarita on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:04:45 PM EST
    and get the facts before you prosecute.  So I hope that Pres. Obama  supports thorough investigation of the various allegations of wrongdoing.

    But given the fact that he supported immunity for telecom companies before all of the facts of their activities could be discovered, I would say that my hope is misplaced.

    He did not (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    He said he's have Justice 'review' whatever.  That's all.  Not even a politician's standard campaign-promise-we-know-will-be-broken.

    Powerful writing. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:24:48 AM EST


    BTD, speaking for the Constiution (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:00:28 AM EST
    Speaking for me only

    Like h@ll you are.

    You speak for me, and everyone who loves what this country could be and still (I believe) can be.

    Thanks for the link.

    Hard to imagine (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by oldpro on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 03:07:48 AM EST
    accountability in a post-partisan D.C. with a post-partisan president and a post-partisan congress.

    The very words 'post partisan' in connection with politics make me gag.

    Give me a fighting Clinton, Truman, Kennedy, FDR, Cuomo any day of the week.  They knew the limits of partisanship but had no illusions about who was the opposition and who was the enemy.

    It wasn't personal.  It was always about issues.

    Until now.

    Kagro x has the best comment (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Burned on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 07:19:12 AM EST
    Kagro X

    The problem with these "bygones"...
    is that they never seem to actually go by.


    Right, this is the strongest argument (3.66 / 3) (#30)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:58:48 PM EST
    for electing McCain. The Democrats will have a motivation to do something about the abuses of the Constitution if McCain is elected; if Obama is elected, they will have none, and Obama will not lead on correcting the past abuses (IMO).
    A divided government may be our best hope for a robust debate on the limits of government.

    Let me take this opportunity to bash Clinton: (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
    what did HE do to correct the excesses of the Iran-Contra decade? Nothing, IIRC.
    On the other hand, in 1992, there were Congressional hearings on the subject.

    Parent
    It really has to do with what you value more (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    Getting accomplished what you want accomplished.

    Or stopping others from getting accomplished what they want accomplished.

    this is my response to MB on dkos:

    I'll be more direct.  Health care and cronies go free, I'm OK, I give Obama a thumbs up.

    Cronies in jail, no health care, Obama gets a thumbs down.  Sorry.  That's my call.

    Both no, Obama gets a way thumbs down.

    Both yes, a way thumbs up.

    sounds like I'm almost taking MB seriously doesn't it?

    I applied the same kinds of assessments to Clinton.

    Also, Iran/Contra offended our sensibilities, but didn't create an immediate impact on the quality of life on most Americans.

    The crimes of Bushco have had much more of an impact, so maybe that's the way to frame it.

    Put Rove in jail cause he outed a CIA agent, but to get the jury to convict, convince the jury that Rove took away their jobs, too!

    But I think that ship has already sailed.  It was the Democrats in the 90s who took away the jobs.  According to Obama and his fanbase.

    Parent

    I think we are in agreement then. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:24:54 PM EST
    What Clinton failed to do in rectifying the Iran-Contra abuses was not as important as his successes, to me.
    But with Bush, the crimes and abuses were much greater, and correcting them takes precedence over merely winning an election.

    Parent
    oi (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
    That's a good discussion for you and andgarden.

    He's in the more "win at all costs" mode at this point.

    Frankly, in the most selfish way I can think of it, there is not reason I would think Obama should win or be any better for me an my own than McCain.  Either way, I feel we're on our own.

    The reasons I would take the "win at all costs" approach at this point are all unselfish.

    I can see how maybe there's someone out there who might benefit more in terms of being on rotation in Iraq.  I mean, he will reduce troops a little bit.

    I think it's marginal.  It means nothing to me personally.

    My father always told me Democracy fails when people act selflessly.

    I admit it, I'm a very selfish voter, and I think it's better to have the "who ya' gonna vote for?" convo with someone who has better intentions.


    Parent

    I just had some fun (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:41:22 PM EST
    reading some of Edgar08's old diaries on dkos.

    Pretty incisive stuff, really.  I imagine he was quite unpopular.

    Parent

    I actually tried discussing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:43:27 PM EST
    An issue in my first diary.

    Then I learned that was a bad idea on that forum.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/27/115434/268/910/363194

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:57:54 PM EST
    Yes, shame on you for trying.

    The reason we never get to have real discussions on the Internet is that everyone assumes bad faith on the part of everyone else who disagrees.  Well, that's how it used to be.  These days they sometimes assume bad faith and racism as well.

    The one that caught my eye was the KO diary you responded to, the one where he talked about how Clinton activists are such good people and how we, the dkos community, need to find a way to make sure Clinton supporters feel welcome because they're just such unique and beautiful snowflakes.  That stuff just always kills me.  After making the place as ugly and intolerant as possible for months, now that we actually need you for something, let's talk about how we can all mend fences.

    I really despise the people who felt entitled to switch back and forth between Hillary-hating mode and "why can't we all just get along?" mode at the drop of a hat.  I think we agree in that I would prefer a genuine hater to someone who admits the hate is all for show.

    Parent

    Well Sure (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    And it's totally moronic.

    They still can't get over something someone called the bullmoose said 5 years ago, and, in two months, I'm supposed to get over a thousand people calling the Clintons racist.

    Yeah. Right.

    Call me in two years and see if I've gotten used to Bill and Hillary Clinton being called racists yet.

    What I have to say can not be posted on this blog.

    And frankly I never actually do say what I really think on this blog.

    I've had to go find a different blog for that.

    For now, my theme on this blog is this:  distorting one politician's position on an issue in support of another politician is an exploitation of that issue, not advocacy for that issue.

    And I'll stick to it as long as I'm allowed.


    Parent

    Yeah, people like that give me (none / 0) (#41)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    a severe case of IBS.

    Parent
    Obama's a Powermad Dictator (3.50 / 2) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    That's how you be a real activist on this issue.

    If you want Obama to respond to the issue being discussed here, you lie about him, then he has to overcompensate for the lie, and do something about accountability.

    Right?

    Isn't that how it works?

    And I still wouldn't even consider MB consistent in his activist role until he uses the same heavy handed hyperbolic rhetoric (see subject line above) that I've seen him use about other politicians.

    To judge MB merely from his own perspective, he's being very gentle.  I think to the point where I'd still say he's being inconsistent.

    Until MB can use not only be a hard nosed activist tactics but USE THE SAME RHETORIC about Obama i've seen him use about other politicians then I'll consider him another car on the double standard express train to nowhere.

    Just to add (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    Or he can come out and say that hyperbolic rhetoric and lying about people (even passive aggressively) is wrong, and then just stop doing it altogether and then I might start taking MB seriously.

    Consistently manipulative propagandizing isn't really what I'd want from a blogger.  Just thought that I'd point that out.  My true feelings is not that MB be consistent to the tactics I've seen him employ in the past, but to realize that they were wrong from the beginning.

    Parent

    The real trick is to keep all of that in mind (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    while still keeping perspective about the next election--and there will always be a next election.

    I find that difficult to do myself.

    I find it easier now (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has made it easier for me to be less concerned about their well being of late.

    Parent
    The water under the bridge is coming up (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    to the bridge. And I still can't help but care. The Republicans somehow manage to always be unfathomably worse.

    Parent
    For me it's a non issue. Bush made millions for (none / 0) (#16)
    by WillBFair on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    the war and oil industries. He's untouchable. And there are horrifying problems that will take all of our brains and time. I'm not willing to waste my time and attention on something that I know is not going to happen.

    Nor does it help anyone (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:02:59 PM EST
    Provide health care for their family.

    Problem is Dkos got that issue wrong too.


    Parent

    i'll give you two out of three, (none / 0) (#45)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:23:24 AM EST
    We get these fantastic candidates -- Gore, Kerry, Clinton -- but we can't get them elected.

    and you can guess which one i wouldn't attach "fantastic" to.

    to answer your question edgar:

    What are we gonna do?

    this is why god invented the "write-in" line on the ballot. i intend to use it, for the first time since i started voting. absent an awakening by the SD's at the convention, it's my only recourse.

    Dems (none / 0) (#52)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    The Democratic Party has made it easier for me to be less concerned about their well being of late.

    Amen. Sad but true.

    Write-in (none / 0) (#53)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    this is why god invented the "write-in" line on the ballot.

    Check your state's rules. In some cases the write-in votes go to the party's nominee, in others they are not counted.

    A President alone cannot provide accountability (none / 0) (#54)
    by laurie on Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    The whole political structure provides accountability.
    This includes the media, informal  political approval groups, influential churches, powerful families, Parties, systemically organised core values within government agencies such as the FBI,CIA secret services and schools.
    The whole fabric of society has to be based on individual responsibility.

    OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE (none / 0) (#55)
    by IsidoroRDL on Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    OPEN LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE TO OPPOSE CONFIRMATION OF ERIC HOLDER AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DOJ BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL OBSTRUCT-ION OF THE UNDERSIGN'S FEDERAL STATUTORY RIGHTS AS A FATHER AND ATTORNEY IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 1202, AND 1513.

    Greetings:

        I write as a US. citizen, as a Nam Vet who swore 44 years ago to defend the Constitution, as a former appointee in both the Carter and Reagan Administration, as a independent federal civil/human rights litigation attorney who for more than 32 years has successfully represented Hispanics against the malfeasance of DOJ,1 and a supporter of President-elect Obama, because irrespective of being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent the Senate must immediately act to restore the Rule of Law in the U.S. Department of Justice (See Adam Cohen, "Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law," The New York Times, November 14, 2008).

        For this reason I oppose the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General because he is a defendant in a pending action under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 and civil RICO action to be filed in the U.S. District Court for D.C., based on the following  evidence in the record that establishes that as a Beltway attorney/lobbyist he is the linchpin in a criminal conspiracy since 2003:

        First, for five years after my Son was shanghaied to the Republic of Colombia in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1204, he did obstruct my Federal and Virginia statutory rights as a Father to compel DOJ to secure my right to international visitations with my U.S. citizen Son, pursuant to the provisions of the Hague Convention on Missing and Abducted Children ("Treaty"), and Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act VA Code § 20-124.1 et seq. ("UCCJEA"); and,

        Second, in retaliation for my litigating to enforce my rights under Treaty and UCCJEA and petitioning Congress (See http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml),  in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1513, he conspired to punish, stigmatize, and deprive me of my right to employment as an attorney.2

        Thus, my opposition to Eric Holder is a continuation of my petitions of 2005 to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees: (a) for an investigation of the collusion of the Federal Courts and DOJ by abuse of the  Judicial Conference Act and the Rules Enabling Act to usurp the authority of Congress, the Constitutional mandates of checks and balances, as well as separation of power, and to deprive citizens of substantive rights;  and, (b) my petition opposing the confirmation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts for his false statement to Congress aiding and abetting the obstruction of  my right to compel DOJ to enforce my rights as a Father under the Treaty and UCCJEA (See http://www.home.earthlink.net/~isidoror/id6.html).

        Consequently based on the above evidence of malfeasance the Senate must take the opportunity during the confirmation proceedings of not only Eric Holder, bu of all appointments to DOJ to hold hearings on past violations of the Rule of Law and Congressional mandates.  For example, the Senate must inquire into the abuse of the Rules Enabling Act to use both summary judgement and Feldman abstention doctrine which has permitted State Court to deprive citizens of due process and parental rights under the Treaty, the surreal holdings of absolute Judicial and Executive Branch immunity for liability from suit for criminal and tortious acts which injure Fathers rights, the denial of RICO civil jury trial on claims of judicial and ministerial malfeasance, and the policy of denying access to an impartial court and the protection to victim of malfeasance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771, through secrete proceedings with DOJ by abuse of the Judicial Conference Act.3

        This is because the lessons from history have shown that,

        Once certain checks and balances are destroyed, and once certain institutions have been intimidated, the pressure that can turn an open society into a closed one-turn into direct assaults; at that point events tend to occur very rapidly, and a point comes at which there is no easy turning back to the way it used to be. Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot, p. 14, Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, 2007.4

        Therefore, at this critical time for our Republic the Senate must restore the Rule of Law, as well as the integrity and public confidence in DOJ by assuring compliance with the words inscribed on the Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building: "No Free Government Can Survive That Is Not Based on The Supremacy of Law.  Where Law ends, Tyranny Begins, Law Alone Can Give Us Freedom."

        For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that I have your support to be given an opportunity to testify and present evidence in opposition at the Senate confirmation hearing of Eric Holder.

        Very truly yours,

        Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.

    1After I argued and won Martinez v. Lamagno and DOJ/DEA, 515 U.S. 417 (1995), the Legal Times confirmed that I was the only known U.S. license practitioner residing outside of the U.S. and litigating in Federal Courts on behalf of resident and nonresident Hispanics, see also Lopez v. First Union, 129 F3.rd. 1186 (11th Cir. 1997)(Litigation that successfully stopped the unlawful seizing by DOJ of all nonresident Hispanic bank accounts in the U.S.)Web:

    2In retaliation for filing Rodriguez et al., v. National center for Missing and exploited Children et al., Civil Action No. 030120, 2005 WL 736526 (D.C. Cir. March 31, 2005),  to compel DOJ to secure visitation rights under the Treaty and UCCJEA, Eric Holder filed fraudulent bar complaints in 2003 with the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board ("VSBDB").  But, the VSBDB issued a void orders as a kangaroo court since the  General Assembly granted the power to revoke an attorneys license only to courts-of-record and judges. See 2007 Petition for Impeachment of Va. Supreme Court, et al., http://www.petitiononline.com/RDL/petition.html; see also.

    3The evidence confirms that in retaliation the Federal Courts have: (I) refused to empanel a Special Grand Jury and denied me access to an impartial court to compel DOJ to protect me as a victim of federal crimes as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), In re Isidoro Rodriguez US S Ct.  No. 08-339, Writ denied on November 17, 2008 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3); (II) deprived me of my right to a jury trial in the D. C. under RICO-based on the holding of absolute Judicial and Executive immunity from tortious and criminal liability-and declared lack of venue to maintain a RICO action in D.C., Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor in Chief, Legal Times, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-411, Cert. denied December 1, 2008; and, (III) denied me of procedural and substantive due process right by refusing to enjoin the illegal attorney disciplinary system of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Isidoro Rodriguez v. Hon. Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr. Chief Justice, Sup. Ct. of VA, et al., US S Ct. No. 08-574, Cert. denied on December 8, 2008.

    3The dangers to our Republic and citizens by collusion of DOJ with the Federal Courts are real. ". . . the Courts in our judicial system have, in fact, become the lawmakers, when it is very clear . . . that our Constitution delegated that responsibility to the Congress of the United States and the State Legislatures . . . the legal profession has truly changed from being one of the premier professions in our society to a business where the number one objective or bottom line is financial profit . . . " Dennis DeConcini, U.S. Senator (Ret). The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, by John Fitzgerald Molloy. St. Paul, Minn.: Paragon House.

    THE LAW OFFICES OF ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ
    ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
    Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq.
    A member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court;
    of the U.S. Ct. of App for 2nd, D.C., and Fed. Cir.; and U.S. Tax Ct.

    Northern Virginia Office:    South American Office:
    7924 Peyton Forest Trail    World Trade Center
    Annandale, Virginia 22003-1560    Calle 76 No. 54-11, Office 313
    Telephone: 703.573.1571/telefax:  571.423.5066     Barranquilla, Colombia
    Mobil: 703.470.1457    Telephone: 011.5753.605288
    Email: isidoror@earthlink.net   
    Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror
    Web: http://justiciaportodo.webs.com
    Blog: http://justiciaparatodo.blog.com