"Attorney" General Ashcroft Violates Gag Order 2d Time

[subgenius]

Here in Detroit one of the only 9-11 "terrorist" trials is being held in federal court. The evidence is extremely flimsy and suspect.
Our attorney general John Ashcroft has violated the judge's gag order by commenting on the case for the second time.

"April 18, 2003 04:19 PM EDT

DETROIT - A federal judge said Friday he was "distressed" by Attorney General John Ashcroft's public praise of a key government witness at the trial of four men accused of acting as a "sleeper" terrorist cell.

Defense attorneys criticized the attorney general's remarks and U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen said he will take up the issue after the trial, whose participants are under a gag order.
.............

"I was distressed to see the attorney general commenting in the middle of a trial about the credibility of a witness who had just gotten off the stand," Rosen said. Later, Rosen added, "The attorney general is subject to the orders of this court. ... The attorney general has specifically been put on notice about the scope of its gag order."
http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D7QG6NK00_story

The trial judge, by the way, is a conservative Republican Bush I appointee.
Anyone else would be held in contempt of court.

For an alternative view of the case that doesn't just presume guilt:
http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=4801

Inexcusable.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
Inexcusable.


So is the corned beef sandwich at this little deli around the corner. Simply inexcusable.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx



So is the corned beef sandwich at this little deli around the corner. Simply inexcusable.

Sorry to see your unconcerned with things like the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and the attorney general of the United States disobeying court orders.

Little quips are no substitute for reasoned discourse.

[Blue Monk]

I agree with you subgenious.

Had a less powerful figure so flagrantly violate the law they would have been jailed.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on the evidence in a fair and impartial trial will strengthen America and help make us all safe.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on pressure from powerful individuals for political purposes will weaken America and put us all at risk.

Perhaps we need an attorney general who has more faith in the legal principles he has sworn to protect.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I agree with you subgenious.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on the evidence in a fair and impartial trial will strengthen America and help make us all safe.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on pressure from powerful individuals for political purposes will weaken America and put us all at risk.


And convicting the innocent to put on a show will make us no better than our enemies.

[shemp]

It's similar to the question of why the entire Catholic hierarchy hasn't been hurled into prison for crimes against humanity. Nobody dares touch them.

Would you want to be the guy who holds the extremely popular Ashcroft in contempt? What kind of reaction would you get if you threw him in jail for 30 days?

Nobody is supposed to be above the law, but some are.

[Mel]

John Ashcroft scares me more than the terrorists do.

As a matter of fact, a lot of people in this administration scare me more than the terrorists do. Thankfully, we know they will be out of power by 2008 by the latest..... BUT they can do untold damage to our civil rights before that day arrives.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shemp
It's similar to the question of why the entire Catholic hierarchy hasn't been hurled into prison for crimes against humanity. Nobody dares touch them.

Would you want to be the guy who holds the extremely popular Ashcroft in contempt? What kind of reaction would you get if you threw him in jail for 30 days?

Nobody is supposed to be above the law, but some are.
Gotta admire this very Republican judge who dared speak out. There's something to be said for lifetime appointments.
A symbolic fine, after ordering him to show cause would be in order.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius

Gotta admire this very Republican judge who dared speak out. There's something to be said for lifetime appointments.
A symbolic fine, after ordering him to show cause would be in order.

Not so much lifetime appointments as the separation of powers, a concept that has been incorporated into many democracies. It helps to ensure, that even when people of the same party are in positions of power, that their different roles will ensure they can speak with their own mind and not be made to toe the party line.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by subgenius
Inexcusable.

I couldn't agree more.

Aside from the @#$%^&* sermons I've heard spew from the man's mouth, I'd honestly not had much of a problem with the AG.

This incident, OTOH, really pisses me off.

I'll be curious to see how this is handled after the trial.

[crackmonkey]

Firstly, I know very little about the legal system, and generally I'm pretty happy to be ignorant about it.
Having said that, how bad is this imbroglio? Did Ashcroft comment about the individual in regard to the current prosecution specifically? As Attorney General, he's a member of the government. Isn't the government prosecuting the case? How is the AG praising a witness any different from the prosecutor doing so?
Having said all that, I'm not very impressed with Ashcroft's intellectual dexterity. I'd be pretty relieved if he was put out to pasture.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not so much lifetime appointments as the separation of powers, a concept that has been incorporated into many democracies. It helps to ensure, that even when people of the same party are in positions of power, that their different roles will ensure they can speak with their own mind and not be made to toe the party line.
Still feel its the lifetime appointment of federal judges in this case.
Seperation of powers becomes meaningless when you have to stand for re-election or reappointment. That makes the judiciary another political body that has to answer to its constituents rather than justice. Election and political appointment destroys the seperation of powers. Its (nearly) impossible to serve justice when you have to answer to someone for your job. No one can serve two masters.

I know, I lost a case in the Michigan Supreme Court because the judges faced re-election and needed the campaign contributions of the organizations represented by my opposition.

If this guy had to face re-appointment by the same people he criticized it would be enormously hard to do so.
If he had to face re-election by voters who wanted to "hang 'em high", same problem.

Seperation of powers though is a beautiful thing when the branches are truly seperate.

Look how scary it is in this country right now when all three branches are controlled by the same party.

Its going to be a bumpy ride.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Firstly, I know very little about the legal system, and generally I'm pretty happy to be ignorant about it.
Having said that, how bad is this imbroglio? Did Ashcroft comment about the individual in regard to the current prosecution specifically? As Attorney General, he's a member of the government. Isn't the government prosecuting the case? How is the AG praising a witness any different from the prosecutor doing so?
Having said all that, I'm not very impressed with Ashcroft's intellectual dexterity. I'd be pretty relieved if he was put out to pasture.
Read the article. Ashcroft was put on specific notice of the gag order. The proscutor did not comment on the case because of that order. It would be no different if he did, but he obeyed the order and did not.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius


Sorry to see your unconcerned with things like the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and the attorney general of the United States disobeying court orders.

Little quips are no substitute for reasoned discourse.


Reasoned discourse? You accused the AG of breaking the gag order _two_ times. Thats what the defense lawyers said. However, only his remarks during the news conference are in question. Thats _one_ incident.

You talk about presumption of innocence. Where is the presumption of innonence for the AG? The judge said he would look into talking about the witness after the trial. However:

"The judge polled the jurors, who said they were unaware any government official had made remarks about the case."

In other words, there is no imperative to stop the trial because Ashcroft called the witness a "critical tool".



Sub, if you want reasoned discourse. Then start one. Instead of constantly starting with a conclusion, maybe you should start with rhetoric or some interrogative. Maybe instead of hurling "inexcusable" you should say "if the AG did break the gag gag order as the defense claims, then there should be serious consequences".

Ill gave a reasoned discourse with a reasoned person, until that guy come along, how about that corned beef sandwich?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx



Reasoned discourse? You accused the AG of breaking the gag order _two_ times. Thats what the defense lawyers said. However, only his remarks during the news conference are in question. Thats _one_ incident.

You talk about presumption of innocence. Where is the presumption of innonence for the AG? The judge said he would look into talking about the witness after the trial. However:

"The judge polled the jurors, who said they were unaware any government official had made remarks about the case."

In other words, there is no imperative to stop the trial because Ashcroft called the witness a "critical tool".



Sub, if you want reasoned discourse. Then start one. Instead of constantly starting with a conclusion, maybe you should start with rhetoric or some interrogative. Maybe instead of hurling "inexcusable" you should say "if the AG did break the gag gag order as the defense claims, then there should be serious consequences".

Ill gave a reasoned discourse with a reasoned person, until that guy come along, how about that corned beef sandwich?
Thanks for the advice.
The judge was dismayed. Read the article, OK?
Let's assume only one violation.
Do you know if the presumption of innocence applies to contempt of court for violating an order of the court?
There is no doubt he said what he said. He was under an order to say nothing. Any doubt he violated the order? Only one violation by the highest attorney in the land. Good example to set.
No conclusions, just the facts ma'am.


I love good corned beef. Please leave the spam at home.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius


Do you know if the presumption of innocence applies to contempt of court for violating an order of the court?


I thought only the judge himself can declare if it was in contempt. Not you or I or the defense attorney.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


I thought only the judge himself can declare if it was in contempt. Not you or I or the defense attorney.
I didn't declare him in contempt.
Kinda going out of your way for an argument.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

I didn't declare him in contempt.
Kinda going out of your way for an argument.

"Do you know if the presumption of innocence applies to contempt of court for violating an order of the court?
There is no doubt he said what he said. He was under an order to say nothing. Any doubt he violated the order?"

Im sorry. I didnt think I was stretching at all. Could you then, tell me what is specifically implied in this quote of yours ya big silly?

:)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


"Do you know if the presumption of innocence applies to contempt of court for violating an order of the court?
There is no doubt he said what he said. He was under an order to say nothing. Any doubt he violated the order?"

Im sorry. I didnt think I was stretching at all. Could you then, tell me what is specifically implied in this quote of yours ya big silly?

:)
Hint: I wasn't implying anything, you brought up the presumption. You know you are allowed to come to a conclusion, for instance if you see someone kill someone, even though in a court you still have to prove it.
There's no presumption of innocence for contempt, when the judge observes what you did, and further, here there's no dispute. He violated a court order, pure and simple. Whether the judge wants to hold him in contempt is a different matter. The point is the violation of a court's order by the country's top lawyer.
Once again, inexusable. This is (or used to be) a nation of laws, not men. There was a very good reason for that, and his actions disregard that principle.

(The administration has plenty of apologists, you can relax.)

You've now got me craving corned beef, but its honey baked ham with mom tomorrow.

(By the way there's a great place for corned beef right across from the federal courthouse where this trial is taking place.)

Have a very good holiday, all the best to you and yours.:)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I agree with you subgenious.

Had a less powerful figure so flagrantly violate the law they would have been jailed.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on the evidence in a fair and impartial trial will strengthen America and help make us all safe.

Convicting suspected terrorists based on pressure from powerful individuals for political purposes will weaken America and put us all at risk.

Perhaps we need an attorney general who has more faith in the legal principles he has sworn to protect.

Absolutely! Although I lean Republican- John Ashcroft is an embarrassment to this country.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Denise


Absolutely! Although I lean Republican- John Ashcroft is an embarrassment to this country.

I don't think he is an embarassment. I think the fictional John Ashcroft is however.

The fictional John Ashcroft is the "guy hated so bad in his own state he lost to a dead guy", "who has a history of being racist", and is "usurping our civil liberties" while "turning america into a theocracy". This is the John Ashcroft that the next democratic presidential candidate will run against. I think the next dem will run more against Ashcroft than Bush. And of course, it will be a caricature of the actual man.

From what I've observed, Ashcroft was a decent Miss. state attorney general. He lost by a slim margin to the widow of his opponent. He had his name smeared by his former Senate colleagues for doing an interview that appeared in a controversial magazine and for sabotaging the confirmation of a single federal judge. Many of the leftist special interest groups had already targetted him during his confirmation. I thought the sham of a confirmation they put on was downright insulting. Yes, I watched it on cspan. After he became attorney general, many news orgs wanted to do interviews with him about his personal faith. What we wind up with is a picture of him as a theocrat versus someone like Joe Lieberman who escapes the smear. As attorney general he functioned mostly as a functionary instead of a crusader. He didnt bust corrupt unions like Kennedy. He didnt siege buildings in Waco. But lo and behold, the patriot act came along and with it came fear, uncertainty, and doubt attacks by the left. Mostly benign loophole closings in patriot took on sinister overtones and ignorance of the actual letter of the act was used to spin the image of Ashcroft the anti-civil liberties secret policeman.

Who is John Aschroft? An ugly guy who isnt a great speaker. He is a man of faith and likes to watch the Simpsons (meaning ihe s like the majority of people in the country). He isnt a bigtime intellectual. He isnt good at defending his own image. And occasionally, (like in the topic of the thread) he makes flubs. In the case of the topic, he was at a news conference and answering random questions and probably yapped about the case without thinking abot the gag order. The judge of the case will decide whether or not it was contemptual. I'm just glad it was most likely due to human error rather than malevolence.

The real John Ashcroft is a pretty simple guy. But yes, I agree that John "the meme" Ashcroft would be an embarassment if he actually existed. As is the case with spooks, esp, and magic; the real world is much more mundane that people want to believe.

[subgenius]

He may watch the Simpsons but he doesn't obey court orders.

[Baker]

Originally posted by subgenius
He doesn't watch the Simpsons or obey court orders.

I think you are being way to hard on Ashcroft!
Hey wait I didn’t know about him not watching the Simpsons well hell screw him then!

[subgenius]

"...probably yapped about the case without thinking abot the gag order. "


Apologist, making up stuff. Transparent.
No third rate lawyer from Podunk would do this and you're making up excuses for the top lawyer in the land. Let's her it from the horse's mouth.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
"...probably yapped about the case without thinking abot the gag order. "


Apologist, making up stuff. Transparent.
No third rate lawyer from Podunk would do this and you're making up excuses for the top lawyer in the land. Let's her it from the horse's mouth.


Excuses are worthless. As the top lawyer in the country, he should be held to _higher_ standard in fact. I hope the judge in this case does what is appropriate.

Unfortunately, I think a certain lawyer turned president who got away with perjury has lowered the bar on executive accountability. I hope the Bush admin doesn't cut a deal with the judge in this case and further remove our leaders from the rule of law.

All I observed was that the contempt in question was most likely not deliberate.

[subgenius]

Well it wasn't just the defense lawyers saying it was the second time, it was the judge.

A federal judge in Detroit rebuked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on Friday for commenting on the Detroit terrorism trial -- again -- in violation of a court order.

"Given all of the history here, I was distressed to see the attorney general commenting in the middle of a trial about the credibility of a witness who just got off the stand," U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen said Friday, a day after Ashcroft publicly praised Youssef Hmimssa, the government's star witness, for testifying against the defendants. "The attorney general is subject to the orders of this court."

Rosen said he was surprised by the comments from Ashcroft, given the fact that Ashcroft was put on notice about the gag order in late 2001 after publicly declaring that three of the Detroit defendants had prior knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/tri19_20030419.htm

Not to beat this dead thread, but the issue was raise about the number of times he commented on this ongoing case.

By the way, this is the guy Ashcroft loves so much:

"Under grilling from defense lawyers, Hmimssa admitted that he has lied repeatedly to immigration officials, employers, landlords, police, courts and his girlfriend about his activities. He waited five months to tell the FBI that the Detroit men were involved in terrorism. "

Oh so why did he spill the beans then?
To cut a deal from multiple fraud charges he faced. (Yes, I know prosecutors can't pick their witnesses, but read the metrotimes articles in my original post.)

[Denise]

Originally posted by corplinx



Excuses are worthless. As the top lawyer in the country, he should be held to _higher_ standard in fact. I hope the judge in this case does what is appropriate.

Unfortunately, I think a certain lawyer turned president who got away with perjury has lowered the bar on executive accountability. I hope the Bush admin doesn't cut a deal with the judge in this case and further remove our leaders from the rule of law.

All I observed was that the contempt in question was most likely not deliberate.

Ashcroft should have known better. He should be thinking about such things at all time. There is no excuse in my opinion. I think Clinton was and is scum, but at the same time, I don't think comparing him to Ashcroft does anything. Bush ran on the platform of change and what I am seeing with Ashcroft is the same old same old idea of not noticing if one of "our side" breaks the rules as well. As Stossel says... give me a break.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Denise


Clinton was and is scum, but at the same time, I don't think comparing him to Ashcroft does anything.

Re-read, I didnt mean to compare them. I merely meant to say that I would like to see Ashcroft be treated as you or I would be under the law and be held to account. I didnt like it then, and I won't like it now if it happens again.

[Denise]

Originally posted by corplinx


Re-read, I didnt mean to compare them. I merely meant to say that I would like to see Ashcroft be treated as you or I would be under the law and be held to account. I didnt like it then, and I won't like it now if it happens again.

I agree, but I still saw a comparison no matter how small. Hell, if Clinton was a Repulican, he would have been forced out of office. I really believe that. But, Ashcroft is still an idiot, and we need to have him replaced.

[subgenius]

It ain't over til its over. The judge in this case has yet to rule on holding Ashcroft in contempt. Even though Judge Rosen is a Republican appointee, I hold out hope that someone, somewhere in the Justice System has gonads.
The two that were convicted are innocent and were framed by an known liar and terror supporter. New evidence (yes its from a bad guy) withheld from the defense at trial. Shaky case and prosecutorial misconduct. Vigilante justice.
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/terror10_20031210.htm

"Rosen has yet to rule on that request, or on another to hold U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in contempt of court for twice violating Rosen's gag order not to discuss the case."

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by subgenius
It ain't over til its over. The judge in this case has yet to rule on holding Ashcroft in contempt. Even though Judge Rosen is a Republican appointee, I hold out hope that someone, somewhere in the Justice System has gonads.
The two that were convicted are innocent and were framed by an known liar and terror supporter. New evidence (yes its from a bad guy) withheld from the defense at trial. Shaky case and prosecutorial misconduct. Vigilante justice.
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/terror10_20031210.htm

"Rosen has yet to rule on that request, or on another to hold U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in contempt of court for twice violating Rosen's gag order not to discuss the case."

While it's not clear if any of this says anything about the innocence of the defendents, it certainly does look like a rights violation. The fact that the prosecution had the document but didn't give it to the defendent is pretty bad, especially since it appears to corraborate the testimony of another witness.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx

...
Unfortunately, I think a certain lawyer turned president who got away with perjury has lowered the bar on executive accountability...Aha. The old Clinton-made-me-do-it defense. :rolleyes:

[subgenius]

DETROIT, Dec. 16 (AP) — A federal judge has admonished Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating a court order by making remarks about defendants in the nation's first major terror trial after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The judge, Gerald E. Rosen of Federal District Court, said in an opinion released Tuesday that Mr. Ashcroft's statements could have compromised the defendants' rights to a fair trial, but that the violations did not warrant contempt charges or require Mr. Ashcroft to appear in court to explain himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/politics/17DETR.html

Case closed.

[Mr Manifesto]

US attorney general fined for breaking law (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/18/wash18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/18/ixworld.html)

Sounds like this guy was an ideal choice for AG.

[DavidJames]

"Unfortunately, I think a certain lawyer turned president who got away with perjury has lowered the bar on executive accountability..."

whatever happened to personal responsibility, being accountable for your own actions and blaming others for your own problems. As corplinx clearly shows, "conservative" have abandon yet another set of core principles, at least you still have hypocrisy :)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
US attorney general fined for breaking law (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/18/wash18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/18/ixworld.html)

Sounds like this guy was an ideal choice for AG.
Thanks, I'm sorry I missed the coincidental story.
And I meant to say "Case closed....until next time."

[subgenius]

Continuing developments in the "terror" trial:

FBI tipster says he broke law

He claims agent directed him to steal mail from Arabs considered terror suspects

By David Shepardson / The Detroit News

DEARBORN — A confidential federal informant claims an FBI agent instructed him to break the law as part of the government’s terror investigations in Metro Detroit.

In a Jan. 21 letter, written at the airport as he left for an undisclosed foreign country, informant Marwan Farhat said he was asked by FBI Special Agent Robert Pertuso to steal mail from Arab Muslims whom the federal government had identified as terror suspects.

Farhat, of Dearborn, claimed in a six-page letter to Pertuso that the FBI failed to deliver on a promise to give Farhat 25 percent of any money confiscated from the terror suspects. In his letter, Farhat said he received nothing.

“I worked around the clock helping and assisting the government of the United States to put Muslims in jail,” wrote Farhat, who said he assisted the FBI in giving information on scores of Arabs. “My life has been destroyed, abused and used to benefit your interests.”

He handed the letter, which was obtained by The Detroit News, to a U.S. immigration agent as he caught a flight from Detroit Metropolitan Airport on Wednesday. Fearful for his safety, and with the government’s approval, Farhat left the United States days after his identity was publicly revealed.

Special Agent David Brooks, spokesman for the Detroit FBI office, declined to comment on Farhat’s allegations, as did a Justice Department spokesman and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The FBI would not answer questions about agent Pertuso’s status, and he did not return a call placed by The News to his secretary.

Farhat is at the center of an internal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into the conduct of Richard G. Convertino, the lead prosecutor in the nation’s first terror case to stem from the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Two were convicted of providing material support to terrorists here.

Convertino is accused by his employer, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, of a laundry list of offenses stemming from his aggressive prosecution of suspected terrorists. He was removed Sept. 4 from the terror case — which continues as the judge considers reversing the convictions — and temporarily is working for a U.S. Senate committee.
.......

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0401/27/a01-47324.htm

[Ladewig]

corplinx-
I don't think he is an embarassment. I think the fictional John Ashcroft is however.

The fictional John Ashcroft is the "guy hated so bad in his own state he lost to a dead guy", "who has a history of being racist", and is "usurping our civil liberties" while "turning america into a theocracy". This is the John Ashcroft that the next democratic presidential candidate will run against. I think the next dem will run more against Ashcroft than Bush. And of course, it will be a caricature of the actual man.

I think I see your point. Rumors about his belief that calico cats are signs of the devil and snickering about his decision to cover the statues in the rotunda fall into the caricature category. The prayer meeting stuff in his workplace makes me bristle somewhat, but not enough to make me call him a "usurper of civil liberties." On the other hand, his decisions about Jose Padilla strike me as a bit far reaching. His ordering attorney-client conferences to be secretly monitored indicate that there are some things he holds in higher regard than the Constitution. His allowing the FBI to infiltrate religious and political groups without warrants (as was done in the 1970's) makes me question which direction U.S. civil rights are heading.

[Luke T.]

The first link doesn't work for me, subgenius. The second link is so obviously biased as to be ridiculous. And it doesn't mention anything about Ashcroft.

It does seem to be chock full of information on the trial. So what kind of gag order are we talking about if reporters are able to fully report on it? Exactly what secrets is Ashcroft spilling by praising a witness, which is all I gather he is being criticized for. Praising, not relating anything of the content of the trial.

I can't recall reading an ariticle more biased than the metrotimes article in some time.

Are you sure the defense attorney didn't write it? :D

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The first link doesn't work for me, subgenius. The second link is so obviously biased as to be ridiculous. And it doesn't mention anything about Ashcroft.

It does seem to be chock full of information on the trial. So what kind of gag order are we talking about if reporters are able to fully report on it? Exactly what secrets is Ashcroft spilling by praising a witness, which is all I gather he is being criticized for. Praising, not relating anything of the content of the trial.

I can't recall reading an ariticle more biased than the metrotimes article in some time.

Are you sure the defense attorney didn't write it? :D

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&c2coff=1&scoring=r&edition=us&q=ashcroft+gag+order+%22violated+OR+violating%22&btnG=Search+News

[subgenius]

Prosecutor sues Ashcroft on terror war

08:58 PM CST on Tuesday, February 17, 2004


Associated Press



WASHINGTON – The Justice Department is exaggerating its performance in the war on terrorism and has interfered with a major terrorism prosecution and compromised a confidential informant, a federal prosecutor alleges in an extraordinary lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The lawsuit by Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino is the latest twist in the Bush administration's first major post-Sept. 11 terrorism prosecution.

Mr. Convertino was the lead prosecutor on the case, in which the government did not provide defense attorneys a letter alleging that a prosecution witness lied until long after a trial had ended.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Convertino says the Justice Department is retaliating against him because he has complained about the department's handling of terrorism cases.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/021804dnnatashcroft.4e30f.html

The worm turns.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Jumping back a little in this thread:

In other words, there is no imperative to stop the trial because Ashcroft called the witness a "critical tool".

Where I come from, calling someone a "critical tool" is a major insult.

[subgenius]

FBI Interviews Terror Trial Judge
WASHINGTON - The federal judge who oversaw the first major terror trial after Sept. 11 has been interviewed by FBI (news - web sites) agents investigating allegations of misconduct in the case, a rare instance in which a jurist has become a witness in a case he continues to preside over.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen, who presided over the trial of four Detroit men accused of operating a terror cell, also told The Associated Press in an interview Friday he has talked to and met with reporters covering the case despite gag orders he imposed on lawyers and prosecutors.

Rosen was interviewed two weeks ago for about three hours by agents in the FBI's public integrity section who are investigating allegations that prosecutors withheld documents or leaked sensitive information.

Though the trial ended a year ago, Rosen continues to preside over the case because the investigations as well as appeals by three of the defendants have thrown the convictions into doubt. One of Rosen's rulings spurred the internal investigation by the FBI agents.
...
The Detroit case was one of the early successes of the Bush administration's war on terror, resulting last year in the convictions of three of the four men accused of operating a terror cell and plotting attacks as far away as Turkey.

Then came allegations that prosecutors had failed to turn over to defense lawyers potentially exculpatory information in the case. Those prosecutors have been removed from the case and subjected to investigation.

Their lawyers, however, have gained a separate investigation by the Justice Department (news - web sites) inspector general into leaks of sensitive information in the case, including the identity of a confidential informant and Privacy Act-protected information about the prosecutors.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040702/ap_on_re_us/terror_trial_1&printer=1

Nothing to question in the "War on Terror".....move along.

Ashcroft is a Pentacostal who speaks in tongues. Go ahead vote for the guy who appointed him.

[peptoabysmal]

From the given link:
Rosen, an appointee of the first President Bush (news - web sites), said Friday he was interviewed by the agents on June 17 but "I'm not going to talk about it."

The judge also confirmed he has talked to several reporters despite having imposed gag orders to stop leaks in the case.

Rosen even had threatened to force Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) to come to Detroit to explain why he violated the gag order by commenting generally on the case during a news conference.

"Look, I know where the lines are," Rosen said about his own contacts with reporters. He confirmed he met around the time of his FBI interview last month with a Detroit reporter, who later wrote on details of the case quoting courthouse sources.

Asked whether he was one of those sources, Rosen said, "Anything I discussed with him had nothing to do with the case."

Rosen said he occasionally has talked to reporters that he trusts during cases, including the terror trial, to make sure they understand what occurs in his courtroom and report it correctly.

"There are so many rumors that go around, I guess I sort of view my role as putting out rumors before they got out, if I can," Rosen said. "I would not, and have not, talked about the merits of the case."

Looks like Rosen is justifying his own leakage with the argument that "he knows best".

Who is that guy running for the Democrats again? The one that looks like Lurch from the Addams Family?

[subgenius]

Rosen is a Bush I appointee, the story is about the prosecution's misconduct.
And I bet you're quite a looker and will vote on that basis.
Thanks for your special point of view.

[Blue Monk]

I’m pretty sure that the clearest way to spot a discerning political thinker is to look for the gentleman who is up on which leaders look funny.

That’s a sure sign of genius.