Why “Vote Caging” Should Have You Rioting in the Streets

3 million votes were challenged AFTER they were cast in the 2004 election, and it turns out that many of them may be from a GOP tactic called “Vote Caging”, here’s how it works. Bare with me, this is a thick and tangled web of scandal.

When ex-Alberto Gonzales aide Monica Goodling testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee she mentioned the term “Vote Caging” several times, in reference to Karl Rove’s protégé Tim Griffin (more on him later). The term was unfamiliar to many and it prompted Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., to ask Goodling, to explain the term. Goodling fumbled and muttered something about it being a “direct mail” term.

Monica was right; Vote Caging does use direct mail. But she left out the most important aspect of vote caging; it’s used to suppress votes.

This is how it works;

Step One: Send registered, first class mail to black people. Mark the letter “do not forward” so if they happen to be fighting in Iraq it will not go to them.

Step Two: Every letter that comes back “undeliverable” can then be challenged as being fraudulent. Voters are purged from the rosters, and the ones that demand their right to vote cast provisional ballots, which are less likely to be counted anyway.

Step Three: Repeat in every tight race in the country.

It’s a complicated GOP tactic that’s been used since the 80’s to win races with slight margins of victories.

You might remember that Tim Griffin was installed as a U.S. Attorney for Arkansas after Bud Cummings was fired. Of course Griffin immediately went to work “vote caging” and the focus of Monica’s testimony was in exonerating him from wrongdoing. She claimed there were good reasons for it, and that he did not believe anything he was doing was wrong.

If that’s the case then why did Tim Griffin resign? Because it seems like he’s worried that a contentious confirmation hearing might draw attention to the fact that the GOP has been subverting democracy.

This story was cracked open by BBC reporter Greg Palast. He’s an American but has to travel across the Atlantic to find a worthy news agency the hire him. I could tell you what he did, but let’s just listen to him. The part at 5:20 is particularly relevant.

I suggest watching the whole series, its long, but FUCK, your country is being stolen.

These articles are the base of this story.

Here is one on Greg Palast’s site

Here is another on Think Progress

New Twist to an Old Scandal

<- Lying Jackass

Apparently US Attorneys were not the only ones to have been politically screened for their jobs. Kyle Sampson, disgraced and resigned chief of staff for Alberto Gonzales, had his lawyer disclose that Federal Immigration Judges were also vetted by political affiliation. The revelation adds another charge against this administration, violation of civil service laws designed to preserve the independence of the Justice Department. This has been going on since early 2004. During Monica Goodling’s testimony (scroll down), she said that Sampson had told her that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel said that immigration judges did no apply to the civil service rules that prevented taking political affiliation into account.

It’s a sad day when the department in charge of law enforcement goes out of its way to break laws. Unfortunately for us, that day happened years and years ago and we’re just finding out about it. Worst President in History!

Goodling Testifies, Says Next to Nothing

It wasn’t quite as juicy as I would have liked to be honest with you. She didn’t roll over on her old bosses, and only admitted to violating a statute designed to keep politics out of bureaucratic positions, a violation which she is protected from. She also indicated that she was not the one who the White House worked through, apparently, they only dealt with Alberto and Sampson …

Here are some highlights from the coverage.

CNN’s coverage emphasized Goodling’s lack of communication with the white house. The Washington Post’s coverage focused on Goodling’s politically bias hiring practices. Below is a series of quotes that sum up the important points from her day-long testimony.

• "I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan."
• Referring to mastermind Karl Rove and Bush’s lawyer Harriet Miers she said,
• "And I'm certain that I never spoke to either of them about the hiring or firing of any U.S. attorney,"
• "I was responsible more for what happened after the plan was implemented rather than maybe the plan itself,"
• "I do acknowledge I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions, and I regret those mistakes."
• "Although I'm prepared to tell the committee what I know about the eight replaced U.S. attorneys, the truth is that I do not know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign in December of 2006."
• She also testified that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty lied to congress.
• "Despite my and others' best effort, the deputy's public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects, I believe the deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision."
• Paul McNulty was the first Justice Department official to testify. He said the fired US Attorneys were let go for “performance reasons”.
• Obviously that’s been proven to be a sack of horseshit, the Justice Department’s internal review process found many of the fired attorneys rated excellent. In one example, shortly before Carol Lam was fired she had won a high-profile case against Republican Duke Cunningham for bribery.
• McNulty has been privately saying he was mislead by Goodling. Her testimony today refutes that position and casts McNulty and DOJ colleague William E. Moschella’s testimony in a criminal light.

More US Attorneys Involved in Firings

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the House Judiciary Committee in a near repeat performance of his testimony in front of a similar Senatorial body at the end of last month. A sentiment Alberto didn’t feel ashamed to admit “My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed,” he said.

He was questioned about the departure of an additional US Attorney. Todd P. Graves, was asked to step down in January 2006 by the Department of Justice (DoJ). He was never given a reason why, but he was already planning a return to private practice and thus felt no need to oppose the matter. His dismissal is drawing parallels to Bud Cummins firing, who was asked to leave in the same manner.

Graves appears to be the ninth US Attorney to have been replaced by the Justice Department as part of its bungled operation to politicize the federal bureaucracy. This comes after testimony from Gonzales and other DoJ officials that the firings were limited to the eight attorneys already known. If evidence can be found that there was a plan to oust all nine of these prosecutors and Gonzo lied about there only being eight, there could be perjury charges.

Graves was replaced by Bradley J. Schlozman who immediately went to work filling voter fraud indictments against Democrats weeks before the 2006 election. A case that Graves had refused to pursue and was later thrown out by a federal judge. Schlozman was scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday but had requested more time to practice his lies… errr testimony.

As a final note, Alberto Gonzales’s testimony included an interesting question and answer. Representative John Nadler (D-New York) asked Gonzo, “If most people believe that the United States attorney general has not told the truth about why these U.S. attorneys were fired, how can they have confidence in your job?” Gonzo responded, “I don’t believe that’s an accurate statement.” Like the rest of his testimony he was wrong.

An April 25 Washington Post – ABC News poll showed that 67% of respondents believed the firings were motivated by politics, essentially calling Gonzo’s reasoning for the firings a lie. Additionally, a majority of people (53%) who have an opinion on the matter believe he should resign. Step down Alberto, step down.

With Baited Breath….

President Bush’s long time friend and current Attorney General, Alberto “Berty” Gonzales is headed to Congress next Tuesday to testify regarding the firings of eight US Attorneys. Yesterday, Congress issued a subpoena for hundreds of additional documents from the justice department, without the thousands of redactions and edits that plagued the first batch released voluntarily. The White House has signaled thU.Sat it’s going to fight the subpoena, proving once again that secrecy and loyalty beat out the public interest in this Administration. We’re headed towards a possible constitutional showdown regarding the powers of the President.

Link Here

What is anomalous is why the White House does not abandon him. Even Newt Gingrich has broken the eleventh commandment saying “This is the most mishandled, artificial, self-created mess”. If party loyalists such as Gingrich aren’t convinced that its worth the fight, then why is the President (or more likely his advisors) convinced? If we assume that the firings were motivated by partisan politics, and I don’t think that’s a wild assumption, what might Bush do? He has two options, support his friend or throw him under the bus. But how would either of those choices affect the White House? To answer that question, it is important to realize that Gonzales is not just the attorney general. He’s been with the president since he was governor of Texas, and Berty managed to leverage that relationship into the top law enforcement job in the country. Someone this tight with the president is bound to be in on a number of secrets, including the true source of the attorney firings. Thus, the President wouldn’t succeed by jettisoning Gonzales. Aside from damaging the fabric of continuity that holds the Bush Empire together (namely political loyalty) discarding Gonzales would probably piss him off after a lifetime of service. The White House’s short term gains realized by axing the scandalous attorney general would be eaten up and overwhelmed by the damage a crossed and vengeful Berty would be able to inflict. Therefore the President must back up his friend. There isn’t a choice for him.

The next stage of the game is whether or not the documents will be released and whether or not they will include direct evidence linking the firings to political motivations. If they are released and do contain evidence, then what will happen to Berty? I believe at that point the political gains of defending him will pale compared to the costs. He will step down from his plum appointment in government, tight lipped and answering what he must to not be held in contempt of Congress, and then he will step into a plum appointment in the business sector closely tied to the Bush family. It is the only method Bush has left to him to reward Berty for his loyalty and it will be a sad day for America. I guess we’ll have to wait and see regarding the documents and Alberto Gonzales’s testimony next Tuesday. I wait with baited breath for the latest proof that this administration has next to no accountability, no sense of wrong doing, and values political loyalty over sound policy.