Random Thoughts On The Purgegate Document Dump

/49 Comments/in , /by

Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton have an article on the Purgegate document release in today’s New York Times. There were a few paragraphs by the two Erics that stood out to me:

Aides to former President George W. Bush have asserted that the Justice Department took the lead in the dismissals, which set off a political firestorm that lasted months. Mr. Rove played down his role in the firings in a recent interview and in closed testimony last month before Congressional investigators.

Well that was clearly a pack of lies; let’s call it what it is fellas.

“The amount of backstabbing and treachery involved is just breathtaking,” Mr. Iglesias said of the White House e-mail, in an interview on Tuesday. “It’s astounding that without reviewing the evidence or talking to the F.B.I. or anything, the White House would assume that these were provable cases and that I needed to file them for the political benefit of the party. That’s not what U.S. attorneys do.”

Hey Dave, they didn’t give a damn if the charges were provable, they just wanted them filed to prejudice Democrats before the election. Iglesias was wronged here, but he keeps consistently soft pedaling what occurred so as to remain a good Republican, and the distinction is a critical and clear one. It wansn’t that they "assumed provable cases"; they just didn’t care about the sufficiency of the charges. I really like Iglesias in a way, but this isn’t the first time he has treaded too lightly, he was all mushy over Scott Bloch too. Enough.

Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, said the material released Tuesday demonstrated that there was “absolutely no evidence” the White House had used inappropriate political motivations to punish federal prosecutors. Mr. Luskin said Mr. Rove and other White House aides were legitimately concerned about voter fraud and were debating “completely reasonable and legitimate policy questions.”

Gold Bars is such a total tool. And man does he get around with the media outlets. Does he rent space at all of them or something?

Bush administration officials have publicly suggested that Mr. Iglesias was dismissed because of a subpar performance and absences from the office — he was a Navy reservist.

Those issues do not surface in the newly released e-mail. Rather, the dissatisfaction of New Mexico Republicans over the investigations was the focus in 2005 and 2006. Nonetheless, one message shows that the White House was told that the Justice Department planned to say the New Mexico investigations played no role in the dismissal.

In that exchange, in February 2007, William K. Kelly, of the White House Counsel’s Office, wrote an e-mail message to several senior officials, including Fred Fielding, the White House counsel, and Tony Snow, the press secretary. Referring to the Justice Department, Mr. Kelly wrote, “They are planning to deny that the investigation in question played any role in DOJ’s decision, and to deny that any Member contacted main Justice to complain about the conduct (or not) of any particular investigation.”

Hard evidence of a predetermined plan to deceive the public and obstruct any investigation that could occur (presumably by Congress). And The DOJ was front and center with the WH in complicity. Anybody else see a conflict of interest here in a DOJ investigation by say, I dunno, Nora Dannehy? By the way, when can we expect the charges on all these facts and implications Nora? There are certainly grounds, on several fronts, against several individuals, first and foremost Gonzales, but others as well. Anybody taking odds on whether any charges are filed at all?

As the first Purgegate document thread is getting long in the tooth, do not hesitate to continue here using this as another working thread.

image_print
49 replies
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    I’ve been busy lately (air conditioning and plumbing problems at the same time and systems crashing at work), but did anybody notice that somebody was pushing Mary Walker, key member of the the legalize torture team, as a replacement for Carol Lam.

    The real story is the about the machinations around Iglesias. New Mexico has some backstabbing Republicans, that’s for sure.

  2. Citizen92 says:

    After reading over the “White House E-Mails” (approx groups 8-10) I’m struck by how badly aspiring US Attorney for Arkansas Tim Griffin really pooched it.

    He had all the major players pulling for him in ‘05, with his name being passed around by several. And Rove kept telling his various OPA staff to get him a job, give him options. Even Harriet Miers weighed in in ‘05, meeting with Tim Griffin and counseling him personally that he should do time as a Assistant US Attorney in Little Rock first, and then put his name in the ring when Bud Cummins was going to leave.

    But Griffin would have none of it. He took a job in Karl’s shop, and opted to stretch his credentials when the USA slot opened up.

    Surprising also to me was when the slot did open up, the White House and Griffin were completely and totally caught off guard that the Senate would not even consider Griffin. Maybe Tim’s overconfidence led to the White House’s over confidence (apparently, Tim felt he was in like Flynn with Sen. Pryor’s Chief of Staff). In the end, both AR Senators vehemently opposed Griffin’s nomination, and the White House was forced to use the slapshod Attorney General USA appointment authority that Senator Spector rammed through.

    More shocking to me was those e-mails also showed that Tim Griffin was involved in the ‘US Attorney replacement plan.’ Before Kyle Sampson put it into action.

  3. Gitcheegumee says:

    What caught my eye was the info about Tim Griffin..

    The documents also provide new evidence about Mr. Rove’s push to have an aide and protégé, Timothy Griffin, tapped as United States attorney in Arkansas to replace Bud Cummins, who was told to resign.     _“It was no secret I was for him,” Mr. Rove acknowledged to the Congressional investigators.

    Even so, the Justice Department in February 2007 told members of Congress in a letter as the controversy was unfolding that it was “not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.”_______

    Is Griffin the nominee that Kit Bond was hesitant to approve, but then went ahead and did so,after a quid pro quo?

  4. Gitcheegumee says:

    .Bush’s New US Attorney a Criminal?

    BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide.
    Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
    by Greg Palast

    There’s only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That’s replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

    There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush’s firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn’t bend to political pressure.

    But the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

    Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn’t mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

    (Excerpt,Greg Palast)

  5. JasonLeopold says:

    Rove’s comment to his Bill O’Reilly on Iglesias.

    What I said was this. I passed on to the White House council’s office to pass on to the Justice Department complaints about the performance of the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, that he failed to go after ACORN in clear cases of vote fraud, that he bungled a high prosecution — a high-profile corruption prosecution by interfering with the career prosecutors, and that he was treating an indictment of people in a courthouse corruption case very politically by refusing to indict them when the case was ready but waiting for nine months, 12 months, 14 months until after an election. These were charges that were made about him. Allegations. I was not in a position to find out whether or not they were accurate. That was up to the Justice Department. But I had an obligation to pass those on through the appropriate channels.

  6. runfastandwin says:

    It’s all so disgusting and outrageous I don’t even know how or where to begin. It’s like if you spent ten years building a house and then have a tornado blow through and destroy everything in one afternoon. It is going to take more than one administration before the DOJ fully recovers from this, scandal is too light of a word, rape I think comes closer.

  8. fatster says:

    bmaz, you have been on a roll today. Great stuff, too. Many thnx!

    If I may bug you about it, have there been any challenges to the clerk’s note in the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad decision that magically made corporations “persons”? How did that one note take wings and fly?

  9. WilliamOckham says:

    Completely unimportant and anybody, even a jerk like Karl Rove, can have a bad day, but not recognizing the name of Fred Thompson’s wife? Responding to the “Who can we get to defend Griffin whose better than Byron York?” question, Griffin offers up “fred thompson who is a friend of mine” and Rove responds:

    Fred Thompson would be great!

    Griffen replies:

    Who should reach out to fred? I can call jeri today if you like?

    Rove answers:

    I believe you should call Fred. Who is Jeri?

    I find that very odd for some reason…

    • Peterr says:

      To me, the one that looks like a fool in that exchange is Griffin.

      Griffin is trying to pump himself up in Rove’s eyes, dropping Fred’s name as his friend. When Rove says “great — call Fred!” Griffin realizes that he’s stretched things a bit too far, and tries to walk it back. “Well, actually, his wife is the one that I know, not Fred himself. Maybe I could ask her to ask him . . .”

      What an idiot.

  10. zhiv says:

    You raise an interesting point, bmaz, by putting the intense effort to get Iglesias (and others) to file charges for overt political reasons up against the question of when US Atty Dannehy might do the same thing, file charges.

    Can’t Axelrod and Rahm work the phones and speed this up? In Roveworld, the actual legitimacy and legal basis of any charges is secondary and not even important–ask Seligman. The teabag mobs would be interesting to watch reacting to seeing the shoe put on the other foot. File charges… just because. Just because it will benefit the Obama agenda. If Dannehy is dragging her feet and doesn’t want to do it, get rid of her, and put in a lackey who’ll get the job done! Can’t there be a Rove who would file charges against Rove for all the Rove reasons?

    It’s so crazy sometimes, living in bizarroworld.

  11. Gitcheegumee says:

    In Roveworld, the actual legitimacy and legal basis of any charges is secondary and not even important–ask Seligman.

    Wasn’t it always the Repubes hollering about “frivolous” lawsuits? *G*

  12. JasonLeopold says:

    From Carrie Johnson’s online chat this morning re: Dannehy’s probe:

    Carrie Johnson: Yesterday lawyers for Scott Jennings, a Rove deputy at the White House, and Steve Bell, the former chief of staff to Sen. Pete Domenici who figured in a great deal of the New Mexico emails, asserted to me that they are witnesses in the criminal investigation, not subjects or targets of Dannehy.

    I’m told that the prosecutor is continuing to interview relevant parties but no decision is imminent on possible charges. The people who could be in the most jeopardy are those who made statements to Congress in the aftermath of the firings — Rove and Miers delayed their testimony until this year, and thus may face fewer legal issues as a result.

  13. JasonLeopold says:

    Sorry I had to add this to because it seems, at least to me, like Johnson is so defensive of Rove and laps up what Luskin says:

    Wheaton, Md.: I have a dream — of seeing Karl Rove frog marched out of his luxurious house in leg irons. Please tell me all my dreams will come true.

    Carrie Johnson: Wheaton, based on my reporting, I doubt very much that is going to happen. Rove’s lawyer, Bob Luskin, has signaled that Rove testified truthfully to the House and that he has fully cooperated with the criminal prosecutor as well.

    Rove was careful in an interview with me last month, and in a statement he issued yesterday, to assert that he never meddled with any prosecution during his time in the government and he distanced himself anew from the prosecutor firings. Characteristically, perhaps, he also took a swipe at Democrats for allegedly peddling false statements and “innuendoes” about him. Not the posture of a guy who feels he’s on the firing line.

    • bmaz says:

      Luskin is totally full of shit; but you have to hand it to the guy, he is all over the place telling his stories and it has been working so far.

      As to your @14, assuming for the sake of argument that is true about Jennings and Bell (maybe harder to believe about Jennings than Bell, but whatever), and assuming they won’t mess with Goodling because although they could do it it would be messy (is Dowd still her lawyer?) you are starting to get down to Gonzales, Rove and Miers. I am not biting on the thought they will go for Rove and Miers at this point.

      That leaves Gonzo. He is pathetic and deserves to be charged. But that is going after the former Attorney General and doing so on charges that necessarily involve actions by the DOJ. This simply cannot be a clusterfuck Dannehy and/or Holder want any part of. That leaves who?

      • Peterr says:

        Holder and Dannehy do not have a choice about whether they want a CF or not. They can choose which one they want, but they are going to get one, one way or another:

        CF Option A: dig into the past, do the ugly investigation, and have all the rhetoric of “criminalizing political differences” and “politicizing the DOJ” tossed at them by the right wing.

        CF Option B: refuse to dig into the past, play the “let bygones be bygones” and “we’re looking forward, not back” broken record, and face the howls of anger from progressives as well as Law-and-Order types from the center and even the GOP who blanch at the idea of an unaccountable executive branch.

        Right now, I’d have to say Holder would lean toward B, but I know nothing about Dannahy.

        • bmaz says:

          Well you can start with the fact her designation is not like Pat Fitzgerald’s was; i.e. she is not her own entity, she is under the direct thumb of the AG.

      • JasonLeopold says:

        It really is astounding how much media coverage Luskin can generate. As for Gonzales, you make a good point. What do you think about McNulty?

        Also, Gonzales seems to be on his own “sympathy” media campaign too. This is the interview he gave to AP that was out today. He said he can’t talk about atty firings. But he said:

        …he made a mistake by using the words “quaint” and “the Geneva Conventions” in the same sentence in the 2002 legal memo about prisoner-of-war protections covered under the treaty, which he said did not apply to enemy combatants in the war on terror.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Tim Griffin. Before he went to Iraq, he was trying hard to get Iglesias canned. Also, the USAs who got off the list by caving to political pressure ought to be indicted. Of course, I am talking justice rather than the law.

        • bmaz says:

          Good point on Griffin. I dunno, maybe I am just too jaded, but I just have a hard time believing Holder will really sign off on opening this can of worms on any any of em. I hope with every fiber I am wrong though.

  14. Styve says:

    When will the rats start jumping off the sinking ship?

    Who will go first, and how will the chain reaction develop? I was thinking the same way yesterday, about the unveiling of massive media complicity, when the Post journo was implicated for having moderated the reporting on the USA situation.

    There seems an abundance of very incriminating evidence in the doc dump that might cause Bushies to start thinking of their futures…behind bars, or not?!

  15. plunger says:

    Speaking purely of the legal definition, the word Conspiracy certainly belongs in at least one charged count – and it’s a conspiracy between politically motivated high level operatives installed inside both the White House and the Justice Department.

    Anyone who doesn’t by this point view Gonzales as a political agent inside Justice is missing the point. It was his only job.

  16. fatster says:

    ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER: LOOK AT THE TORTURE PHOTOS
    Wednesday Aug. 12, 2009 14:13 EDT
    Editor’s note: Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week. Daphne Eviatar of The Washington Independent is guest-blogging today.

    ”If, as the latest reports indicate, Eric Holder is serious about prosecuting the worst torture and abuse of ”war on terror” prisoners that occurred during the Bush administration, then there’s some key evidence he’s going to want to take a look at: photographs. Although Bush Justice Department prosecutors claimed they didn’t have the facts to support prosecuting anyone for the mysterious deaths and disappearances of detainees hauled out of Bagram and Abu Ghraib in body bags, the photographs — which two courts have now ordered the Obama administration to turn over — would seem likely to provide some of the missing evidence.

    ”The photos I’m talking about are the same ones that President Obama back in April promised to release to the public by May. Then, after consulting with Defense Department and CIA leaders, he changed his mind. The ACLU, which sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain them, won orders from a federal district court in New York in 2005 and then the court of appeals in 2008; both courts agreed that the photos are critical to the public debate over torture and the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism tactics, and don’t fall under any exemption to the freedom of information law. Still, the Obama administration isn’t budging.”

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..otographs/

  17. MadDog says:

    Totally OT, but Barton Gellman of the WaPo has a new Cheney piece up (at the Salt Lake Tribune, but not the WaPo no less):

    ‘I have strong feelings’: Cheney describes differences with Bush

    In his first months after stepping down, former Vice President Dick Cheney threw himself into public combat against the “far left” agenda of the new commander in chief. More private reflections, as his memoir takes shape in slashing longhand on lined legal pads, have opened a second front against Cheney’s White House partner of eight years, former President George W. Bush.

    Cheney’s disappointment with Bush surfaced recently in one of the salon-like conversations he is holding to discuss the book with former colleagues, authors, diplomats and policy experts. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

    “In the second term he felt Bush was moving away from him,” said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney’s reply. “He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney’s advice. He’d showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory…”

  18. perris says:

    can us attorneys be turned into a something other then “serving at the pleasure of the president?

  20. bmaz says:

    ATTENTION MARY: If you wander along, I just heard back from EFF trial counsel and they believe they all the necessary preservation notices and lit holds in place in NDCA.

      • Petrocelli says:

        I hope Marcy gets a Standing O from the Netizens for that priceless comment !

        In fact I would request the FDLers there to lead the way, on behalf of those who cannot travel to Pittsboigh.

        • Rayne says:

          Bought “Mommy” a beer last night — the blowjob episode was discussed later over dinner al fresco. Probably for the best we were outside in plein air while the lot of us NN patrons were carrying on about blowjobs. Heh.

  22. MadDog says:

    OT – Ok, Part 2 of this NYT piece is up:

    Interrogation Inc.
    A Window Into C.I.A.’s Embrace of Secret Jails

    In March 2003, two C.I.A. officials surprised Kyle D. Foggo, then the chief of the agency’s main European supply base, with an unusual request. They wanted his help building secret prisons to hold some of the world’s most threatening terrorists.

    Mr. Foggo, nicknamed Dusty, was known inside the agency as a cigar-waving, bourbon-drinking operator, someone who could get a cargo plane flying anywhere in the world or quickly obtain weapons, food, money — whatever the C.I.A. needed. His unit in Frankfurt, Germany, was strained by the spy agency’s operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Mr. Foggo agreed to the assignment.

    “It was too sensitive to be handled by headquarters,” he said in an interview. “I was proud to help my nation.”

    With that, Mr. Foggo went on to oversee construction of three detention centers, each built to house about a half-dozen detainees, according to former intelligence officials and others briefed on the matter…

    And good ol’ boy Dusty must’ve really fallen in love with these facilities since he’s gonna call a cell with bars his home for the next few years. LOL!

    As I mentioned last night for Part 1, ya’ll should take a read.

    • Citizen92 says:

      From that same article…

      In 2005, before he came under investigation, Mr. Foggo and other officials, including John Rizzo, the agency’s top lawyer, paid a rare visit to some of the prison sites, assuring C.I.A. employees that their activities were legal, according to former intelligence officials. Mr. Foggo also met with representatives of Eastern European security services that had helped with the prisons. He expressed gratitude and offered assistance — a gesture the officials politely declined.

      Any evidence or idea if David Addington was on that 2005 trip, maybe as an “other official”?

  23. Mason says:

    I realize the Attorney General is a busy man with many responsibilities, but I’ve had enough of his good-golly-Miss-Molly-WTF-do-I-do-now meanderings. Make a freakin decision fer Christ’s sake.

    I guess were supposed to be impressed by the care he’s taking, but I think he already made up his mind regarding all of the Bush-Cheney Administration issues and he’s just stalling hoping the problems will go away.

    Eric, your act is getting a wee bit long in the tooth. At some point, no decision is a decision.

  25. Gitcheegumee says:

    More evidence released of politics in Justice Department hiring
    By By Greg Gordon McClatchy Newspapers
    Publication: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau
    Date: Tuesday, January 13 2009

    WASHINGTON _ A former acting Justice Department civil rights chief illegally favored conservative job applicants as “real Americans,” kept liberal lawyers off key cases and lied in Senate testimony to conceal his misconduct, internal investigators say in a report made public Tuesday.

    Last March, officials from the two offices asked the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate whetherBradley Schlozmancommitted perjury in 2007 Senate testimony and written follow-up responses. Federal prosecutors decided last week not to bring charges.

    The 70-page report, the last to be publicly released on four joint internal investigations stemming from the 2007 scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, was completed in July but had been kept secret pending the outcome of the criminal inquiry.

    It concludes that Schlozman kept tight control over hiring in five key sections of the Civil Rights Division and “improperly used political or ideological affiliations” in assessing applicants for experienced and entry-level career jobs, violating the federal Civil Service Reform Act and department policy.

    On June 15, 2006, after leaving the division to serve as interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., Schlozman said in an e-mail to a friend that he missed “bitch slapping” division attorneys and suggested that the department create “the Brad Schlozman Award for Most Effectively Breaking the Will of Liberal Partisan Bureaucrats.”

    Schlozman’s name surfaced in 2007 as allegations flew over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department. A special prosecutor now is investigating possible criminal wrongdoing.

    Department spokesman Peter Carr said Tuesday’s report described troubling conduct and that Schlozman had deviated from the department’s mission of “evenhanded application of the Constitution and the laws enacted under it.”

    Pat Riley, a spokeswoman for the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office, declined to specify why Schlozman wasn’t prosecuted on perjury charges for denying to the Senate that politics had entered his personnel decisions.
    Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the report “confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration’s political corruption of the Justice Department.”

    ___
    Excerpt
    (c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

    Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at http://www.mcclatchydc.com.

    _____

    1 2 3 4 Next Page

    • bobschacht says:

      Pat Riley, a spokeswoman for the District of Columbia U.S. Attorney’s Office, declined to specify why Schlozman wasn’t prosecuted on perjury charges for denying to the Senate that politics had entered his personnel decisions.
      Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the report “confirms some of our worst fears about the Bush administration’s political corruption of the Justice Department.”

      So why wasn’t he prosecuted?!!!
      If they won’t prosecute him, who will they prosecute?
      Dam. don’t answer that question.

      Bob in HI

  26. x174 says:

    thanks for dredging this stuff up from yesteryear.

    the criminality of the G-men is essentially limitless.

    each new layer of evidence manipulation and cover-up of perpetrators is increasingly even more disgusting than when we had to stomach it the first go around.

    seriously, thanks for keeping an eye on the great ball of criminality.

    seems like the whole health care bru-hah-hah is just a media-congress inspired distraction from the mountain of felonious-sludge emanating from out of the portals of government.

  27. crayons says:

    The RNC political operatives (from the WH, to the DOJ, to the media and more) conspired against this nation. I call it organized crime. Why am I not hearing RICO? I know nothing about the law, but I know bad when I see it.

  28. freepatriot says:

    I noticed that this story is killing the repuglitarded candidate for governor in New Jersey

    GOOD WORK, People

    but what’s up with Virginia ???

    Y’all can’t find a way to torpedo the repugs in Virgina, jes fer fun, maybe ???

    herr kkkarl sure is a political genius, ain’t he ???

    but what I don’t unnerstan is how bein a political leper makes herr kkkarl rich

    jes sayin, is all …

  29. Rayne says:

    By the way, anybody note how widespread the use of RNC and campaign email service was through out all of the communications between Rove and others?

    Hatch Act needs teeth, much bigger teeth. Anybody this stupid and arrogant, using campaign/political resources to handle government business and vice versa, needs to be strongly discouraged from holding government office with sentencing, fines and jail time along with a ban on public office for a period of time.

    • Citizen92 says:

      Yes. Very much so. Use of RNC assets, equipment and domains was pervasive and widespread.

      Particularly perverse was the fact that they could e-mail the RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, directly, in system. And the RNC, in theory, could read all of the government’s e-mails, since the government was conducting its business on the RNC’s system.

      To your question about Hatch, I agree. But that may not be the only avenue.

      I think that all US Government Executive Agencies, Offices, Entities, etc, are strictly prohibited from augmenting their operating budgets. Congress doles out the funds and the Executive Branch must use only the funds that Congress gives it. What the White House did here in effect is accept a significant “in kind” and supplment to its operating funds, in the form of e-mail equipment, infrastructure, and tech support. Given the number of White House users, the financial cost of White House support given by the RNC’s tech assets is significant.

      After all, that’s only one reason why Iran-Contra was illegal. Congress wouldn’t give the funds, so the Executive Branch fundraised on its own to support a WH program.

Comments are closed.