Chertoff lied under oath - on AARs "Unfiltered"

It appears that Michael Chertoff, Bush's latest sure fire nominee for HS head, lied under oath to the Senate Committee when he was being vetted to become a judge. This was just disclosed by a whistleblower on the show.

It is supposed to be in today's NYT, but I just read part of it now on

www.unfilteredradio.com

Go to the blog's talking points.

1. Passes poker face test under Congressional inquiry

Yes No


If yes, call press conference to announce nominee
If no, call the CIA

I just looked at the talking points and I don't think this will be enough to derail the investigation. It may be technically true but it will not resonate with the public....it will be met with a resounding "who cares?"....

For a nomination to be denied or overturned, the Senaotrs must have political cover....something that the public will readily understand and stand behind....this allegation is too technical; too esoteric; nobody will stand behind it or at least not enough will wstand behind it to overcome the Republican "obstructionist" meme.....

just my opinion....

what's yours?

For a nomination to be denied or overturned, the Senaotrs must have political cover

Any Senator that needs "political cover", CYA for short, to do the right thing should not be in the Senate in the first place!

All Senators need "political cover" for their action.....the masses may well be asses but their vote still determines who makes the decisions..........

This is an Administration that has made majorly poor and knowingly unethical decisions and the press and the public have looked the other way.

Remember the results that study that shows Teflon causes cancer. Teflon Ronnie had nothing on Shrub.

Anyone have a link?

Tucked way back in the Arts section online is an article by Frank Rich, the Arts critic.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S NEWSMEN

www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/arts/16rich.htmlHe hits CROSSFIRE with a crossbow. It is so good that i am getting ready to do a separate post on it.

or communicating with the public. Fasten your seat belts and stock up on emergency supplies; we're in for a wild ride.

Although, given the overwhelming size and complexity of this bureaucracy as designed by Chaney/Rumsfeld/Wolfovitz - I truly don't think any one could run it effectively. You have to wonder why he accepted this position. I think he has no idea of what he has bitten off, and it is far more than any one person could "chew". Ridge had experience in running the state of Pennsylvania, and although I disagreed with his priorities and methods - he did accomplish a lot of the GOP's goals in the state. However, he seemed largely ineffectual and impotent as "czar" of Homeland Security. The new nominee is far less experienced and qualified than Ridge.

Did Bush's New Homeland Security Nominee Protect Terror-Linked Doctor from Prosecution?
Bernard Kerik, Michael Chertoff... Who's Next? Tony Soprano?

Daniel Hopsicker
January 12, 2005 - Venice, FL

Michael Chertoff, appointed by President Bush to head the Homeland Security Department, may have shielded from criminal prosecution a former client suspected by law enforcement of having funneled millions of dollars directly to Osama Bin Laden while in charge of the U.S. Government’s 9.11 investigation.

Egyptian-born Dr. Magdy el-Amir, a prominent New Jersey neurologist, was at the center of terrorist intrigue in Jersey City.

-El-Amir gave money to a conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

-His brother in Cairo was caught on tape attempting to buy weapons from an American undercover agent for Islamic militant groups.

-Before being arrested in a terrorist deal involving oil and heroin for guns and training, arms smuggler Diaa Mohsen was paid at least $5,000 by one of Dr. el Amir's companies, NBC’s Dateline reported.

And his HMO was suspected by law enforcement of being used to funnel money directly to Osama bin laden.


Wire Transfers to "Unknown Parties"

Chertoff’s client "caused more than $5.7 million to be paid by wire transfers to unknown parties," said the lawsuit filed shortly before the state took over his failing HMO. News accounts about el-Amir’s legal difficulties contain unanswered questions about undue political influence and its effect on national security.
For example, how did el-Amir, who only the month before had been granted a state license to operate an HMO, finagle a lucrative contract from the state of New Jersey in 1995?

“Why was this doctor allowed to start a health plan?” asked the October 25, 1999 issue of the medical trade journal Medical Economics.

“How could this medical entrepreneur, who had no experience running a managed-care or health insurance company, receive a license for an HMO that now provides care to 44,000 of New Jersey's most vulnerable citizens?" asked The Bergen Record. “Moreover, how could the state pay such a novice $ 6 million a month in taxpayers money to take on such a responsibility?”

Why did Michael Chertoff even take the case?


Skimming for Osama in New Jersey...

Con't- LINK-
http://www.madcowprod.com/01122004.html

Dear Senator Corzine:

It was bad enough that a guy with mob ties, kickback schemes and an open arrest warrant was the first choice for Homeland Security Secretary.

But Michael Chertoff seems to me a worse pick in EVERY way.

Chertoff has no intelligence experience, no police experience, no foreign policy experience, and no experience managing any sort of agency. He's managed to rack up exactly ZERO terrorism convictions in three years, even with the Patriot Act....and screwed up the Detroit case so badly that the US attorney there is actually SUING the Justice Department for obstruction of justice.

He's the guy who accidentally gave Zacarias Moussasoui reams of classifed materials.

Also in the Moussasoui trial, Chertoff's trying to argue that Moussasoui should not have the right to call witnesses in his own behalf although the witnesses are in US custody and have not been charged with anything....(considering recent revelations, you don't suppose he's fighting this because he knows that those witnesses have been tortured, do you?)

And let's not forget his role in the Whitewater "case," in which his role seemed to consist of serving as a press source for baseless innuendo and public accusations that later proved to be false.

There are many qualified candidates across the US who are not partisan Republican hacks. This job is too important to be just a reward for carrying Ken Starr's water.

eom

This should be LBN, although the headline isn't very sexy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/politics/13home.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=

snip:

At his confirmation hearing in 2003, Mr. Chertoff said he and his deputies in the criminal division did not have an active role in discussions about ethics warnings in the case from lawyers elsewhere in the department.

But in previously undisclosed department documents, provided to The New York Times by a person involved in the case who insisted on anonymity, a longtime lawyer in the division who worked under Mr. Chertoff detailed numerous contacts he had with lawyers inside and outside the division on Mr. Lindh's questioning.

The lawyer, John De Pue, cautioned in one e-mail message that questioning a suspect represented by a lawyer could be perceived as "an ethical violation." Mr. De Pue told investigators from the inspector general's office of the department that his superiors were upset that he had sought the advice of the department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, or P.R.A.O., about Mr. Lindh's questioning.

A supervisor "informed me that the criminal division's leadership was disturbed that I had sought P.R.A.O.'s advice in this matter," Mr. De Pue said in his statement, which was included in an inspector general's investigation into a leak in the case. The supervisor also asked him to search his e-mail "trash" files to determine what internal discussions had occurred on the issue, he said.

Mr. De Pue said on Wednesday that the inspector general's report had accurately quoted his concerns.

"The front office was unhappy with the fact that I had gone to P.R.A.O. with my inquiry," he said. "I was more or less told that I was out of line in making that inquiry. It was not a popular thing to do, but I thought at the time it was the reasonable thing to do. We'd been told time after time that if an ethics issue arose, the people in that office were the ones to see."

lots more at the link

dirty little secrets...

But I'm not complaining--Rich's columns started out being published only on Saturdays when they'd get the least exposure.

:headbang:
rocknation

She went on to read the actual emails ....

and I would bet the senators will remember. I'll write mine and remind them!