No Investigation of Chris Christie for His Rove Chats
The Office of Special Counsel has announced that it will not investigate Chris Christie’s campaign discussions with Karl Rove since it couldn’t punish Christie even if it found wrong-doing (it’s only available punishment is termination).
The Office of Special Counsel says it won’t investigate because it has no authority to discipline Christie even if a violation were found. Christie resigned last year to run for governor.
I have asked CREW, though, whether they mentioned this little admission from Christie–that he has talked to still-serving AUSAs about working for him once he becomes Governor (presuming he wins).
You know, we’re going to ferret out waste and fraud and abuse in the government. I think you know I’ll do that better than anybody. I’ve got a group of assistant U.S. attorneys sitting down in Newark still doing their job. But let me tell you, they are watching the newspapers. And after we win this election, I’m going to take a whole group of them to Trenton with me and put them in every one of the departments because they saw a lot of waste and abuse being investigated while we were in the U.S. Attorney’s office that didn’t rise to the level of a crime. So I told them, the good news is, when we get to Trenton we don’t have to worry about beyond a reasonable doubt anymore.
It seems to me OSC ought to at least ask which AUSAs Christie spoke about this with–and whether those AUSAs are currently still employed at the US Attorney’s office.
somewhat connected since, like Christie, it comes from the U.S. attorney firings, but OSC also declined earlier this year to investigate Iglesias’s Hatch Act complaint against Rove. That sort of flew under the radar. But I’m wondering what your take on OSC is in general, if you have an opinion?
They are weak.
thanks, bmaz. Was originally thinking that perhaps Bloch’s exit may have changed things over there.
Nah,
The big problem is they’re toothless–they can only fire someone. But if the person has already left, then they can’t fire the person so they give up.
That, plus they are still effectively, well literally, an exec department and I do not believe they are particularly well staffed or funded, and no administration has a vested interest in changing that. Combine that with the tootlessness and you have pretty weak tea, even if the target is still on the job.
ot
I finally received walker’s opinion in my ATT lawsuit whuch says:
“Judge Walker has dimissed the lawsuits by you and other customers charging ATT and other telecommunications carriers with illegal wiretapping and surveillance.Unfortunately,the judge beleived that he was bound by the law pushed through Congress last year that gave telecommunucations companies immunity from these wiretapping claims”
Also
This document relates to all cases except:
Al Haramain Islamic Foundation,Inc v Bush,No C 07-0109;
Center for constitutional rights v Bush,No C 07-1115;
Guzzi v Bush, No C 07-6225;
Shubert v Bush,No C 07-0693;
Clayton et al v ATT Comm. of the Southwest,Inc,et al, C 07-1187;
United States v Clayton, C 07-1242
United States v Reishus, C 07-1323
United States v Farber, C 07-1324
United States v Palermino,et al C 07-1326;
United States v Volz,et al, C 07-1396
Other than Al Haramain,what are the other cases about?
Well, ACLU and EFF did file appeals as to a lot of cases; is there no indication as to whether yours is one of them? Beyond that, it is my belief that the ones still alive have actions against the government also as opposed to just against telcos.
They also said that although they have appealed they don’t beleive it is likely that the dismissal will be reversed.
I’m ok with it all.I just thought you all might be interested in all the other cases they listed.
I could copy it and send it to you if you’re interested
thanks for the insight on this. Appreciate it
New KSM photo. Apologies for the OT.
It seems to me OSC ought to at least ask which AUSAs Christie spoke about this with–and whether those AUSAs are currently still employed at the US Attorney’s office.
——————————–
It would be interesting to speculate on exactly WHAT it WOULD take to determine that justice has been politicized.
Can anyone tell if the motorcyclist, Andre Mendonca, can afford to call upon the law office of Stanley E. Marcus in Newark, NJ?
Does this lawyer, Stanley Marcus, relate to the Neiman Marcus families in Dallas, TX?
Background for Christie is that William Palatucci of Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci is a Bush Pioneer fund raiser for GHW Bush. Palatucci introduced Christie to GW and Rove.
http://www.parkplacemag.com/Fe…..didate.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03…..wanted=all