Scott Horton has been connecting the dots, covering Siegelman and now Spitzer and the fired US Attorneys. Eliminating your political opposition is bad enough. But seizing ultimate lock down control by taking over the process by which we are supposed to elect that opposition raises the stakes to a new level. "First they came..."

::::::::

In an email last week, I sought to connect the dots between the politicized Department of Justice, the theft of American elections and the railroading of a former Democrat Governor of Alabama who was too tough for the Republicans so they stole his election and locked him away.

~

That email was entitled, First They Came, for obvious reasons just made perhaps more poignant. One can't say for sure, but certainly something to think about as this unfolds. It's hard, given what passes for journalism, to think that there may be more going on than what is being reported.  But, hey, why do any investigative journalism when the public interest has lost all meaning to the media and besides, you have prostitution for your headlines. (see Salacious Sex Raises TV Ratings: Are We Being HOOKERed?)  

You can frame a guy like Don Siegelman when you control the reigns of power-- just about all the power. Were they really made so suspicious by Eliot Spitzer's moving a few thousand dollars around (how much money could we be talking about that would have set off alarms?).  Or is Spitzer seen as a threat to those in control of our lawless post-911 KGBesque investigatory apparatus? Go back and pay attention to Siegleman and watch how the US Attorneys scandal unfolds- which was always about controlling our elections.  

Scott Horton has been connecting the dots, covering Siegelman and now Spitzer and the US Attorneys scandal.  Eliminating your political opposition is bad enough. But seizing ultimate lock down control by taking over the process by which we are supposed to elect that opposition raises the stakes to a new level.  

This is not about whether you liked our NY Governor or think he deserved what he got: It's not really about him.  It's about us. Indeed one might surmise that he was doing something right if he turns out to be a target for political reasons.  

The piece "First they came..." shows that the inactivity of those who didn't speak out as the Nazis purged their chosen targets, group after group, resulted in there being no one left to protect them, when the Nazis came for them. It's time to resist. Take initiative and speak out now- time's running out. 

Stolen elections are part of a larger plan and computerized elections are part of that plan.  Media consolidation is another essential piece of the plan.  This is what corporatism, otherwise known as fascism, looks like.  This is the time to speak out!  

Here are some excerpts from but a few important articles:

In The Spitzer Sex Sting:A Few More Questions Scott Horton writes:

It looks like the Bush Justice Department just bagged themselves another Democratic Governor. Here's the New York Times on the story:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation. 

The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a "private matter." He did not address his political future. "I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family and violates my or any sense of right or wrong," said Mr. Spitzer, who appeared with his wife Silda at his Manhattan office. "I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better."

 On the other hand, ABC News this evening offers a starkly different account of how the investigation got launched. According to ABC, the whole investigation of the prostitution ring itself was triggered by an investigation of Spitzer.  

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials. It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI's Public Corruption Squad. "We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it," said one Justice Department official...

~

The Times notes in its story that Spitzer once prosecuted a prostitution ring: 

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island. "This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure," Mr. Spitzer said at the time. "It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring."

 

These facts are likely to dominate the punditry's discussion of the issue. Spitzer will be labeled a hypocrite (a charge he can hardly refute). However, there is a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction.

~  

Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions.

~ 

... Here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case: 

(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section. 

(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive...

(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and investigators are extraordinary. 

(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer's payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn't have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

 

All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.

The answer of the Justice Department to all this is likely to be: Trust us. But in the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped...  

In  Executive Privilege on the Firing Line, Horton provides detail on the firing of US attorneys:

Former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Joshua Bolten have been sued by the House of Representatives, which now seeks to enforce its subpoenas through a special legal action in the federal district court in Washington. The New York Times's Neil Lewis describes the suit in these terms:

The confrontation between the White House and Congressional Democrats escalated on Monday as the House Judiciary Committee asked a federal judge to force Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel, and Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, to provide information about the dismissals of federal prosecutors in 2007.

Citing legal guidance from the White House, Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas seeking information and documents involving the firings. The suit before Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court in Washington says neither Ms. Miers nor Mr. Bolten may avoid the subpoenas by citing executive privilege, the doctrine that allows advisers' advice to the president to remain confidential. 

The entire affair surrounding Miers and Bolten goes to the U.S. attorneys scandal, and to the White House's refusal to cooperate with any Congressional oversight or investigation into the affair. Miers, who now practices with a Dallas law firm, was "instructed" (in the words of Attorney General Mukasey's letter to Congress) not to comply with the Congressional subpoena. Bolten was subpoenaed as the White House chief of staff and thus as custodian of its records; he was asked to produce internal communications, including emails, that relate to the firing decision. Although only a handful of emails were produced, a number of them put President Bush's then-senior political advisor, Karl Rove, smack in the middle of the decisions to fire the U.S. attorneys, and put partisan political issues at the top of his agenda.  

In one extremely revealing notation, Rove marks a memo for a discussion with Miers about Milwaukee U.S. attorney Steven Biskupic. (Go to page 30 of the linked House Report.) The memo complains that Biskupic was "not doing enough" to prosecute "voter fraud" cases in support of a G.O.P. election plan. In fact Biskupic's name appeared on a list of U.S. attorneys to be fired, and subsequently disappeared after he brought a politically-motivated prosecution tailored to run parallel to an election contest. (emphasis added)

A number of other matters raise even more interest. Topping the list right now is the dismissal of U.S. attorney David Iglesias in Albuquerque after he declined requests from two members of New Mexico's Congressional delegation that he indict a Democratic elected official in the weeks just before the 2006 midterm election. The Iglesias matter also involves interventions and dealings by Rove and President Bush himself.  (emphasis added)

...The Administration's use of Executive Privilege is unprecedented and not based on any prior authority. 

~

Larissa Alexandrovna sends an alarm about what is now happening in Alabama, in URGENT/SOS:Alabama Democrats are Under Attack

If you are not familiar with the Don Siegelman case, then you have some catching up to do. See HERE and read through the links. Now for the latest nightmare -- the brown-shirts arrive. Honestly, this is so unreal, I have no words (emphasis mine): 

"Montgomery, AL - Alabama Democratic Party Executive Director Jim Spearman today called into question the method by which U.S. Marshals attempted to serve legislators subpoenas to appear to testify in a grand jury proceeding.

Reporters were apparently tipped off by calls stating U.S. Marshals were coming to the Alabama Statehouse to serve some legislators.   "The drama surrounding these actions and the U.S. Department of Justice's disruption of a legislative session for the routine serving of a summons to appear in court sends a poor signal to Alabama citizens who are already complaining about partisan political interference into the federal prosecution of former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman," says Spearman. 

"These ladies and gentlemen have not been charged with a crime and could have been served by other means in their local communities, not in Montgomery during a legislative session in front of TV cameras and reporters." Spearman stated.

~

State law actually prohibits serving members of the legislature while they are in session. Section 29-1-7 of the Alabama Code protects members from this kind of action by U.S. Marshals yesterday. In fact, the Marshals could have violated this law by their disruption of the session and have been charged with a misdemeanor...

"If Republican operatives had any advance knowledge of yesterday's serving of subpoenas at the Statehouse, they should have to testify before Congress under oath." Spearman concluded.

 

Exactly. This is a subpoena to appear before a grand jury (and strangely, for quite a few Democratic state legislators). This is NOT a failure to comply with a subpoena (like Miers, Rove, and Bolton have done). So why were US Marshals used as part of this spectacle and on whose authority?

She goes on to conclude: 

Once again I ask, why are Democrats the target of these investigations? Where the hell is Congress? When will these police-state tactics be enough finally? Or do we just wait for the rest of the brown shirts to arrive?

Time to head to Alabama folks, a state in our union that appears to be under siege.

I am not a Democrat. But I am an American. Are you?