BY ANDI NOVICK, ELECTION DEFENSE ALLIANCE

Dear friends,

Last week I sought to connect the dots between the politicized DoJ, 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. Please go back and watch the youtube of Siegelman describing the stolen election if you haven't already- it's chilling. Here's the link again:video Siegelman describes the theft of 2002 election.

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 reins 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 you have to pick them off one by one. Getting ultimate lock down control is taking over the process by which we are supposed to elect that opposition.

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. I conclude with the same conclusion as last week and provide additional reading below.

Thanks for paying attention- it's time to resist. For those who got back to me and said you'd like to help, thank you. I will be in touch as soon as I can. In the meantime, feel free to take initiative and speak out now- time's running out.

andi novick, Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media (Re-Media)

American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information... Vice President Henry Wallace

"First they came…" about the inactivity of those who didn't speak out as the Nazis purged their chosen targets, group after group, and then it was too late.

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!

More information

The Spitzer Sex Sting: A Few More Questions

Scott Horton

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. Fox News reported earlier in the day that Spitzer would resign at his press conference. He did not. In any event, however, Spitzer-who was previously viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party-is now damaged goods. Many had expected him to consolidate power in Albany, inching the Democrats towards control of the State Senate, and to rule as a powerful governor. He may or may not survive the initial shock waves of the scandal, but certainly no one now expects him to be a powerful force in the statehouse.

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. During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican. Beyond this, a number of the cases seem to have been tied closely to election cycles. Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats. So 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. Here are a few:

Heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson was the first man prosecuted under the act - for having an affair with Lucille Cameron, whom he later married. The prosecution was manifestly an effort "to get" Johnson, who at the time was the most famous African-American. (All of this is developed well in Ken Burns's film "Unforgiveable Blackness").

University of Chicago sociologist William I. Thomas was prosecuted for having an affair with an officer's wife in France. Thomas was targeted because of his Bohemian social and his radical political views.

In 1944 Charles Chaplin was prosecuted for having an affair with actress Joan Barry. The prosecution again provided cover for a politically motivated effort to drive Chaplin out of the country.

Canadian author Elizabeth Smart was arrested and charged in 1940 while crossing the border with the British poet George Barker.

(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. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction. This has nothing to do with Spitzer's guilt or innocence. But it has everything to do with the fading integrity of the Public Integrity Section.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589

Executive Privilege on the Firing Line

Scott Horton

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.

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.

In its complaint, the House of Representatives states that Executive Privilege cannot be invoked to preclude Miers's appearance altogether, but only with respect to specific questions which implicate Executive Privilege issues. A copy of the complaint is attached here. It asks the Court to rule on contests over the privilege. The Administration's use of Executive Privilege is unprecedented and not based on any prior authority. Historically, privilege issues have been resolved on a question-by-question basis. The tactical use of Executive Privilege in this case is clearly designed to obstruct Congress's inquiry into the U.S. attorney's matter altogether.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002590

URGENT/SOS: Alabama Democrats are Under Attack Posted March 11, 2008 | 10:32 AM (EST)

LARISA ALEXANDROVNA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

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.

"Thursday's action only strengthens our resolve to insist that the U.S House and Senate as well as the U.S. Attorney General immediately launch an inquiry into Alabama's federal justice system to assure Alabama citizens that politics and partisanship have not been used in prosecutions or in the serving of subpoenas. 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 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?

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?

and see http://www.democracynow.org/...