Posted on 10/17/2005 11:42:13 PM PDT by Map Kernow
WND has learned from reliable sources within the Texas lottery scandals that pressure from prominent Texas Democrats, including former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, is being placed on Democratic senators considering the high-court nomination of Harriet Miers – whom Gov. George W. Bush appointed as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission – to keep away from investigating the lottery scandals.
WND was told, "The fix is on." Why? The corruption surrounding Texas lottery operator GTECH buying political influence in Texas was bi-partisan, reaching across from the administration of Democratic Gov. Ann Richards into the administration of Republican Gov. Bush. Texans who were named in the scandals of the 1990s are concerned that if the Senate Judiciary Committee does its job and subpoenas prominent players such as former lottery executive director Larry Littwin, many will go to jail.
An attempt is being made to convince Democratic senators that since Miers is the "best they are ever going to get" as a Supreme Court nominee from the Bush administration, they should "keep the lid on" and give her an easy time during her confirmation hearings.
Democratic senators are being reminded that Miers, as recently as 1988, contributed to Al Gore's presidential campaign. The argument is that Miers lacks a strong judicial philosophy, and even the Oct. 3 "Anderson Group" teleconference investigated by Wall Street Journal reporter John Fund did not included Miers herself affirming she will overturn Roe v. Wade. By the time the hearings roll around, Democrats are being told that Miers will have moved to an acceptable centrist position that Roe v. Wade is "established precedent," code words meaning she will not automatically vote to overturn the decision.
That there were crimes committed in the Texas lottery scandals became apparent in 1996 when J. David Smith, the national sales manager of GTECH, the Rhode Island company operating the Texas lottery, was convicted by federal prosecutors in New Jersey of multiple counts of political influence buying and money laundering. In an unusual move, U.S. Attorney Faith Hochberg of Newark made public Jan. 15, 1997, her charges that Barnes, a Democrat, had been involved in a $500,000 kickback scheme with Smith. At that time, Barnes was GTECH's chief Texas lobbyist, receiving 4 percent of GTECH's gross Texas revenue in a contract that earned him some $3 million a year.
At that time, Harriet Miers, the chairwoman of the Texas lottery, claimed that the Lottery Commission would look into the federal prosecutor's allegations against Barnes, yet WND can find no records that any investigation was conducted. Why did Miers cover-up for Barnes?
For years, Barnes had claimed to be the person who exercised preferential treatment to get George Bush into the National Guard. Barnes made theses claims under oath in a deposition given in the wrongful termination case of Larry Littwin, the executive director of the Texas lottery who was abruptly fired in 1997 when he began looking too aggressively into charges of political influence buying by GTECH officers and lobbyists. As part of Littwin's $300,000 settlement with GTECH, the Barnes' deposition has been suppressed to this day.
In the controversy that resulted from the release of Hochberg's allegations, Barnes lost his contract with GTECH, a blow softened by a $23 million "negotiated settlement" payment to Barnes. Miers and the Texas Lottery Commission refused to make the details of Barnes' settlement public until months later, in June, when Texas Attorney General Dan Morales ruled in favor of Texas newspapers that the Lottery Commission could no longer keep the Barnes settlement secret.
In April 1998, Miers publicly agreed with the decision of then-lottery executive director Linda Cloud to end competitive bidding and allow GTECH to retain the contract, despite lower competitive bids being on the table.
In February 1998, in a virtually unprecedented move, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Politan ruled that New Jersey federal prosecutors had to apologize for making public their pre-sentencing report regarding J. David Smith – the report that contained the charges of the Barnes kickback scheme. While federal prosecutors complied and admitted their release of the report was inappropriate, the charges against Barnes appear to have been well-founded in the evidence presented against Smith. No one has ever explained why criminal charges were never pursued against Barnes either by state or federal authorities after these allegations against him were disclosed.
WND was told that individuals in Texas are seriously worried that an aggressive investigation reopened by the Senate Judiciary Committee will lead to criminal investigations against many, both Democrats and Republicans, who were implicated in the lottery scandals of the 1990s, and maybe even beyond.
Sources say that Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee are being pressured not to subpoena Littwin out of fear that he "knows too much and will talk." Littwin is currently 70-years-old and resides in New York City's upper East Side. Reportedly, he will forfeit $50,000 if he breaks the "gag order" imposed on him by GTECH in the settlement of his wrongful termination suit. A subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee should trump that silence agreement, allowing Littwin to testify freely without suffering economic loss.
The question now is whether any senator, Democrat or Republican, is sufficiently committed to a thorough and honest investigation of Miers' professional background and qualifications for the Supreme Court. The Bush administration insists Harriet Miers had a brilliant legal career that began in Texas. Why should anyone resist examination of her accomplishments? If Littwin is not called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee the American public should be alerted – the fix is on in Texas. Does anyone have the courage to investigate?
PING and Ping your ping lists please
This one will have to settle for a little bit to see if sources come forward, buckle, independeent reports, etc.
But the 'bots can't say they weren't warned. I can't recall the first discussions of this - more than a week ago, I know that.
ROTFL!! These guys in Texas have nothing to worry about. Arlen has a history of Texas, ummmm, coverup, IIRC. Something about a magic bullet.
I love how we put a lawyer on the Supreme Court who is at the heart of corruption. Meirs is the equivalent of hiring a tainted accountant. Well, these numbers all depend. And these actions well we can get around that.
And we chose to bypass a whole group of judges with public records.
BREAKING NEWS: Dan Rather and Judith Miller joining forces to break this story wide open.
We have complained to the Democrats for years regarding their failure to provide a fair hearing for judges. The anti-Miers forces have once and for all murdered any chance of Republicans effecively using that argument.
It is unbelievable. the right is now trying to stab Miers, Bush, Andy card...in the back.
Go to NRO--they are now trashing Andy Card.
However one feels about Miers, this behavior is shocking.
There are reasons to speculate either way, and not much of a record. While her personal life rinngs of commitment to Christian principle, her legal life (which is the only thing that counts here) tends liberal.
I don't necessarily think she's going to "nuke the (R)s a few years down the road on the SCOTUS." But the mere fact that her "judicial philosophy history" is impenetrable is, from the point of view of speculating on her personal poerformance, at least a caution signal, and maybe a danger signal. That same impenetrability is a HUGE danger signal for open government process, and her nomination is unacceptable to me for just the presence of that impenetrability.
But back to speculating on her future performance. I think her vetting of past candidates is a neutral indicator of her suitablity to hold the position. It illustrates her organizational and "probing" skills, but does not illuminate her philosophy. I posted the following yesterday, on a couple threads. It really isn't directly on the point here, which is that the confirmation process has booby traps other than her constitutional bona fides.
--
On another thread, the question was posed, "Why is the standard higher for Miers than it has been for other nominees in the past?"
I'd ask why is the standard lower?
There is a reason the other nominations were stellar, I offer one of the criteria the WH used to vet those candidates.
Is it asking too much to apply similar criteria to her, that she applied to the previous? Or does she get "a pass?"
"We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official."There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
53 posted on 10/15/2005 6:41:58 PM EDT by AmericaUnited
If this nominee (Ms. Miers) has been vetted to the same degree that supports the excellent track record that President Bush has demonstrated so far, what specifically (that means generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, don't count) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggest (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?
Corsi has completely gone off the deep end over this.
. . . And something about some guy named Hank Hill, I'll tell you what!
As "eager" as the MSM supposedly is to "damage" the Bush Administration (which IMHO doesn't need any help in damaging itself), I really doubt that it will do any spadework on Miers. The scuttlebutt on the Left---e.g. a post by criminal defense attorney, TV talking head and fervent Clintonista Jeralyn Merritt on the Talk Left blog---is that Miers is "not too shabby" for a Republican nominee and that Dems should hold their fire. What with the Bush WH and its myrmidons actively surpressing even any discussion of Miers' qualifications, much less permitting any good faith investigation of her, it looks like this "unvetted" candidate may *never* get "vetted"---and that by design.
This is funny as hell! Corsi frantically writes two articles last week saying that this "Lottery scandal" will blow the hearings wide open.
Then, when he discovers that nobody, including committee Democrats, give a damn about it (primarily because Ben Barnes will also be called in any questioning), he now says that "pressure" is being applied for committee Democrats to drop it.
IOW, Corsi's story is a non-story, but he spins a conspiracy to cover his butt.
With so many of their friends opposed to the Harriet Miers nomination, her GOP handlers are seeking Miers boosters wherever they can find them. Yesterday the RNC circulated quotes from an op-ed by a woman lawyer who declared her old friend Harriet Miers is "supremely qualified" for the Court. In her opinion piece for Bloomberg News, Martha Barnett, a past president of the ABA, recounts her collaboration with the nominee on ABA issues and praises her "reality tempered with practicality." She notes that Chief Justices Marshall and Rehnquist, like Miers, had no prior judicial experience. Barnett cites her and the president's friendship with Miers and sees friendship as a "valid and time-honored criterion for making high-level appointments." Who is Martha Barnett, whose views the RNC expects its supporters to find persuasive? She is a partner in the law firm of Holland and Knight. Campaign finance records indicate that she donated $1,000 to John Kerry in 2004 and $1,000 to Betty Castor, who ran against Mel Martinez in Florida last year. She is a donor to Emily's List and her many accolades include the "Hillary Clinton Glass Cutter Award." Shouldn't the RNC be a bit more sceptical about the judgment of someone who presumably voted against George Bush?
"Shouldn't they," indeed, dammit!
Hey! If that's an example of your "extreme sarcasm," you could probably get rich marketing your "normal sarcasm" as a sleep aid....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.