The Next Abramoff Shoe To Drop

[sweetm2475]

Here's the next Abramoff blockbuster coming soon to a newspaper, cable TV station, and blog near you. What makes this particularly tantalizing is that it puts the White House squarely in the middle of a 2002 corruption investigation of a sleazy arrangement between Abramoff and Guam Superior Court officials. The chief prosecutor in the investigation was acting U.S. Atty. for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, Frederick A. Black. As the LA Times wrote back in August 2005, in more innocent times when Abramoff's shenanigans did not make front page news, Black was removed from his position as acting U.S. Attorney in November 2002. It was a position he had held for over a decade, and which he lost one day after a subpoena was issued demanding the release of records involving the Guam court's lobbying contract with Abramoff -- including bills and payments.

And if this is not a bizarre enough coincidence for you, Black's replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was a cousin of "one of the main targets" of the Guam investigation. Rapadas, who had been recommended to Karl Rove for the U.S. Attorney position by a lobbyist under contract with Guam's Gutierrez Administration, whom Black had also been investigating, promptly recused himself, and the investigation was very conveniently ended.

Look for more news on this very soon. And this next Abramoff storm will be gathering momentum just as the White House is desperately trying to distance itself from Abramoff, and Scott McClellan insists that "the President does not know , nor does the President recall ever meeting him." Possibly true. But what's more scandalous -- shaking hands with the man or unethically jury-rigging a corruption investigation so he'd never have to see a jail cell? But it turns out that even the president could not stop the inevitable.

Unfolding...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-next-abramoff-shoe-to_b_13469.html

Hope this isn't a dupe. I tried to to a thread search, but the traffic's so high it just get's stuck.

[Trevelyan]

1. Thank you for posting this. I had read about the first part but not the

second -- about the replacement. I hope Fitz hurries, people are dying and being tortured every day. Keep posting and signing petitions and writing and calling Congress. It is like pushing a mountain but it is beginning to move.

Found an interesting article:Bill would restoreCongress' war powers
Aims to stop military commitments ordered solely by president

The measure was introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, last Tuesday, and is called the "Constitutional War Powers Resolution of 2001," or H.J.R. 27. It currently has no co-sponsors.

The bill, which has been referred to the House committees on Armed Services, Rules, and the Judiciary, seeks to "repeal the War Powers Resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution that Congress and not the President has the power to declare war, and for other purposes."

Three questions:

1) What happened to this?

2) Does that mean that by passing the War Powers Act, we ~are~ officially at war???

3) Where can I see a copy of the 9/11 War Powers Authorization / Act (whatever it's called)...?

[Mabus]

2. Already posted and on the "Greatest" page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x85102

:hi:

[sweetm2475]

3. wow! i feel like a real dumbass!

it was right there up top!:banghead:

[Mabus]

4. I've done it before too

LOL, don't worry about it. I saw yours first if it is any consolation.

[Benhurst]

5. I didn't catch it there, so thanks anyway.

I'd rather see multiple posts of a story this important than have it overlooked.
:hi:

Talk about dumbasses. I can't even post two sentences without a typo or two. :spank: