Bully boys
I just heard from Garrick Feldman, the crusading newspaper editor out in Jacksonville. He provides a little insight into the U.S. attorney's office in Little Rock under the leadership of Karl Rove's boy Tim Griffin.
Feldman's paper, The Leader, has been covering the Lonoke police chief sex, drugs, etc. trial like the dew. It's over now. And this week, Feldman had some choice words about the U.S. attorney's office failure to go after public corruption in Arkansas under Bud Cummins, who was fired to make way for Griffin. He points out that a deputy U.S. attorney, Robert Govar, benefitted from some of the inmate labor misused by the Lonoke police chief. Feldman, an opinion columnist, indicated skepticism about Govar's testimony that he had no idea it was inmate labor he got so cheaply. And he also wrote that Govar, in effect, became a character witness for the accused when he testified, in Feldman's words, that "Campbell had a wonderful family."
Opinion is protected in these United States. Feldman's seems tame enough under the circumstances. Not to Govar. Feldman says Govar wrote him last week during a business day (about 11:30 a.m.) on the U.S. attorney's e-mail system and signed it as a member of the prosecutor's staff as he threatened to sue Feldman for millions. Feldman, whose family was tough enough to survive the communist takeover of Hungary, isn't someone who spooks easily. He's not afraid of Govar and he's just a mite unhappy about threatening communication in response to his opinion column from a representative of the so-called Justice Department.
Here's where Griffin comes in. Feldman complained to him about Govar's e-mail. Feldman says Griffin responded that Govar was acting as a private individual. He thus brusquely washed his hands of Feldman's complaint. If his political past is any guide, Grffin probably likes this kind of bullying. It shudders to make me think what kind of prosecutor he would have been had Sen. Mark Pryor not blown the whistle on Rove's plan to stock U.S. attorney offices with political operatives who hadn't been through Senate confirmation.
Here are the simple facts: We have an e-mail written on the U.S. attorney's system, during the work day. It invokes an official Justice Department title in the course of a threat meant to chill comment on sworn testimony in a public corruption trial. This is of no interest to Govar's boss, Tim Griffin? It makes you wonder just what WOULD interest him.
Feldman intends to complain to the office of professional integrity at the Justice Department. Does any integrity remain at a department headed by a lying torture proponent? Give 'em hell, Garrick.







Comments
Unbeliveable! Forget rebuiding Iraq or New Orleans. Rebuilding Washington, D.C. will take at least 7 years.
_
Posted by: Lwood
|
April 28, 2007 06:38 PM
I just want to know when any of the bastards are leaving office. Gonzo, Griffin, Wolfowitz, Rove (and I'm not including the chief liars: monkeyboy/Cheney)...they seem to be unstoppable. And it's not enough to wait until President shit for brains leaves office. I guess this is what the Justice Department memo referred to when it said 'stall, stall and stall some more...'
But the Clintons are soo bad...HA!
Posted by: zelda
|
April 28, 2007 07:05 PM
"It shudders to make me think what kind of prosecutor he would have been had Sen. Mark Pryor not blown the whistle on Rove's plan to stock U.S. attorney offices with political operatives who hadn't been through Senate confirmation."
Me thinks a little too much credit where credit is due....But I'll let it pass.
I think watching the Sopranos all these years has helped me understand Bush operatives a lot better. They are a smarmy bunch, and that's being polite. So far we haven't heard of any whack jobs, unless you count the 3346 dead US soldiers killed in Iraq that are enriching Bushie supporters. That pretty much puts the Mafia in the minor leagues.
We're so damn close to witnessing a takeover much like Hitler pulled off in Germany in 1933. Imagine how Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Griffin and Govar would be acting if they had the power all sown up. Feldman would be cooling his heels in a black site prison already for daring to question one of Bush's SS.
The Democrats in Congress are slapping subpoenas as hard as they can go and it's the only thing that will save this country. The hard part is that there are so many dirty people and so many dirty deals it might be beyond the scope of the human brain to take it all in.
Last week was a barn burner, this week will be one too and the next and the next and the next. We have to take time to watch and read and try to keep up with all that's coming down because it is our future at stake. If we don't, threats on government email will be coming at us all.
After we speak truth to power, we need to pull the plug on power and put these bad Americans out of office and many, behind bars.
Posted by: Deathbyinches
|
April 28, 2007 07:08 PM
I know this thread is supposed to be about corruption at the highest level of government, but I have a much more basic question from the discussion.
1) How do I gain access to inmate labor. I'm feeling left out. I've got some work I need done.
2) How much does it cost and who decides what is fair?
I actually thought hiring inmates out for private work had been eliminated in the sixties with the abuses of using inmates for the private hunting clubs that used to control much of what happened at the capitol.
I agree with Feldman and I would guess that the web of corruption that could spin out from Lonoke would be scary.
Posted by: Stump
|
April 28, 2007 07:33 PM
Before everyone pats themselves on the back too much, I remind you Tim Griffin is still the U.S. Attorney and the earliest guaranteed departure is when the 44th President of the US appoints a successor.
So now the "loyal Bushie"s have two crooks running the U.S. Attorney's office. Sounds more like Bush's facism is still winning.
Posted by: docholliday
|
April 28, 2007 07:52 PM
This is all abysmal and alarming. But please tell me Govar did NOT make any booty calls.
Posted by: 24fps
|
April 28, 2007 07:59 PM
I think I will write the campaigns of all 8 Dems and ask them what they plan to do with the Regent University infested DoJ? Will they pledge to fire all Regent grads and the grads from that other charlatan's school? Fire them where ever they might have lodged and whatever civil service protection they might have stolen? These people are a blight on the universe and they need to be routed like a termite infestation.
Make the candidates pledge to do so!
Posted by: 70%er
|
April 29, 2007 06:37 AM
Bob's a good guy. Using prison labor to work on his property was probably not a good idea. And if he threatened personal litigation from his work computer that definitely was an error in judgment. But just because he's made a mistake doesn't mean he's a bad guy or a bully.
Posted by: bopbamboom
|
April 29, 2007 09:14 AM
Why is it when we know and like someone they're a "good guy" that "made a mistake," but when someone we don't know or don't like does the same or equally bad thing, the judgment is harsher, or there's no defense at all?
This happens all the time, but bopbamboom is the second example of this I've seen in a week.
The first was the searing response The Courier in Russellville got when they publised a front-page story about a music minister from one of the mega-churches in town getting busted for cruising for sex in a Conway park. There was no such defense of the character of the preacher from Roseville who got picked up at a Pope County rest stop for the same thing when The Courier ran that story.
Posted by: JG
|
April 29, 2007 10:19 AM
Well, here's the difference. Bob made an error in judgment. He didn't commit a felony. I didn't excuse his behavior . Regardless of what one might thing of the Tim thing, this is hardly evidence of a pattern and practice of the office, Tim or no.
Posted by: bopbamboom
|
April 29, 2007 08:58 PM
The actual offenses these men were arrested for (loitering, indecency) are misdemeanors, if I recall, which some would argue are also "errors in judgement." I think by dismissing an abuse of public office (threatening legal action against a newspaper on government time through government resources and by using your government title) as a mistake or error in judgment *is* excusing his behavior.
He should be taken to task by his superiors for this, and it's obvious his boss has no interest in doing so, which tells me the boss thinks it's ok for public officials to threaten people by using their position of power as a club. If that's not a pattern or a practice, then what is?
Posted by: JG
|
April 30, 2007 07:02 AM