House Judiciary Chair asks for Gore Lick's Resignation from 9/11
From US Newswire:House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement:
"Yesterday, a 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick, in her former role as the second in command at the Justice Department, revealed her actions in establishing the heightened 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information. Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the Commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in questions. Thus, I believe the Commission's work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a Commissioner. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Gorelick should resign from this Commission.
"The Commission's Guidelines on Recusals state, 'Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.' Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that 'go(es) beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the Commission. Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this DOJ policy, 'the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... (and) embraced flawed legal reasoning.' Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue. The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives.
"While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this Commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a Commissioner. Given Ms. Gorelick's work as the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick can be quite valuable to the Commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
"Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice have all testified before the Commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the Commission. Testifying before the Commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
Matt's Chat
This woman should be a witness, folks...Mark's Remarks
Gee, wasn't I saying this a couple of days ago on Crispy Rice Treats part 5,000 or something? However, I can hear the nonsensical wailings of the liberal chorus: you are picking on her because she is a woman! It is another way to get at Clinton! You hate her because Gore is in her name! Ad Nauseum....
I would hope even the dimmest out there would see the relevance of Gorelick NOT being part of this commission. She, according to testimony, was responsible for STRENGTHENING THE STRUCTURAL BARRIERS that most logical people acknowledge was at the root of prevention failures. This woman has a vested interest in portraying Clinton as Messiah and Bush as Demon. It is protecting her reputation and the reputation of her former bosses. This represents a BLATANT conflict of interest, and I am glad that someone besides John Ashcroft is intimating that this woman should resign....I think she should be a witness, and I also think she should face criminal charges for hindering an investigation. Do not tell me she doesn't remember writing that memo, or its significance. She has been all about smearing to protect herself from the beginning. It is about time someone criticized this farcical commission.
In fact, look at the Commission's website...there are clear rules for recusing due to conflict of interest, etc., AND GEE, I THINK THIS QUALIFIES, DON'T YOU? Here are the guidelines:(emphasis on certain points is mine)
Commissioners, senior staff, and other covered staff have all fully complied with Senate Ethics rules for disclosure of their employment histories and financial information. Beyond this disclosure, the Commission seeks to avoid damaging conflicts of interest in the conduct of its work by respecting three principles:
1. Financial Interests
Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from participating in matters as to which they have a financial interest.
2. Conflicts Arising from Prior Government Service
Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.
3. Personal Connections
Where a commissioner or staff member has a close personal relationship with an individual, or either supervised or was supervised by an individual, the commissioner or staff member should not play a primary role in the Commission interview of that person.
Questions about the application of these principles in specific cases will be resolved by the Commission’s General Counsel.
You can see these for yourself here.
