What are they hiding here?

[Lanya]

USDA Shuts Down Congressional Audit

By BEN EVANS ? 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Agriculture Department abruptly ordered congressional auditors to leave its headquarters and told its employees not to cooperate with them.

"You are hereby instructed not to meet with any member of the (Government Accountability Office) today, or until this matter is resolved," Michael Watts, a top USDA attorney, wrote to employees Wednesday in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press.

The auditors were seeking information for an ongoing audit on Agriculture's office of civil rights and its handling of discrimination complaints. Specifically, they were investigating allegations that the department had previously provided false information for the audit.

J. Michael Kelly, Agriculture's deputy general counsel, said the GAO investigators called the department Wednesday morning to say they were on their way to its headquarters and wanted to speak with a handful of specific employees.

The auditors refused to allow USDA lawyers to be present for the interviews, and after allowing one employee to talk, department officials stopped the interviews and told the investigators to leave the building, Kelly said.

"We are not interested in having our employees potentially put themselves at risk when they have not yet been advised of their rights and when we were not allowed to provide counsel," Kelly said. "We also pointed out to them that while they hold themselves out to be criminal investigators, GAO is an arm of Congress and has no authority to investigate violations of criminal law."

Kelly said the department has been cooperating with the auditors for a year but will not allow its employees to discuss the matter until it gets more information.

"We don't have anything to hide," Kelly said. "We have absolutely no understanding of why anybody at GAO believes there's been any misrepresentation."

A spokesman for GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, said the agency could not immediately comment on the matter.

John Boyd, a Virginia farmer who for years has criticized the Agriculture Department on civil rights issues, said the development shows that the department is not open about its handling of civil rights complaints.

"We think it's appalling that the USDA would go this far to obstruct civil rights," he said. "It's obvious that they have something to hide."

Although executive agencies frequently chafe at GAO's findings, the agency has a reputation as an independent, nonpartisan investigative office.

The agency has clashed with the Bush administration, however, most notably in 2002 when it sued Vice President Dick Cheney to get the names of energy executives who met with a White House task force working on President Bush's energy policy. The lawsuit marked the first time in the GAO's nearly 90-year history that it had resorted to asking a federal judge to force a president or vice president or their aides to release documents.

The GAO lost the case.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jmMDqqS37QeJR2uBIwSOwQPtBUaAD8V3FH3G0

[BT]

One wonders why the GAO insisted on disallowing representation by attorney's.

[Michael Tee]

<<One wonders why the GAO insisted on disallowing representation by attorney's.>>

Yeah, one also wonders, with a lot more reason, which energy executives met with Cheney and what they resolved in their meeting.

[Rich]

>>Yeah, one also wonders, with a lot more reason, which energy executives met with Cheney and what they resolved in their meeting.<<

This is a favorite liberal fantasy of mine. What's funniest about it is that the left feels like they should have been included in these discussions. While Ted Kennedy is an expert on hot air and the power of running water, he is hardly an expert on energy manufacturing and conservation. Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators, and Representatives always consult with outside experts for advice. It only became an issue when President Bush won the White House, twice. Democrats think they know everything about everything and when they don't they bring in some Hollywood light weight to testify. They aren't an expert, but they played one in a movie. The left didn?t have a problem when  Mrs. Clinton held her private little healthcare meetings, did they? No, they defended it.

But I understand why the left wants this information. Cheney certainly got his buddies together and cooked up a scheme to steal oil from the proletariat. No doubt.

[Michael Tee]

<<The left didn?t have a problem when  Mrs. Clinton held her private little healthcare meetings, did they? No, they defended it. >>

Interesting point.  Did Hillary refuse to name the people she met with?

[Rich]

Yup

[Michael Tee]

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/hillary-clintons-first-health-care-non-reform/

article dealing with Hillary's FIRST health-care plan and what a fraud and corporate sell-out THAT was

Moral of this story:  don't trust Hillary, she is more concerned about not antagonizing the insurance industry than she is about health care for the American people.

The article names some of the experts she consulted.  There is no indication whatsoever that she refused to name any of the experts with whom she met.

[BT]

The supreme court heard a case that extended executive privilege to the first lady.
The case came from her health care initiative.

[Michael Tee]

Thanks, BT.

<<The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government.>>
=====================================

From Wikipedia:

<<Litigation

<<The First Lady's role in the secret proceedings of the Health Care Task Force also sparked litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in relation to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requires openness in government. The Clinton White House argued that the Recommendation Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution would make it unconstitutional to apply the procedural requirements of FACA to Hillary's participation in the meetings of the Task Force. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, history, or structure of the Constitution.[13]Ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the litigation when the D.C. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady of the United States can be deemed a government official (and not a mere private citizen) for purposes of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.[14]

<<In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala‎ over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[15] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[16]>>

So Hillary DID try to hold back the names of people she consulted with - - and got away with it.

I do not trust that woman.  Her 1993 health plan was a fraud, it was geared to insurance industry interests, not to the health of the people.

Now, based on that precedent, Cheney will away with concealing who HE met with to plan energy policy.

The fucking Democrats are as crooked and devious as the Republicans.  You really need a third party.  The system as it presently operates is fucked.

[BT]

And the GAO needs to allow lawyers if the interviewees want them. And that brings us full circle.

[fatman]

The fucking Democrats are as crooked and devious as the Republicans.

They're all vegetables in the garden, just different names for the same.

[Michael Tee]

<<They're all vegetables in the garden, just different names for the same.>>

Sounds like you don't believe a third party would be any different from the first two.  You might be right, but I don't think giving up hope.  You should try a third party - - if it doesn't work, nothing lost.  If it does, the country really could change direction.

[Plane]

<<They're all vegetables in the garden, just different names for the same.>>

Sounds like you don't believe a third party would be any different from the first two.  You might be right, but I don't think giving up hope.  You should try a third party - - if it doesn't work, nothing lost.  If it does, the country really could change direction.

http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

[Michael Tee]

What a great site!  Thanks, plane.  Here are two parties I think people ought to consider - - and there are others.  I had no idea how many political parties there already are in the U.S.A.



Progressive Labor Party - The PLP is Progressive Labor Party, a New York-based, militant, Stalinist-style communist party dedicated to bringing about a world-wide, armed, communist revolution. The PLP abhors democracy, elections, freedom of nearly any sort, capitalism and religion -- while praising dictator Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union as their role model. Because they denounce all elections as "frauds," the PLP vows to never field any candidates for public office (for these guys, its either armed victory or nothing at all). Lots and lots of online ideological articles written in the typical dogmatic communist style ... with titles like "The Hoax of the 1932-33 Ukraine Famine," "Fascism Grows In The Auto Industry," "The Road to Revolution." Articles in English, Spanish, Russian, German, etc.

Revolutionary Communist Party USA - The Revoltuionary Communist PartyRCP is based upon the teachings of the late Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Tse-tung (a form of communism derivative of Leninist-Stalinist Marxism). The party strongly denounces capitalism and advocates a "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Programme" as "a battle plan for destroying the old and creating the new [and] is a kind of road map for how to win the revolution." Even the RCP's logo is consistent with the proletarian revolutionary theme (i.e., note the red flag flying from a rifle bayonet). The RCP clearly advocates change through revolution (and various popular front groups), not elections -- so don't look for any RCP candidates on the ballot. RCP Chairman Bob Avakian and his writings also recieve extensive coverage on the party's official site. With Avakian currently hiding in France to evade arrest in the US, Maoist activist C. Clark Kissinger seems to be running the day-to-day operations of the RCP. The party's newspaper -- Revolutionary Worker -- is available online in English and Spanish versions. Prominent RCP popular front groups include Refuse & Resist! and the the anti-war Not In Our Name project.