Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Bush: Will "correct" fired U.S. attorney problem. Transcript.

| 23 Comments

WASHINGTON--President Bush on Tuesday reaffirmed support for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Bush said he will let Congress interview key staffers--but that's not the sworn testimony of Karl Rove many in Congress are calling for.

"Today I'm also announcing the following steps my administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons. Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys."

Click below for transcript.......


THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release March 20, 2007

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE U.S. ATTORNEYS ISSUE

The Diplomatic Reception Room

5:45 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms.

The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem.

Today I'm also announcing the following steps my administration is taking to correct the record and demonstrate our willingness to work with the Congress. First, the Attorney General and his key staff will testify before the relevant congressional committees to explain how the decision was made and for what reasons. Second, we're giving Congress access to an unprecedented variety of information about the process used to make the decision about replacing eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.

In the last 24 hours, the Justice Department has provided the Congress more than 3,000 pages of internal Justice Department documents, including those reflecting direct communications with White House staff. This, in itself, is an extraordinary level of disclosure of an internal agency in White House communications.

Third, I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. attorneys. Access to White House staff is always a sensitive issue. The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.

Yet, in this case, I recognize the importance of members of Congress having -- the importance of Congress has placed on understanding how and why this decision was made. So I'll allow relevant committee members on a bipartisan basis to interview key members of my staff to ascertain relevant facts. In addition to this offer, we will also release all White House documents and emails involving direct communications with the Justice Department or any other outside person, including members of Congress and their staff, related to this issue. These extraordinary steps offered today to the majority in Congress demonstrate a reasonable solution to the issue. However, we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.

The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. I hope they don't choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

As we cut through all the partisan rhetoric, it's important to maintain perspective on a couple of important points. First, it was natural and appropriate for members of the White House staff to consider and to discuss with the Justice Department whether to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of my second term. The start of a second term is a natural time to discuss the status of political appointees within the White House and with relevant agencies, including the Justice Department. In this case, the idea was rejected and was not pursued.

Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.

I also want to say something to the U.S. attorneys who reside. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.

It's now my hope that the United States Congress will act appropriately. My administration has made a very reasonable proposal. It's not too late for Democrats to drop the partisanship and work together. Democrats now have to choose whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people's business. There are too many important issues, from funding our troops to comprehensive immigration reform, to balancing the budget, for us to accomplish on behalf of the American people.

Thank you for your time. Now I'll answer a couple of questions.

Deb.

Q Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?

THE PRESIDENT: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be testifying. We have made available people on my staff to be interviewed. And we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.

Q Sir, are you convinced, personally?

THE PRESIDENT: There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper.

Michael.

Q If today's offer from Mr. Fielding is your best and final offer on this, are you going to go to the mat in protecting the principle that you talked about? And why not, since you say nothing wrong was done by your staff, why not just clear the air and let Karl Rove and other senior aides testify in public, under oath? There's been a precedent for previous administrations doing that.

THE PRESIDENT: Some have, some haven't. My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions.

Michael, I'm worried about precedence that would make it difficult for somebody to walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, here's what's on my mind. And if you haul somebody up in front of Congress and put them in oath and all the klieg lights and all the questioning, to me, it makes it very difficult for a President to get good advice. On the other hand, I understand there is a need for information sharing on this. And I put forth what I thought was a rational proposal, and the proposal I put forward is the proposal.

Q And then you'll go to the mat, you'll take this to court --

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do that. If they truly are interested in information -- in other words, if they want to find out what went on between the White House and the Justice Department, they need to read all the emails we released. If they're truly interested in finding out what took place, I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place. My concern is, they would rather be involved with partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points.

And anyway, the proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a way for people to get information. We'll just fine out what's on their mind.

Kelly O'.

Q Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans -- in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney General. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they're going to go up and explain the truth.

Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

Listen, first of all, these U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. I named them all. And the Justice Department made recommendations, which the White House accepted, that eight of the 93 would no longer serve. And they will go up and make the explanations as to why -- I'm sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are -- I put them in there in the first place; they're decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they're being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it's just -- what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I'm sorry that the situation has gotten to where it's got. But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.

If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

And if information is the desire, here's a great way forward. If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see.

Listen, thank you all for your interest.

END 5:57 P.M. EDT


23 Comments

Can we please get on with working on bigger issues than playing pay back! I knew the Democrats were going to waste time with lynchings , it is sooo old. Please guys, move on with all this payback going to expose you , democrats are out for justice baloney and get on with your job!! We have other issues like Social Security to work out.
Bush is doing a great job. Just because you disagree with him, please do not waste my money and time going on witch hunts.
I have tossed several magazines I subscribe to and I am not reading MSN News either as I am tired of these witch hunts and all of you trying to pump it up.
I know some people who are not coming back to congress again when voting time comes.
mf

The Bush adminastration haven't told the truth about anything yet, and now Bush waNTS US ALL TO BELIEVE THAT SUDDENLY THEY WILL START TELLING TRUTHS.....HA,HA,HA,HA,HA.... If they can tell the truth in private they should be ABLE TO TELL THE TRUTH TO THE PUBLIC and under oath... after all if it's the truth there should be nothing to hide, and why hear it second hand.

if the public had the truth about this admin. they would have been IMPEACHED in 2003.

The President of the United States, unfortunately does not know what the "truth" is any more, if he ever did. All that this administration deserves is to be impeached!

The U.S. Attorney in Nevada was quoted in the local papers as saying that the idea he was fired because of the FBI investigation of our Governor, Jim Gibbons, was "absurd."

Gee imagine that - the covering up liar doesn't want an investigation. Big shocker.

Well, with all the President's ummms and uhhhs, and his inability to answer the questions being asked, it is as apparent that he, like his Attorney General, is lying. He wants the Dems NOT to be partisan about a procedure that was wholly partisan on the administration's part to begin with. "Do as I say, not as I do." Hmmm. Can anyone believe what he says? I can't! And if everyone in his administrration is soooo without guilt, where is the harm in testifying "in" oath, as he says. (Remind me, how did we get this guy as President? Oh that's right, The Supreme Court.)

It sounds like typical Bush. "Do it my way, you are just trying to cause trouble" He put forth what he calls a proposal and then demands it be followed. I am counting the days until the U.S. can rid itself of this dictaiting bafoon.

Zero vote of confidence in George Bush and his theory of executive privilege. Bush doesn't seem to want to understand the distinction between the power to nominate and the power to confirm, but I'll bet Rove does.

Multiple frauds on the congress and the american people have been committed, from the justification for war, to a staffer's last minute (and unauthorized) sneaking an appointment power for US Attorneys into the patriot act bill. The former scandal kills americans, and the latter threatens rule of law and democracy itself.


Enough. Rove almost certainly engineered the patriot act fraud purporting to give giving the president the power to appoint US Attorneys(without confirmation). The testimony must include Rove and be under oath.

P. Fogg

I believe absolutely everything King George says and promises. Why shouldn't I? Sincerely, Pinocchio

Why do Americans hate each other so, it must surely be they hate us in the rest of the world more. Are you a nation in eternal self divorce and self destruction. You are surely succeeding. Perhaps Bush should have a hounds eyes installed and Gomer's "by gollies" voice overprinted and should just forget his job and let hysteria rule the day - sometimes he sounds like the only person trying to get it right down there - all the rest seem like divorcing rivals or trial attorneys.

mf, you're delusional. Bush and his cronies constitute the worst government we've ever had, in the entire history of the nation. I'm so glad to see that Congress is able to hold him at least the slightest bit accountable for these transgressions. The man is a rotten president, and his henchmen are pure evil.

worst administration and president this country has ever had >Ihope christian people will not be fooled again next election!!!!!!!!I believe mf is full of bs and msnbc is the greatest especially keith O

"you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
APPPROVED???? WTF????


geeezus. Phuleeeeeeeeeeeeze spare me. Now I've seen everything.....if this gets through the media censorship crap, I might begin to believe in the net again..maybe. What a load of hogwash. And you call your selves a "news" site...hahahahahahahahah!

The media still is doing the thinking for you folks, aren't they? Get a brain of your own and stop listening to what they tell you to believe and you might come out a bit more informed. Read around the internet and form your own opinion.

I agree with you "mf", there are way more important things to be tending to. I really wish they would stop wasting our tax dollars on such stupid crap. I want my money back so they cannot waste it any more....Please!

Once again, did the Clinton and Bush I administration not fire every single fed prosecutor when they took office?!?! How is that not more political than now?? This is so ridiculous to even be discussing such a stupid pointless cycle of job turnover.
How are you mad at Bush for firing several prosecutors, and then not mention a word about Clinton firing every single one of them?? This is just a glaring example of liberal hypocrisy.

See a satirical visual that lampoons the Bush administration's version of "Justice Is Served"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

steuben .... how is what Dubya done more political than Clinton? Take notes kid! Here's why Tell me when Clinton took the UNPRECEDENTED step of: 1) removing INDIVIDUAL attorneys; 2) in mid-term; 3) for “performance issues” - after they received favorable reviews; and 4) just so he could use a buried provision in the renewed Patriot Act (that republicans promised they'd never use) to slip cronies and toadies into the vacant positions without Senate confirmation. Get that? Now tell your friends to stop repeating that bogus argument over and over again!

This administration is playing politics - again - by firing the attorneys and now fighting the subpoenas. But when have Bush and the GOP NOT played politics? They're MASTERS at it! Remember, we’re talking about an administration (and peripheral republicans) that are MASTERS at playing politics. And most of the time, let’s face it – it’s worked! Some examples of Dubya and the GOP “playing politics” over the years they had power include: 1) accusing anyone who didn’t agree with them of being anti-American and a traitor; 2) changing or removing laws that stopped them from doing things they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place (like increasing deficits and the national debt); 3) redrawing congressional districts to help you get seats in congress (orchestrated by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in 2003); 4) pushing wedge issues (like gay marriage amendments, flag burning, etc) in blatantly transparent attempts to appeal to their evangelical voting base; 5) tying separate issues to others (a permanent cut in the estate tax to an increase in the minimum wage) to prevent the Democrats from passing their legislation rather than simply allow a vote on a SINGLE issue; 6) burying pork (earmarks) in spending bills (“bridge to nowhere”); 7) changing definitions to make themselves look better (like “manufacturing” and “murder” in Iraq); 8) choosing polarizing candidates instead of collaborative ones and then forcing them on the other party via recess appointments to bypass the confirmation process (John Bolton); 9) having senior administration officials mislead the public by changing scientific reports to inject doubt into the science of global warming in an effort to minimize the potential danger of it; 10) making last minute changes to a bill (via Arlan Specter) in the Patriot Act that made it possible for the Bush Administration to appoint U.S. attorneys WITHOUT senate approval; 11) introducing bills 24 hours before passage with little opportunity for review; discussion or amendment; 12) blocking Democrats from participating in conference committee activities where final versions of bills are hammered out and provisions are snuck in (Specter’s provision into the Patriot Act); 13) hiding at LEAST one damaging National Intelligence Estimate from congress (by refusing to declassify it) and then only selectively doing so after the press got ahold of it; 14) firing a bunch of federal prosecutors (who have exposed and prosecuted Republican corruption) to cover their asses so these prosecutors won’t get subpoenaed by a Democratic controlled congress to testify regarding any incriminating evidence they have on Dubya’s administration; 15) voting along party lines to block investigations; and 16) delaying the result of the investigations until AFTER elections (Foley investigation, Iraq Study Group).

Even the “key documents” Dubya handed over are bogus as Leahy noted: "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day.” And furthermore, there is a convenient time-gap in e-mails and other memos dating from mid-November to early December - a critical period as the White House and Justice Department 1) evaluated, then approved of attorneys it wanted to keep and 2) decided which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also planning a strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

And Rove has got the NERVE to accuse the Democrats of playing politics? He's right up there with Tony Snow, who ripped Clinton in his "Executive Privilege is a Dodge" article on March 29, 1998 but now supports Dubya's using it to stop so his minions don't have to testify under oath, in public, or without transcripts or recording of their testimony.

Keep pulling stuff like this republicans! PLEASE!!! I hope the GOP filibusters like crazy ... and Dubya fights the subpoenas and vetoes his hand off! The more you guys fight the will of the people as they have spoken on Nov 7th, the better our chances of taking the White House in '08. Dubya is like the gift that KEEPS on giving - hopefully he’ll hand us the White House like he handed us BOTH houses of Congress.

Thanks in advance!

Rick, take a deep breath. Get off your high horse. Do you forget the democrats are a 'political' party. What makes you think they don't play politics?? Or is stuffing national security documents down your pants, and then stealing and burning them not politics?? Is passing a minimum wage bill for the entire country, except for a select manufacturing firm in your home district not playing politics?? Is accepting bribes and then literally freezing the money in your basement freezer not playing politics??

I could keep blabbing incessantly too Rick, you see; the democratic party is not the saviour you think they are. You are the perfect example of 1.) hypocrisy, and 2.) Irony. People like you run around blabbering about how republicans blindly follow GW and won't ask the questions and yadayada; yet for some reason you are doing exactly what you accuse republicans of doing!!
And of course I know, Barack is the second coming, he is great, he is wonderful, he can do no wrong etc... I've heard it before please don't get on your soapbox about him too.

Nice tactic … over-generalize and accuse the other person of meaning or saying things they never meant or said. BRAVO!

Accepting a bribe or stealing copies of documents is not “playing politics” – that’s called breaking the law. “Playing politics” is doing perfectly LEGAL things even though they may be MORALY questionable, and reek of bad gamesmanship and immaturity just because you can LEGALLY get away with them. Next time, if you don’t know what something means ... look it up (somewhere besides a right-wing blog) before you engage me on it.

And when did stating blatantly obvious FACTS become “babbling incessantly”? Too bad there’s so much for me to babble about then eh? You can bash Dems for 1/10 the corruption all you want – it still does NOT defend the Repubs. See, pointing out the moral hypocrisy of a party that RUNS ON A MORAL VALUES PLATFORM (and thus holding them up to their OWN standards) doesn’t make me a hypocrite, or ironic - it makes me a REALIST. But I’ll bet you think that I idolize Clinton too just because I can’t stand Dubya right? Can you point out where in my last post I said “ALL republicans follow GW?” I’ll bet you can’t. Everybody knows only around 28 percent of you still do that! Here’s another free clue: Don’t assume you know what I think, or who I support, or why.

And I never said the Dems were a “savior” or didn’t play politics or weren’t hypocritical. They just don’t do it as often, or as blatantly, as Dubya and the GOP has – and it’s common knowledge apparently, based on the vote of the people on Nov 7th. It’s not just a grossly mismanaged war that got you guys booted out of Congressional control was it? Or the failing war on drugs under Dubya too – where anybody with under 500 lbs of narcotics is SET FREE while border agents get prosecuted for doing their jobs? Or Duba’s failing war on illegal immigration – where , after his “tough talk” he: 1) prosecuted only 318 employers out of five and a half million in this country for hiring illegal aliens since 2001 and decrease the number of ICE agents assigned to enforce current immigration laws in the workplace from only 240 back in 1999 to now less than 100; and 2) decided to work with Ted Kennedy (of which he said is “one of the best legislative senators there is. He can get the job done”) to allow selective amnesty AFTER he said during the third 2004 presidential debate “Now, it's very important for our citizens to also know that I don't believe we ought to have amnesty.” Nope – it was moral hypocrisy that helped seal the deal on turning over Congress to the Dems.

And as far as the few democrats you mentioned (Berger and Jefferson), I can name many TIMES more corrupt and hypocritical Repubs that have been busted over the past several years. If you don’t believe me, we can compare names – but you better have a very LONG list! Oh .. and that Democrat-sponsored minimum wage bill would have helped millions and millions more than probably any GOP bill has helped in recent memory (not counting the rich who DON’T NEED the help of course).

The Dems may not have the guts to go what they should – impeach Bush, Cheney, etc – I’ll give you THAT much, but at this point and time, they’re the lesser of two evils. So far you’ve: 1) accused Dems of playing politics in two examples where it wasn’t playing politics at all; 2) accused me of thinking the Dems never played politics; 3) calling them a savior; 4) being a hypocrite for stating absolute facts; 5) doing what republicans do (which would be everything YOU just did); 6) blabbering that “ALL republicans follow GW”; 7) supporting Obama; 8) thinking he is the second coming; and 9) feeling he “could do no wrong”.

You’re 0 for 9 steuben! … now face facts and stop spinning - before everything starts coming out of your mouth dopplered!

Rick, do you read your posts before you post them? You sound like a bumbling lunatic. There is no point to even discussing anything with you because you will continue to hear what you want to hear. Your going off on these crazy tangents and trying to tie in obscure facts and deny factual evidence; (your response to Berger and Jefferson paraphrased-...well, well, there are worse republicans, I could name them....so ha...in your face...- Give me a break, you sound like a 2 year old.) Having a discussion with someone like you is completely illogical, even though you think you are a realist, you are a realist in lala land.

And yes, I know, you will say "see, you have no response to all the terrible death and destruction the repubs have done with GW and his ilk, the democrats don't play politics like you think, and I've proved it. You have no response, I'm the king of the universe." and you will pat yourself on the back. It's becuase of people like you, most people HATE political parties and the whole political process.
So, as you would say, BRAVO to yourself.

Rick-
You just said about the points on Sandy Berger and William Jefferson, that "Accepting a bribe or stealing copies of documents is not “playing politics” – that’s called breaking the law. “Playing politics” is doing perfectly LEGAL things even though they may be MORALY questionable"
But, your make your points on things you call illegal by Tom Delay and others and call it playing politics! You can't hold democrats to one standard and republicans to another. Why are illegal things republicans do called 'playing politics' by you, and illegal things by democrats glossed over as illegal and therefore not a valid point?

Steuben ... so I’m a two-year-old for pointing out that Repubs have been worse than Dems? And having the PROOF to back it up? But hey .. who am I to conflict with the reality you’ve created? You’re right .. you 28-percenters are right .. and the (vast) majority of us are wrong. Except when the majority votes in YOUR favor and initially elects Bush, etc. of course. I’d be pretty upset if my party of moral/Christian values lost its moral high ground and a majority in congress too. But don’t worry … everything is cyclical in nature and the Dems will fall prey to the same temptations that the Repubs did. It’s happened to them before (when they lost congressional control under Clinton), and it will happen again. It’s only a matter of time.

Danimal … “Why are illegal things republicans do called 'playing politics' by you, and illegal things by democrats glossed over as illegal and therefore not a valid point?” WHAT? I never said what Delay or any other republican did was illegal. In fact, not a single one of the 16 things I mentioned the Repubs having done were ILLEGAL! And there was absolutely no holding democrats to one standard and republicans to another. If you want to argue about what I said- that’s fine. But argue with me about what you INFER I said? Don’t waste my time. You need to re-read my posts again, and then preferably take a course in debate. I’m starting to think you and Steuben are the same person, just using two different names here.

My point was … there’s a difference between doing something LEGALLY wrong that YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR (having an affair and LYING UNDER OATH about it, shooting someone, etc) and doing something that isn’t a prosecutable offense but that looks bad from a strictly moral standpoint in the eyes of public opinion (just having an affair, or having an affair an NOT lying about it under oath, or blocking investigations by voting along party lines). Legal doesn’t = moral, and immoral doesn’t necessarily = illegal. Can Bush fight the subpoenas via “executive privilege” from a legal standpoint? Absolutely! But SHOULD he be doing so? – simply because he CAN and probably get away with it too? Probably not, since it looks suspicious as hell and reeks of him having something to hide. I can’t explain it any better than that. At this point either you GET it or you don’t.

Story proposal :

Conspiracy and Murder ,,,,,, The Wrong Man

Schaumburg Illinois is a very trendy,fashionable suburb 26 mi. NW of chicago. [Cook County] The Schaumb. Police Dept. is dirty and has been 20 yrs. The Schaumb. Police and mnay high level people [all the way to Mayor Daley] are involved in an incredible ongoing criminal coverup and conspiracy ,,,,, dirty tricks in a SPECIAL police lineup " TRICK BAG " false arrest and imprisonment[me]lying to a grand jury,malicious prosecution[me]Armed kidnapping,Deviate sexual assault,Rape and Murder of young suburban girl,perhaps from the 1960,s.
[See Dupage County Cold Case Unit]

Accessory to the unsolved 1985 brutal Rape and Homicide of a pretty and popular 15 yr. old Glen Ellyn Illinois girl,before the fact.

I,ve tried to sue,lure and drag the Schaumburg Police back into court more than 20 yrs.
" Sue the Bastards Blind "

This Gutt-Wrenching ongoing true story is high drama,real life " The ShawShank Redemption " and may span 40 yrs.

[904 466-2590 Sincerly, Willis Earl Wilson former U S M C

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on March 20, 2007 5:35 PM.

Sweet blog special: Behind the Clinton/Obama YouTube ad: The mysterious "ParkRidge47." Who are you? was the previous entry in this blog.

Sweet blog scoop: Clinton taps Chicago's Bob Nash as deputy campaign manager. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.