Prosecutors getting fired and replaced with Bush Brown-nosers - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Astrocloud · 03-04-2007, 06:25 PM

The title says it all. Federal level prosecutors are being fired for no reason given. These men and women have years of experience. The administration will pick the new prosecutors.

It's a "mystery" why they are firing these prosecutors but my guess is that they are preemptively eliminating any future "independant prosecutor" that might objectively look at the Cheney-Bush whitehouse. Others might speculate that the Administration is still trying to find jobs for friends who are somewhat unqualified to work for FEMA. This national news article offers speculation from the prosecutors themselves.

Quote:

...
After several more calls, Bogden reached a senior official who offered an answer. "There is a window of opportunity to put candidates into an office like mine," Bogden said, recalling the conversation. "They were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in."

The ouster of Bogden and seven other U.S. attorneys, including John McKay in Seattle, has set off a furor that took the Bush administration by surprise. Summoning five of the dismissed prosecutors, including McKay, for hearings Tuesday, congressional Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.

The motivations for the dismissals appear more complicated, according to interviews with several of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials, lawmakers and others. As Bogden, some think they were forced out for replacements who could gild résumés; several prosecutors heard favored candidates had been identified.

...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...torneys04.html

So why do YOU think they are firing these prosecutors?

politicophile · 03-04-2007, 06:34 PM

two characters

host · 03-04-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Something is obviously missing from that article. Whether it's corruption in the Bush Administration is anyone's guess. There is so little information in the article that I think any conclusions about the reasons for the firings are premature. Can anyone dig up more info about this?

Sigh.... this "new" scandal is covered extenxively here:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/

....and I started posting about it here: 49 days ago.....
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...am#post2182097

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Help me out here, are they trying to persuade al-Qaeda not to "hate us

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php
Update: Specter Admits Role in Expanding WH Powers
By Paul Kiel - January 17, 2007, 3:33 PM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) confirmed that as Judiciary Committee chairman last year he made a last-minute change to a bill that expanded the administration's power to install U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.

Seizing upon the new authority granted by Congress last March, the White House has pushed out several U.S. Attorneys, and begun to replace them without the Senate's consent.

"I can confirm for you that yes, it was a Specter provision," a spokesperson for the senator wrote to me in an email earlier today, responding to repeated inquiries. <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php">Earlier</a> we reported that Specter had been fingered for the last-minute change, made in a select Republicans-only meeting after the House and Senate had voted on earlier versions.

Still, a mystery remains: Why Specter wanted the change, which arguably weakened the Senate's role in selecting federal prosecutors.

The senator made no public comment on the provision at the time of the bill's passage. A congressional report which accompanied the final version of the bill said that Specter's change "addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys." It's not clear, however, what exactly that inconsistency was.

In her email to me, Specter's aide did not respond to my request for an explanation of why Specter wanted the change.

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...9-1m13lam.html
Lam stays silent about losing job

Law enforcement defends her record
By Kelly Thornton
and Onell R. Soto
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS

January 13, 2007

Amid news reports that she has been asked to step down, U.S. Attorney Carol Lam declined repeated interview requests yesterday and did not address the matter with her staff.

At a weekly managers meeting, Lam was stoic, conducting business as usual and discussing next week's caseload, according to people who attended. She made no mention of a resignation request by the Bush administration, nor did anyone ask about it.

However, she did discuss the matter with at least one law enforcement colleague. Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI office in San Diego, said he spoke to Lam several times yesterday and he feels the criticism and the way the situation was handled are unfair.

“I don't think it's the right way to treat anybody. What's the decision based on?” Dzwilewski said. “I don't share the view of whoever's making the decision back there in Washington that they'd like her to resign. I feel Carol has an excellent reputation and has done an excellent job given her limited resources.”

Dzwilewski said he sympathized with Lam on issues of stretching budgets to meet priorities and felt that criticism that she wasn't giving proper attention to smuggling, drugs and gun crimes was off-base. “What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist?” he said.

Lam's continued employment as U.S. attorney is crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations, the FBI chief said.

As for the reason for any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”

Dzwilewski declined to discuss Lam's demeanor during their conversations, her state of mind, when or if she will resign or her future plans.

“It will be a huge loss from my perspective,” Dzwilewski said. “What she's going to do, my guess is she's still trying to figure that out herself.”

Other members of the law enforcement community also defended Lam.

“She's been by far the most outstanding U.S. attorney we've ever had,” City Attorney Michael Aguirre said. “By far, she's done more to clean up the corruption in this city than anyone else, and she has won a national reputation as one of the top prosecutors in the country.

Sources have told The San Diego Union-Tribune that Lam was asked to step down because she failed to make smuggling and gun cases a priority, choosing instead to focus on fewer cases that she considered more significant, such as public corruption and white-collar crime.

Some lawyers theorized yesterday that it wasn't just misplaced priorities that led to her impending ouster. The Randy “Duke” Cunningham case has spawned other corruption probes of Republicans in Washington, leading to conjecture that politics played a part in the decision to force her out.

However, Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney in San Antonio, Texas, said everybody in the position knows it's not a permanent job.

“We go when the president goes and sometimes before,” he said....

Quote:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1169028144620
U.S. Attorney Ryan's Departure May Be Part of Bush Administration Purge

Justin Scheck
The Recorder
January 18, 2007

...."It has come to our attention that the Bush Administration is pushing out U.S. Attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements without Senate confirmation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in a press statement last week.

She reiterated that sentiment on the Senate floor Tuesday, adding that somewhere between five and 10 U.S. Attorneys are being forced out.

San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam also resigned this week, and on Tuesday, a spokesman for Republican Rep. Darrell Issa told a San Diego paper that Lam had been asked to step down. .....

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives...ke_cunningham/
Questions, Concerns Swirl around Politics of Prosecutor's Forced Exit
By Justin Rood - January 13, 2007, 8:38 AM

The head of the FBI's San Diego office and several former federal prosecutors are publicly questioning the politics behind the Bush administration's effort to force Carole Lam to resign as U.S. Attorney for San Diego.

Lam focused her office's efforts on public corruption, including the sprawling Duke Cunningham scandal. That investigation has touched several Republican lawmakers, leading some to speculate that Lam brought political heat down on herself with that probe, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The top FBI official for San Diego said that Lam's dismissal would jeopardize several ongoing investigations. "I guarantee politics is involved," special agent in charge Dan Dzwilewski told the paper. He did not speculate further.

“It will be a huge loss from my perspective,” Dzwilewski said.

Peter Nunez, who held Lam's post from 1982 to 1988, told the North County (Calif.) Times he was "in a state of shock" from hearing the news of Lam's forced ouster. "It's just like nothing I've ever seen before in 35-plus years. To be asked to resign and to be publicly humiliated by leaking this to the press is beyond any bounds of decency and behavior. It shocks me. It really is outrageous.".....

Cunningham Prosecutor Forced Out
By Justin Rood - January 12, 2007, 11:29 AM

The epic Duke Cunningham scandal gets weirder: Carole Lam, the San Diego U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the corrupt former lawmaker, is being quietly pushed out by the Bush administration. Lam's office has recently been troubling the CIA and Capitol Hill by pushing for documents related to the Cunningham investigation.

According to this morning's San Deigo Union-Tribune, the White House's reason for giving her the axe is that she "failed to make smuggling and gun cases a top priority." But most folks the paper talked to -- supporters and detractors -- said that sounded like a load of hooey.

A belated attempt at a cover-up? That doesn't quite fit. It's not like the Cunningham investigation has earned a place in the Great Scandal Prosecutions Hall of Fame. There have been signs of trouble all along. There was the strange decision to throw him in jail before ensuring he told everything he knew, as well as evidence of poor coordination between the numerous federal agencies involved in investigating the fiasco. If the administration for some reason didn't want the truth to come out about what the Cunningham scandal touched -- well, many folks thought all they had to do was sit back and let the probes tangle themselves in knots......

WSJ: CIA Blocking Cunningham Investigation
By Justin Rood - January 9, 2007, 10:01 AM

The CIA is refusing to cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating the Duke Cunningham scandal, the Wall Street Journal's Scott Paltrow reports today......

Quote:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/pri...c-7aaa4efa6a3a
Published 12/28/2006

End around

Senators question U.S. attorney appointment.

J. Timothy Griffin was sworn in as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Dec. 20, less than a week after his appointment prompted unusual public expressions of outrage from both of the state’s U.S. senators.

The outrage stems from the way Griffin was appointed. Instead of following the normal process, which would involve a presidential nomination and confirmation by the U.S. Senate, the Bush administration utilized a provision in the 2005 reauthorization of the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint an “interim U.S. attorney” without Senate confirmation. Therefore, Griffin, 38, will serve as interim U.S. attorney until he is formally nominated or replaced by the president.

Interim appointments are usually made to fill vacancies, but Griffin was named to the U.S. attorney post on Dec. 15, while it was still occupied by Bud Cummins.

Cummins resigned on Dec. 20.

“Quite frankly, within the legal community in Central Arkansas and even Eastern Arkansas, they felt Bud was being pushed out so Tim could be rewarded with this position he wanted,” said Michael Teague, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor.

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said, “Clearly, the president and his administration are aware of the difficulty it would take to get Tim Griffin confirmed through the normal process, and therefore chose to circumvent it in order to name him as interim U.S. attorney. This decision denied the Senate the opportunity to carefully consider and evaluate Mr. Griffin’s qualifications and denied the American people the transparency the standard nomination process provides.”

“The White House worked very hard to get him this job and keep him from going under oath and answer questions about his political life,” Teague added. “We’re not saying there should not be a process to name an interim position, but it should be done in good faith that a permanent replacement will be named at some point. The White House has indicated to the senator that Tim Griffin is their person, so the question is, if he is their person, why not nominate him? It’s an effort to keep him from going under oath.”

Asked to respond to 10 written questions regarding his appointment, Griffin provided the following statement: “As a fifth-generation Arkansan and the spouse of an Arkansas native, I love Arkansas and its people. I am honored to have the opportunity to serve the people of Arkansas as U.S. attorney. The strength of this office lies with the many career professionals who work here. My top priority is to ensure that all Arkansans are treated equally under the law. I look forward to working with federal, state and local law enforcement to make Arkansas a safer place to live.”

Griffin had worked for Cummins as a special assistant since September, after a year of active duty in the U.S. Army — first as a prosecutor at Fort Campbell, Ky., and then as a Judge Advocate General with the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, Iraq.

Before that, Griffin was deputy director of the White House Political Affairs Office (where he served under Political Affairs Director Karl Rove), and Lincoln and Pryor both suggest that Griffin’s appointment as U.S. attorney is a reward for his service in the Bush administration.

“I do not know Tim Griffin personally,” Lincoln said. “However, I have concerns about his partisan activities over a four-year period under Karl Rove in the White House, which causes me to question his ability to perform the duties of U.S. attorney in a fair and impartial manner.”

“We all know what’s going on here,” Teague said. “He’s being rewarded with this post for his political work.”

That political work includes serving from 1995-96 as an associate independent counsel investigating Henry Cisneros, who was President Bill Clinton’s secretary of housing and urban development; senior investigative counsel to the Republican-controlled House Government Reform Committee’s 1997-99 inquiry into foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee; deputy research director for the Republican National Committee from 1999-2000; legal adviser to the Bush/Cheney recount team in Florida following the 2000 election; special assistant to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff from 2001-02; and research director and deputy communications director for the Republican National Committee from 2002-05, after which he joined the White House political affairs office.

The British Broadcasting Corporation unearthed e-mail messages Griffin sent from the RNC in 2004 containing spreadsheet information on thousands of Florida voters. The spreadsheets were titled “caging,” which, according to the BBC, alludes to a voter suppression tactic.

Teague says that episode, and Griffin’s other political work, explains why Griffin won’t submit to the traditional confirmation process.

“Bud had to go through the process,” Teague said. “What makes this guy so special? What are they trying to hide? Why not go under oath and allow the people of Eastern Arkansas to ask questions about his qualifications for the job? His primary professional occupation has been political research and political campaigns.”

Griffin’s legal experience includes a year as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Little Rock while he worked for Chertoff, but Teague says there were more qualified candidates, and that Griffin will be hindered by the controversy surrounding his appointment.

“No one in the Arkansas legal community knows Tim Griffin,” Teague said. “The people of Eastern Arkansas deserve an all-star attorney and there are a bunch of them in this state. … The decisions he makes there will always be suspect. He won’t have the full weight the office would have if he had gone through the nomination process.”

Teague says that Pryor will continue to pressure the Bush administration to formally nominate Griffin or someone else.

“The idea that they will go two years and say they can’t find somebody — it’s an insult to Arkansas,” Teague said. “If he goes through the process and wins, then he’s bona fide. The question for Tim and the White House is: Why not do that? Why not be bona fide?”

Griffin is a native of Magnolia. He graduated from Hendrix College and Tulane Law School, and attended graduate school at Oxford University in England. He is married to the former Elizabeth Crain

Quote:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/...au/339192.html
Former Bush aide named to U.S. attorney post
Saturday, Dec 16, 2006

By Aaron Sadler
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - A former Republican political operative and top aide to President Bush was named late Friday as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The appointment of Tim Griffin drew criticism from Arkansas senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both Democrats. Pryor accused the Bush administration of circumventing the traditional nomination process on behalf of a political ally.

The open-ended appointment differs from a normal presidential selection, where Griffin would face Senate hearings and a confirmation vote.

Pryor believes the Senate should be able to quiz Griffin about his qualifications, especially given his background as Bush's deputy director of political affairs under Karl Rove, spokesman Michael Teague said.

Before that, Griffin worked in opposition research for the Republican National Committee.

"We hope it's not the White House's intention to go around the Constitution, go around the nomination process and reward a fellow who's done some political work for them," Teague said.

Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers, defended the appointment. He said Griffin might face unfair treatment from Senate Democrats because of his political ties.

"There might be a tendency because he did work for the president in that capacity politically to hold that against him and not look at the fact he's very well-qualified," said Boozman, the only Republican in the state's congressional delegation.

"In going before the Senate, there are all kinds of politics," Boozman said.

Griffin, 38, will take over for Bud Cummins, who resigns Wednesday. The Eastern District includes Little Rock and 41 counties in the eastern and north central part of Arkansas.

Griffin on Friday declined to comment on his appointment.

The Magnolia native just completed a year of active duty in the U.S. Army Reserve, including a stint in Iraq. He is a major in the Judge Advocate General's corps.

A graduate of Hendrix College and Tulane University law school, he worked as a special assistant U.S. attorney in the eastern district in 2001-02.

The interim selection leaves open the possibility for Bush to officially appoint Griffin or someone else to the post sometime in the future.

Conceivably, Griffin could serve as interim U.S. attorney indefinitely.

Teague said Pryor hopes the president makes a permanent selection - subject to Senate confirmation - after Congress reconvenes in January.

If Bush acts on a nomination before Congress returns, the appointee would serve as a "recess appointment" and Senate confirmation would not be required until the next congressional session in two years.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers gave Pryor no time frame for when Bush might select a permanent replacement, Teague said.

Teague said Pryor was not available to comment because he was at the hospital visiting Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who underwent brain surgery this week.

Pryor supports full Senate hearings for the next U.S. attorney and did not rule out support for Griffin.

"He very well may be the person," qualified to serve, Teague said, but "he should have to go through the normal nomination process."

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said in a statement that she was impressed by Cummins' work and his service.

Lincoln said she also would expect Bush to replace Cummins through the normal Senate confirmation process.

Teague said the timing of the announcement late Friday afternoon gave the appearance that the administration was attempting to keep the appointment quiet.

"His actions are always going to be suspect if you're not going to do this in the right way and in an open manner," Teague said. "It's hard to say if you're going to support or not support someone if you don't go through the process of who they are."

A report by the BBC in 2004 connected Griffin to a possible effort to disenfranchise black voters in Florida. The report said an e-mailed list of 1,886 names was to be used to challenge residents' voting status.

In a November 2000 Time magazine report, Griffin was depicted as a zealous researcher who sought to discredit Democratic candidate Al Gore at any opportunity.

The magazine said a poster hanging behind Griffin's desk said: "On my command - unleash hell on Al."....

Quote:

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...=.jsp&c_id=mlb
01/18/2007 1:38 AM ET
Federal prosecutor in probe resigns
Associated Press

...U.S. attorney spokesman Luke Macaulay said Tuesday that Ryan reached a "mutually agreeable decision with Washington" to step down.

Ryan is one of 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint replacements without Senate confirmation.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, complained on the Senate floor Tuesday that the White House is using the provision to oust Ryan and other federal prosecutors and replace them with Republican allies.

"The Bush administration is pushing out U.S. attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements," Feinstein said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denied the claim, saying administration officials "in no way politicize these decisions."

Macaulay declined to say whether President Bush had asked Ryan to resign....

...since that time, #2 at DOJ, Paul McNulty...destroyed his own credibility with senators as he attempted to justify the firings on job performance rationales:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702200006

I challenge anyone to find anything inaccurate reported about this mess from the links and the material I've posted....
If you do feel the need to escape to more pleasing reporting....try the account of White House "Gunga Din", John Soloman from two days ago. I call him that because when I read his "reporting", I can't ell if he is employed by the Wapo or the RNC:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201949_pf.html
White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say

By John Solomon and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 3, 2007; A01

The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.

The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.

One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.

Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.

Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.

"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse......

Soloman leaves out the part about Sen. Specter's excuse for the insertion in the final version of Patriot Act II, of an unnoticed change to the law that enabled the white house to appoint interim replacements for US Attorney slots who can now serve indefinitely without senate confirmation.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/wa...pagewanted=all
A New Mystery to Prosecutors: Their Lost Jobs

By DAVID JOHNSTON, ERIC LIPTON and WILLIAM YARDLEY
Published: March 4, 2007

This article is by David Johnston, Eric Lipton and William Yardley.

.....The Justice Department still appears to have an uphill battle in convincing lawmakers that its actions were justified. Several Congressional officials who have been briefed on the decision making said they were not persuaded that the firings were a well intended if botched effort to oust a few problem prosecutors among the country’s 93 United States attorneys.

Some said they suspected that the administration hoped to install its favorites in the jobs, as they did when J. Timothy Griffin, a prosecutor who had worked for Karl Rove, the White House political adviser, was chosen as the temporary replacement for H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas. Mr. Cummins was told last summer to step down after Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, met with Mr. Gonzales’s staff on Mr. Griffin’s behalf.

Even Republicans who are generally supportive of the administration expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s explanations. .......

pan6467 · 03-04-2007, 09:21 PM

Just a quick paranoid question.... ummmmm who would prosecute the officials in charge, if Bush decides to call Martial law and dismiss Congress or not have the '08 vote?

If you had federal prosecuters that were honest, they may actually find ways to enforce and prosecute the laws.

Plus, who's going to prosecute say Halliburton for war profiteering? Just one example.

Things like this are very scary and the sad thing of it is, people still support this man. What does he have to do, to get even his staunchest supporters to say enough? Or are they so wrapped up in the BS and trying to save face they can't admit anything wrong because it will tear down their house of cards and lies?

shakran · 03-04-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Just a quick paranoid question.... ummmmm who would prosecute the officials in charge, if Bush decides to call Martial law and dismiss Congress or not have the '08 vote?

With 71% of the country disliking him, if he tries to stay in office after '08 that's a quick ticket to revolution.

Quote:

Plus, who's going to prosecute say Halliburton for war profiteering? Just one example.

Whether the real prosecutors are replaced or not, Halliburton probably was not going to get prosecuted.

Quote:

Things like this are very scary and the sad thing of it is, people still support this man. What does he have to do, to get even his staunchest supporters to say enough?

Look, only 29% of Americans approve of him right now. That's actually a pretty encouraging number believe it or not. Even Hitler had SOME people who approved of him up to the very end, and while Bush is a moron and an anti-American who's attempting to shred the constitution, he's not as bad as Hitler. Fact is, no matter how bad a person is, SOMEONE will always like them. Hell Ted Bundy had women sending him marriage proposals while he was on death row for murdering 40 other women. We can't throw up our hands in despair because a few people still support this idiot - that's just to be expected.

host · 03-04-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Just a quick paranoid question.... ummmmm who would prosecute the officials in charge, if Bush decides to call Martial law and dismiss Congress or not have the '08 vote?

If you had federal prosecuters that were honest, they may actually find ways to enforce and prosecute the laws.

Plus, who's going to prosecute say Halliburton for war profiteering? Just one example.

Things like this are very scary and the sad thing of it is, people still support this man. What does he have to do, to get even his staunchest supporters to say enough? Or are they so wrapped up in the BS and trying to save face they can't admit anything wrong because it will tear down their house of cards and lies?

pan, I'm asking myself the same question....I don't like the tone of any of this. They keep pushing to see how far from the constitutional checks and balances they can position their regime. At every turn, with the exception of the 2005 mid-term election results, there has been no "push back" against their actions, secrecy and arrogance. The following is in chronological order. When you read Novak's latest, at the bottom of this post, after skimming through the rest, tell me if you don't agree that Gonzales should be impeached immediately, just to warm up the process before holding hearings on impeachment of Bush and Cheney.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301349_pf.html
U.S. Attorney Firings Set Stage for Congressional Battle

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 4, 2007; A07

.....But there is also evidence that broader political forces are at work. One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of "pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places."......

The reporter in the above article, wrote that paragraph before he teamed up with John Solomon to write the "white house mouthpiece" followup, included in my last post.....

Quote:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimon...16&wit_id=2742
Testimony
of
Paul J. McNulty
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
“Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?”
February 6, 2007

Chairman Leahy, Senator Specter, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss the importance of the Justice Department’s United States Attorneys. As a former United States Attorney, I particularly appreciate this opportunity to address the critical role U.S. Attorneys play in enforcing our Nation’s laws and carrying out the priorities of the Department of Justice.....

....As you know, before last year’s amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 546, the Attorney General could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the first 120 days after a vacancy arose; thereafter, the district court was authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. In cases where a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney could not be appointed within 120 days, the limitation on the Attorney General’s appointment authority resulted in recurring problems. Some district courts recognized the conflicts inherent in the appointment of an interim U.S. Attorney who would then have matters before the court—not to mention the oddity of one branch of government appointing officers of another—and simply refused to exercise the appointment authority. In those cases, the Attorney General was consequently required to make multiple successive 120-day interim appointments. Other district courts ignored the inherent conflicts and sought to appoint as interim U.S. Attorneys wholly unacceptable candidates who lacked the required clearances or appropriate qualifications.

In most cases, of course, the district court simply appointed the Attorney General’s choice as interim U.S. Attorney, revealing the fact that most judges recognized the importance of appointing an interim U.S. Attorney who enjoys the confidence of the Attorney General. In other words, the most important factor in the selection of past court-appointed interim U.S. Attorneys was the Attorney General’s recommendation. By foreclosing the possibility of judicial appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys unacceptable to the Administration, last year’s amendment to Section 546 appropriately eliminated a procedure that created unnecessary problems without any apparent benefit.

S. 214 would not merely reverse the 2006 amendment; it would exacerbate the problems experienced under the prior version of the statute by making judicial appointment the only means of temporarily filling a vacancy—a step inconsistent with sound separation-of-powers principles. We are aware of no other agency where federal judges—members of a separate branch of government—appoint the interim staff of an agency. Such a judicial appointee would have authority for litigating the entire federal criminal and civil docket before the very district court to whom he or she was beholden for the appointment. This arrangement, at a minimum, gives rise to an appearance of potential conflict that undermines the performance or perceived performance of both the Executive and Judicial Branches. A judge may be inclined to select a U.S. Attorney who shares the judge’s ideological or prosecutorial philosophy. Or a judge may select a prosecutor apt to settle cases and enter plea bargains, so as to preserve judicial resources. See Wiener, Inter-Branch Appointments After the Independent Counsel: Court Appointment of United States Attorneys, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001) (concluding that court appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys is unconstitutional)......

Quote:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_s...23&wit_id=2629
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On S. 214, Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007
February 8, 2007

We have learned over the last few months of an apparent abuse of power by this Administration that threatens to undermine the effectiveness and professionalism of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. I support Senator Feinstein’s efforts to combat these abuses. I thank Senator Schumer for chairing our hearing into this matter this week, and Senator Specter for his active involvement. I urge the Committee to approve the Specter, Feinstein, Leahy substitute to S. 214, the “Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007,” which would roll back changes to the law that invited the abuses.

During the Patriot Act Reauthorization last year, curbs on the authority of the Attorney General to appoint interim United States Attorneys to fill a vacancy temporarily were removed. The change to the law removed the 120-day limit for such appointments and removed the district court’s role in making any subsequent interim appoints. This change in law, accomplished over my objection, allowed the Attorney General for the first time to make so-called interim appointments that could last indefinitely.

Regrettably, we do not have to imagine the effects of this unfettered authority. We learned recently that the Department of Justice has asked several outstanding U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions. Some are engaged in difficult and complex public corruption cases. We also understand the Attorney General has or is planning to appoint interim replacements, raising a potential of avoiding the Senate confirmation process altogether. This is a clear end-run around our system of checks and balances.

Many Senators have raised concern about this practice and several have asked the Attorney General about the reasons for the interim appointments. The situation in Arkansas highlights the troubling nature of this new authority and its abuse. The Attorney General removed respected U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins and replaced him with the interim appointment of Tim Griffin, a former political operative for Karl Rove. This appointment was not made pursuant to an agreement with the two home state Senators.

In our hearing this week, Paul McNulty, the second in command at the Department of Justice, testified that Mr. Cummins’ dismissal was not related to how well he did his job. In fact, Mr. McNulty said he had no “performance problems,” but was removed merely to give an opportunity to Mr. Griffin, a person whom he admitted was not the “best person possible” for the job and who is reported to have been involved in an effort during the 2004 election to challenge voting by primarily African-American voters serving in the Armed Forces overseas. This was not a vacancy created by necessity or emergency. This was a vacancy created by choice to advance a political crony.

Since this Administration has been creating these vacancies by removing U.S. Attorneys as it chooses for whatever reason – or no good reason – on a timeline it dictates, how can it now claim not to have had time to fill spots with Senate confirmed nominees? Why were agreed upon replacements not lined up before creating these vacancies? Why were home state Senators not consulted in advance? I would note that every one of the U.S. Attorneys who was asked to resign was someone chosen by this Administration, while the Attorney General served as White House Counsel, nominated by this President, approved by the home state Senators and confirmed by the Senate. This is a problem of the Administration’s imagination and choosing, like so many others.

With respect to the law that has governed for the last decades, the authority given to the Attorney General to make a time-limited interim appointment has not proven to be a problem. For example, last Congress, the time from nomination to confirmation of U.S. Attorney nominations took an average of 71 days, with only three taking longer than 120 days and two of those only a few days longer.

The Department opposes the district court’s role in the law that existed prior to the changes enacted in a Patriot Act Reauthorization conference. This was a conference in which Democratic members were excluded. The Department claims the District Court’s role in filling vacancies beyond 120 days to be inconsistent with sound separation of powers principles. That is contrary to the Constitution, our history and our practices. In fact, the practice of judicial officers appointing officers of the court is well established in our history and from the earliest days. Morrison v. Olson should have laid to rest the so-called separation of powers concern now being trumpeted to justify these political maneuvers within the Justice Department. It is not just a red hearing but a bright red herring. Certainly no Republicans now defending this Administration voiced concern when a panel of judges appointed Ken Starr to spend millions in taxpayer dollars on going after President Clinton as a court-appointed prosecutor.

I have heard not a word from the apologists who seek to use the Constitution as a shield for these activities about what the Constitution says. The Constitution provides congressional power to direct the appointment power. In Article II, the part of the Constitution that this Administration reads as if it says that all power resides with the President, the President’s appointment power is limited by the power of Congress. Indeed, between its provisions calling for appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate and for the President’s limited power to make recess appointments, the Constitution provides: “But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Thus, the Constitution contemplates exactly what our statutes and practices have always provided. Congress is well within its authority when it vests in the courts a share of the appointment power for those who appear before them.....

......Before 1986, 28 U.S.C. 546, the law governing the appointment of United States Attorneys, authorized the district court where a vacancy exists to appoint a person to serve until the President appointed a person to fill that vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate. When Congress changed the law in 1986 to allow the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney, it carefully circumscribed that authority by limiting it to 120 days, after which the district court would make any further interim appointment needed. The substitute to S. 214 that we consider today would reinstate these vital limits on the Attorney General’s authority and bring back incentives for the Administration to fill vacancies with Senate-confirmable nominees.

United States Attorneys around the country are the chief federal law enforcement officers in their states, and they have an enormous responsibility for implementing anti-terrorism efforts, bringing important and often difficult cases, and taking the lead to fight public corruption. It is vital that those holding these critical positions be free from any inappropriate influence and subject to the check and balance of the confirmation process. I support Senator Feinstein’s effort to restore that process. I join with her and Senator Specter in their substitute amendment.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/wa...erland&emc=rss
Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows.

The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions.

The reviews, each of them 6 to 12 pages long, were carried out by Justice Department officials from 2003 to 2006. Each report was based on extensive interviews, conducted over several days with judges, other federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in each office.

It had been known that the reports were mostly favorable, but the reports themselves had not been made public.

Over all, the evaluations, which were obtained from officials authorized to have them, appear to raise new questions about the rationale for the dismissals provided by senior Justice Department officials. The officials have repeatedly cited poor job performance to explain their decisions to oust the eight prosecutors, all of them Republicans appointed by President Bush in his first term.

On Saturday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has led a Congressional investigation into the dismissals and has been briefed on the evaluations, said the reports showed that new legislation was needed to keep the Justice Department from politically motivated firings.

“As we feared, the comprehensive evaluations show these U.S. attorneys did not deserve to be fired,” Mr. Schumer said. “To the contrary, they reveal they were effective, respected and set appropriate priorities.”

In response, a senior Justice Department official said the reviews, which focused on management practices within each United States attorney’s office, did not provide a broad or complete picture of the prosecutors’ performance.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”

Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.

However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.

Of the dismissed prosecutors who have spoken publicly, all have said they were given no reason for their dismissal. At first, most appeared willing to leave quietly with the understanding that they were presidential appointees who could be replaced at any time.

But their willingness to step down without complaint changed abruptly when Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month that most of the dismissals were carried out to correct performance problems, according to associates of several prosecutors.

In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a factor.

One of the most glowing evaluations was given to H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, who was asked to leave last summer. Mr. Cummins was replaced temporarily by J. Timothy Griffin, a military and civilian prosecutor who also had close ties to Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser. Mr. Griffin has since withdrawn his name from consideration as Mr. Cummins’s permanent successor.

A report dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, said, “United States Attorney Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal, judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” It said Mr. Cummins’s office had a “well-managed” antiterrorism program and “very successful” counternarcotics efforts.

Another report, dated Feb. 7-11, 2005 evaluating the performance of Carol C. Lam, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in San Diego, concluded that she was “an effective manager and respected leader in the district.”

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16813951.htm
Posted on Thu, Mar. 01, 2007

Sources: GOP lawmakers tried to influence federal investigation
By Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

..... The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.

The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.

David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.

According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.

Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.

Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.

So far no one has been charged.

Press aides for Domenici and Wilson wouldn't comment. Justice Department officials have denied hearing of any such interference and said they didn't fire Iglesias over it.

Iglesias said in an earlier interview that he regretted not reporting the contact to his superiors, and he said he didn't have evidence that it led to his firing.....

..... The allegations have fueled a weeks-long controversy over whether the Bush administration forced out eight Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys because of partisan politics.

Justice Department officials have said that most of the firings were for "performance-related" issues and denied partisan political motives.

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued subpoenas to require Iglesias and three other ousted U.S. attorneys to testify before Congress.

The judiciary subcommittee on administrative law authorized the subpoenas by a 7-0 vote. The five Republican members of the subcommittee didn't show up for the vote.

The subpoenas require Iglesias, and former U.S. attorneys Carol Lam of San Diego, H.E. "Bud" Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., and John McKay of Seattle to appear before the subcommittee next week.

"The former U.S. attorneys are alleging very serious charges against the administration and we need to hear from them," Conyers said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is sending letters to the same four asking them to testify voluntarily on Tuesday.

In the last several weeks, other U.S. attorneys have spoken out against the administration to dispute that they were fired because of how they handled their jobs.

The administration has said that politics played a part only in the firing of Cummins. Officials said he was removed to make way for Tim Griffin, a former aide to White House political operative Karl Rove......

Quote:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-1d5189c56100
By ROBERT D. NOVAK

Saturday, Mar. 3, 2007

.....PROBING GONZALES

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”

Richard A. Hertling, the acting Justice Department lobbyist, responded Wednesday, 22 days after Emanuel’s letter. He contended “the Justice Department would not ever seek the resignation of a U.S. attorney if doing so would jeopardize a public corruption case” and rejected naming Lam as a special prosecutor. .....

dc_dux · 03-05-2007, 09:00 PM

Perhaps we will learn more tomorrow (Tues). Four of the fired (resigned under pressure?) US attorneys are appearing voluntarily before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the morning and the same four and two others have been subpoened to appear before a House Judiciary Subcommittee in the afternoon.

The obvious next step of the Congressional investigation will be a request for AG Gonzales to appear .and if he chooses to decline, whether the House and/or Senate will subpeona him....particularly in light of more allegations.

Or to call in Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who oversaw the U.S. attorney's offices ...to explain his own sudden resignation.

cyrnel · 03-09-2007, 01:03 PM

I'm sure many of you are already following this:

Quote:

March 9, 2007, 8:43AM
White House bows on attorney reforms

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried.

Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused into a microphone that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a Judiciary Committee meeting.

A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:

_President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department had previously dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.

_There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales' aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.

The Justice Department is shifting from offense to accommodation.
...snip...

Specter gets my toast for best line.

So what happened between Tuesday and today? Will this go further, or is it another fighting retreat? I haven't kept up with daily releases but the dismissals don't sound justified. One i might understand, but dismissing eight and doing it poorly? Sounds like careless house cleaning followed by butt-covering.

Not a great deal of value here. I'm hoping some of you veterans return with more information and your thoughts.

politicophile · 03-14-2007, 09:17 AM

two characters

roachboy · 03-14-2007, 09:24 AM

this covers the same ground as politicophile's post, but includes more updated infotainment on the manoevering that is happening on the part of the bush squad to contain this:

Quote:

?Mistakes? Made on Prosecutors, Gonzales Says
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON, March 13 ? Under criticism from lawmakers of both parties for the dismissals of federal prosecutors, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales insisted Tuesday that he would not resign but said, ?I acknowledge that mistakes were made here.?

The mea culpa came as Congressional Democrats, who are investigating whether the White House was meddling in Justice Department affairs for political reasons, demanded that President Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, explain their roles in the dismissals.

With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president?s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January.

?The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys,? said Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush?s counselor, referring to a Justice Department roster of those to be dismissed. But he said the White House, through Ms. Miers?s office, ultimately ?signed off on the list.?

Mr. Bartlett said it was ?highly unlikely? that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress but added, ?That doesn?t mean we won?t find other ways to try to share that information.?

With Democrats vowing to get to the bottom of who ordered the dismissals and why, the White House scrambled to explain the matter by releasing a stream of e-mail messages detailing how Ms. Miers had corresponded with D. Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Mr. Gonzales who drafted the list of those to be dismissed.

Mr. Sampson resigned Monday. On Tuesday afternoon, at a news conference in an ornate chamber adjacent to his office, Mr. Gonzales promised to ?find out what went wrong here,? even as he insisted he had had no direct knowledge of how his staff had decided on the dismissals.

He said he had rejected an earlier idea, which the White House attributed to Ms. Miers, to replace all 93 United States attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in their regions. ?I felt that was a bad idea,? Mr. Gonzales said, ?and it was disruptive.?

With Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, insisting that Mr. Gonzales step down, his appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration?s domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales?s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

?I really think there?s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,? one of the Republicans said.

Already, Democrats are pressing the case for revoking the president?s authority, gained with the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act last year, to appoint interim federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation. The administration has argued that such appointments are necessary to speed the prosecution of terrorism cases. After the dismissals became a big political issue last week, Mr. Gonzales signaled that the administration would not oppose the changes sought by Democrats.

?We now know that it is very likely that the amendment to the Patriot Act, which was made in March of 2006, might well have been done to facilitate a wholesale replacement of all or part of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation,? said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who serves on the Judiciary Committee. ?Who authorized all of this? Who asked for that change??

Questions about whether the dismissals were politically motivated have been swirling since January. But they reached a fever pitch on Tuesday with disclosures by the White House that Mr. Bush had spoken directly with Mr. Gonzales to pass on concerns from Republican lawmakers, among them Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, about the way certain prosecutors were handling cases of voter fraud.

The White House took the unusual step of having Mr. Bartlett conduct a hurried briefing with reporters in Mérida, Mexico. He said the president had ?all the confidence in the world? in Mr. Gonzales and traced the idea for the dismissals to Ms. Miers, saying she had raised the question of whether the Justice Department should clean house in Mr. Bush?s second term, as is common when a new president takes office.

?What Harriet Miers was doing was taking a look and floating an idea to say, ?Hey, should we treat the second term very similar to the way we treat a first term?? ? Mr. Bartlett said.

White House officials repeated Tuesday that Mr. Bush had not called for the removal of any particular United States attorney and said there was no evidence that the president had been aware that the Justice Department had initiated a process to generate a list of which prosecutors should lose their jobs.

But inside the White House, aides to the president, including Mr. Rove and Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, were said to be increasingly concerned that the controversy could damage Mr. Bush.

?They?re taking it seriously,? said the other of the two Republicans who spoke about the White House?s relationship with Mr. Gonzales. ?I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president?s credibility on this issue.?

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties expressed anger about the administration?s handling of the matter. While Democrats voiced the loudest criticism, several leading Republicans ? among them Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and George V. Voinovich of Ohio ? said Tuesday that they also had concerns.

Mr. Ensign, ordinarily a strong supporter of the White House, said he was ?very angry? at how the administration had handled the dismissal of the prosecutors, particularly Dan Bogden, the United States attorney in Nevada. Mr. Ensign said he had been misled or lied to last year when he asked the Justice Department about the dismissal of Mr. Bogden and was told that it had been connected to his job performance.

?I?m not a person who raises his voice very often,? said Mr. Ensign, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the Senate.

Of his decision to speak out, he said, ?I think there are times where you just have to do what you feel is right, and this is one of those times.?

Mr. Coburn called the dismissals ?idiocy on the part of the administration.?

Mr. Specter, in a speech on the Senate floor, referred to another of the dismissed prosecutors, Carol C. Lam, who prosecuted Randy Cunningham, the former Republican congressman now serving an eight-year sentence in a corruption case.

Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was ?about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,? and he questioned the Justice Department?s initial explanation that those who had lost their jobs had received poor performance evaluations.

?Well,? he said, ?I think we may need to do more by way of inquiry to examine what her performance ratings were to see if there was a basis for her being asked to resign.?

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/wa...hp&oref=slogin

among the many lessons we could learn here, one will probably go unremarked, so i'll say it:

passive voice should not be used by you.
nor should it be used by the attorney general.

The_Jazz · 03-14-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Bureaucratic incompetence or unbelievably idiotic executives? - You decide.

Is this an either/or situation or can I vote for both?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

passive voice should not be used by you.
nor should it be used by the attorney general.

I once got kicked out of a seminar paper presentation for too much use of the passage voice in my work. He stopped me in the middle of my discussion while he counted my uses of the passive voice on the first page (15 or 20 I think). Apparently Mr. Gonzales never took any classes from Dan Kaiser.

I learned my lesson.

Elphaba · 03-14-2007, 09:36 AM

Another question to ask, given that these firings were politically motivated against those who would not "play ball," is what have the remaining US Attorneys been up to?

politicophile · 03-14-2007, 09:52 AM

two characters

host · 03-14-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Another question to ask, given that these firings were politically motivated against those who would not "play ball," is what have the remaining US Attorneys been up to?

...stop, stop....yer killin' me !! The US attorney of the Southern Illinois district has spent the last three years on an investigation and then a prosecution that "some people say" was unnecessary because "no law had been broken", and the prosecution that resulted was not based on anything "material", and now poor Scooter Libby has been found guilty on "trumped up" charges....

....so, if "those people" are correct about "what they say", there may be other US Attorneys besides Patrick Fitzgerald who aren't prosecuting "the bad people", like they're sposedta do.....just saying....

Elphaba · 03-14-2007, 04:57 PM

Didn't some of "those people" try to get Fitzgerald fired early in the investigation? He was too high profile for this bit of sneakiness. Did you hear that the fired attorneys investigated Democratic wrong doing seven times more often than that of Republicans? Obviously, the Dems must be really "bad people" to have caused this imbalance. Perhaps there was a ten to one expectation? ...jus' sayin'

The_Jazz · 03-15-2007, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Didn't some of "those people" try to get Fitzgerald fired early in the investigation? He was too high profile for this bit of sneakiness. Did you hear that the fired attorneys investigated Democratic wrong doing seven times more often than that of Republicans? Obviously, the Dems must be really "bad people" to have caused this imbalance. Perhaps there was a ten to one expectation? ...jus' sayin'

Not only has Fitzgerald been the busiest prosecutor (in terms of number of cases, especially high-profile cases), he's tight with Daley. I don't think that the White House really wants to earn the ire of a power broker like Da Mayor, even if he does officially play for the other party.

Superbelt · 03-15-2007, 04:31 AM

One of the 8 fired federal prosecutors, Carol Lam, was the one that successfully prosecuted Randy 'Duke' Cunningham.

Toaster126 · 03-15-2007, 04:54 AM

I read about this yesterday, but the source I read it from also mentioned that Clinton did the same thing, except he fired all of them rather than some. Is that true?

The_Jazz · 03-15-2007, 04:59 AM

Actually, it's customary for prosecutors to resign when a new administration comes on board. They're considered political appointees, and they're not in the job for life (like judges). The job is considered a jumping-off point for state-wide offices like Senator or Governor. Getting rid of the previous administration's appointees isn't news. Firing your own midstream is.

smooth · 03-15-2007, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

among the many lessons we could learn here, one will probably go unremarked, so i'll say it:

passive voice should not be used by you.
nor should it be used by the attorney general.

in this case, however, it's not a grammatical error...
I agree with you, he shouldn't be using it...but it's intentional

Superbelt · 03-15-2007, 09:28 AM

It's not that he fired them. It's that he/his administration ranked them all according to republican loyalty and then cut off the bottom of the list. Primarially, the ones who prosecuted the lions share of republican's during the term.
It's also that he used a provision in the Patriot Act to bypass congress in giving the replacement judges recess appointments.

Elphaba · 03-15-2007, 09:59 AM

It's snowing subpoenas.

Necrosis · 03-18-2007, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I read about this yesterday, but the source I read it from also mentioned that Clinton did the same thing, except he fired all of them rather than some. Is that true?

This appears to be "an inconvenient truth." Clinton fired at least SEVENTY (I have read up to 93, but I do not care to research it)who had been appointed by Bush the elder, including one who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Here is what the New York Times had to say on March 26, 1993:

Quote:

Any hope that the Clinton Administration would operate a Justice Department free of political taint -- or even the appearance of political taint -- grew dim yesterday when the White House confirmed that it would dismiss the U.S. Attorney investigating one of its chief Congressional allies.

When Attorney General Janet Reno first announced the blanket dismissal of about 70 United States Attorneys who are Bush Administration holdovers, her aides said she might exempt those who needed to wrap up significant investigations. But yesterday the White House. . .removed most of that fig leaf on an exception. President Clinton's spokesman, George Stephanopoulos, said that some top prosecutors who are tied up in trials would be allowed to complete them, but most others would have to go. Their investigations would be continued by lower-ranking staff attorneys.

Those booted out would include U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens of the District of Columbia who. . ."is not in the middle of a trial." But Mr. Stephens is in the middle of an investigation of irregularities in the House of Representatives and a detailed financial auditing of one of the most powerful House Democrats, Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Stephens, who is known to enjoy cases with political overtones, is just the lawyer to credibly investigate Congressional Democrats, but the Clinton Justice Department won't be waiting for his recommendation for or against prosecution.

Traditionally, Attorneys are not turned out in a sweep like other Presidential appointees. To avoid the appearance of political justice, they are retained until the President is ready to exercise his undoubted right to replace them. (emphasis added)

The unseemly rush to clean out Republican investigators even before the Administration has filled most top slots at Justice looks awful in an area where appearances count heavily. Until the White House gets its fingerprints off the department, there can be no start on the promised regime of justice above politics at Justice.

Bush fired EIGHT prosecutors HE appointed. The investigation and prosecution of Randy Cunningham was completed. It thus appears, as it has so many times before, that Clinton raised the bar for unethical behavior to unprecedented levels.

It is dishonest to protest now, if you did not protest then.

Astrocloud · 03-18-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

It is dishonest to protest now, if you did not protest then.

I'm confused -So Clinton ordered Gonzales to fire the Prosecutors?

Rekna · 03-18-2007, 04:56 PM

There is a huge difference between cleaning the slate of US attorneys when entering office (this is the tradition and has been happening almost every time a president takes office) and firing 8 specific ones because they participated in investigations that the GOP didn't like. This is completely different than Clinton. It is not the firing of the attorneys that is wrong it is the political ramifications the the side stepping congress when appointing new ones that is wrong.

dc_dux · 03-18-2007, 04:58 PM

An e-mail exchange two years ago (at the start of Bush's second term), between Kyle Sampson at DOJ (who just resigned) and David Leitch (in the White House) provides an interesting perspective:

Quote:

As a historical matter, U.S. Attorneys served at least until the expiration of their 4-year term, even where an election changed the party in power - until President Clinton fired the Bush41-appointed U.S. attorneys in 1993, nearly all of whom were in the midst of their 4-year terms. In 2001, President Bush43 fired the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were in the midst of a 4-year term, but many of whom had completed their 4-year terms and were serving in holdover status.

As an operational matter, we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys - the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge (referring to Gonzales) comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17635404/

THe "Underperforming ones" (all Bush appointees in 2001) are now evidently not "loyal Bushies".

Necrosis, do you think "not loyal Bushies" is a reasonable standard for performance evaluation when it comes to Justice Dept attorneys who are there to uphold the law, regardless of political affiliation....as opposed to most other presidential appointments in other departments who are expected to be carry out a president's policy?

I think most would agree that the DOJ is the one agency that should be above partisanship...whether its under Clinton, Bush, or any future president.

host · 03-18-2007, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

This appears to be "an inconvenient truth." Clinton fired at least SEVENTY (I have read up to 93, but I do not care to research it)who had been appointed by Bush the elder, including one who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Here is what the New York Times had to say on March 26, 1993:

Bush fired EIGHT prosecutors HE appointed. The investigation and prosecution of Randy Cunningham was completed. It thus appears, as it has so many times before, that Clinton raised the bar for unethical behavior to unprecedented levels.

It is dishonest to protest now, if you did not protest then.

You neglected to share that your "NY Times" quote, speaking so favorably of Jay Stephens, was an editorial, not a news article:

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894DB494D81
Backsliding at the White House; Justice Disrupted

March 26, 1993, Friday
(NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 28, Column 1, 359 words

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Any hope that the Clinton Administration would operate a Justice Department free of political taint -- or even the appearance of political taint -- grew dim yesterday when the White House confirmed that it would dismiss the U.S. Attorney investigating one of its chief Congressional allies. When Attorney General ...

Here is how it is "different" this time:

Both Gonzales and his #2 have misled or told outright lies to congressional committees when they were asked why the 8 US Attorneys were being dismissed.

.....and there is this.....

Quote:

Justice Dept. clarified its policy on asking prosecutors to quit
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 25, 1993. pg. A15

The Justice Department on Mar 24, 1993 clarified which US attorneys are being asked to submit resignations, saying that the order applies to 77 prosecutors who are political appointees of George Bush but not to 16 others who are mostly civil servants filling vacancies on an interim basis.

....and there is evidence that both Jay Stephens and his predecessor as US Attorney in DC, Joe DiGenova, were both extremely partisan @holes, totally lacking in the prosecutorial ethics dept. Contrast their highly visible grandstanding with the silence and respectfulness of Libby prosecutor and US Atty for the So. Illinois district, Patrick Fitzgerald....no comment until he obtains a verdict, and no TV appearances or interviews except one time press conferences...when he announced the Libby indictment, and after "the Libby is guilty on 4 felony counts" jury verdict.

I would have fired Jay Stephens in a heartbeat, after Jan. 20, 1993. The Clinton DOJ was much less partisan than the Bush DOJ has been. FBI director Mueller, a republican, <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/05/fbi.director/index.html">was a Clinton DOJ appointee....</a>

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9317-1,00.html
Highly Public Prosecutors
Monday, Feb. 05, 1990 By MARGARET CARLSON

There was a time when federal prosecutors were hardly seen or heard outside a courtroom. But now theatrical press conferences, talk shows and press secretaries are challenging the old-fashioned notion that a prosecutor should stand loftily above politics and never discuss a pending case.

When U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jay Stephens finally bagged Mayor Marion Barry, he did not sink back into a gray-flannel cocoon of "no comment." Once an anonymous deputy counsel in the Reagan White House whose only attempt at flash was his vanity license plate WH LAW, Stephens is now a rising Republican star. After numerous press interviews about Barry's arrest, he took to the Sunday TV circuit to explain why his sting operation was a triumph.....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm
The Power Couple at Scandal's Vortex

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 27, 1998; Page D1

.....A decade after he was the city's top federal prosecutor in a high-stakes pursuit of D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, diGenova has become a white-hot media presence, politically connected lawyer and all-around agent provocateur. He and Toensing, also a battle-tested former prosecutor, keep popping up wherever there is trouble -- as commentators, as investigators, as unnamed sources for reporters.

A classic Washington power couple, diGenova, 53, and Toensing, 56, occupy a strange, symbiotic nexus between the media and the law that boosts their stock in both worlds. They are clearly players, which gives them access to juicy information, which gets them on television, which generates legal business.

"Dozens of Washington lawyers are trying to get on these shows," diGenova says. "I think it's very healthy. We can destroy myths and shoot down misunderstandings." Toensing sees televised debate as a good way of sharpening the old legal skills. "It's something that gets the body juices going," she says.

The two law partners not only talk about the Monica Lewinsky investigation -- they've been quoted or on the tube more than 300 times in the month since the story broke -- but have been drawn into the vortex. Toensing was approached by an intermediary for a Secret Service agent who had supposedly seen something untoward involving President Clinton and the former intern. DiGenova was at the heart of a quickly retracted Dallas Morning News account of that matter. What's more, diGenova took to the airwaves Sunday to charge -- based on nothing more than one reporter's inquiry -- that private investigators "with links to the White House" were digging up "dirt" on him and his wife.

Never exactly press-shy when he was U.S. attorney, diGenova is a trifle sensitive to the notion that he is a partisan publicity hound.......

This article makes it quite clear that there was almost no difference in the immediacy of the replacement of Bush '41 appointed US attorneys, by the Clinton admin, in 1993, vs. the timing of the replacements by the incoming Bush admin.

There had been 12 years of republican managed DOJ appointments....again....if Stephens, DiGenova, and his wife,
Toensing, were indicative of the ethics and partisanship of Reagan/Bush political appointees to DOJ, then it was imperative to remove them from DOJ ASAP in 1993. Read the entire WaPo article that I lnked about DiGenova and Toensing.....she was an asst. Atty Gen. in the pre-Clinton DOJ. She is all over conservative broadcast media with regard to the republican "message" that "no crime was committed" in the CIA Plame investigation. Have you ever heard her volunteer that she is a close personal friend of columnist Bob Novak....the WaPo article reports that she is......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...uple022798.htm
.....Private Lives

They launched their small law firm two years ago and seem to be reveling in their rapid success. One of Toensing's three children from her first marriage, Brady, is a senior associate. The couple retreat on weekends to their Fenwick Island, Del., beach house, hanging with such pals as Robert Novak and Bill Regardie. In town, diGenova likes to plant himself at his massive Wolf commercial stove, open a bottle of wine and cook veal chops in one of the cast-iron pans hanging from the ceiling......

Quote:

Lewis Resigning Post As U.S. Attorney for D.C.; [FINAL Edition]
Bill Miller. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Mar 16, 2001. pg. B.01

Wilma A. Lewis submitted her resignation as U.S. attorney for the District yesterday, saying she will end her three-year tenure at midnight April 20 to make way for a new top prosecutor who will be selected by the Bush administration.

No front-runner has emerged to replace Lewis as the head of the nation's largest U.S. attorney's office. An interim leader most likely will be chosen by the administration to provide more time for the search, officials said.

Lewis, 45, made history when President Bill Clinton chose her in 1995 as the first black woman to run the office. She replaced Eric H. Holder Jr., who resigned to become deputy attorney general. Like Holder, Lewis promoted numerous programs to bring prosecutors closer to the community, assigning many to cover specific neighborhoods. She also launched initiatives against drug and weapons offenses and targeted public corruption.

Since President Bush took office, Lewis and other U.S. attorneys have been on borrowed time. The president selects U.S. attorneys to run 94 offices throughout the country, subject to Senate confirmation. Unlike the Clinton administration, which asked all U.S. attorneys to resign in March 1993, soon after Clinton took office, the Bush administration has attempted to ease people out gradually while officials seek replacements. Lewis's decision to leave was part of that transition, she said. Justice Department officials have said they expect to move out nearly all Clinton-era holdovers by June.

Click to read the rest click to show

Necrosis · 03-19-2007, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrocloud

I'm confused -So Clinton ordered Gonzales to fire the Prosecutors?

I was hoping for adult discussion. I did not find it in this comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

There is a huge difference between cleaning the slate of US attorneys when entering office (this is the tradition and has been happening almost every time a president takes office) and firing 8 specific ones because they participated in investigations that the GOP didn't like. This is completely different than Clinton. It is not the firing of the attorneys that is wrong it is the political ramifications the the side stepping congress when appointing new ones that is wrong.

Yes, there is a huge difference. A different party's ox is being gored. By the way, I notice Bush is addressing the complaints people have, instead of adopting the stonewalling policy so prevalent with Clinton, and so frequently carried out by Janet Reno.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You neglected to share that your "NY Times" quote, speaking so favorably of Jay Stephens, was an editorial, not a news article:

Of COURSE it is an editorial. I'm not sure how anyone could think differently, and I don't play "dueling Googles." It stifles intelligent debate, especially when one or more parties overdoes it.

shakran · 03-19-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

This appears to be "an inconvenient truth." Clinton fired at least SEVENTY (I have read up to 93, but I do not care to research it)who had been appointed by Bush the elder, including one who was in the middle of investigating Dan Rostenkowski. Here is what the New York Times had to say on March 26, 1993:

And with post #23, Shakran's law is invoked.

I'll say it again. I'll even bold it so people don't miss it. past crimes and wrongdoings of past presidents do not excuse the crimes and wrongdoings of current presidents.

The republicans love to call themselves the party of morals, yet any time they're caught doing something immoral instead of doing the moral thing they immediately try to justify it by saying "well HE did it TOOOOO!" That didn't work with my kid when he was 5, and it sure as hell doesn't work with the leader of the country.

That said, your point is invalid anyway. It's routine for a president to replace the prosecutors with his own people when he takes office. You're right that no one got upset when Clinton did it. No one got upset when Bush the First did it either. They got upset this time because W fired the prosecutors for bullshit political reasons - -and he's the first president EVER to pull that stunt.

Quote:

It is dishonest to protest now, if you did not protest then.

Nice try. Sorry to have to bust that up for ya.

host · 03-19-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

I was hoping for adult discussion. I did not find it in this comment.

Yes, there is a huge difference. A different party's ox is being gored. By the way, I notice Bush is addressing the complaints people have, instead of adopting the stonewalling policy so prevalent with Clinton, and so frequently carried out by Janet Reno.

Of COURSE it is an editorial. I'm not sure how anyone could think differently, and I don't play "dueling Googles." It stifles intelligent debate, especially when one or more parties overdoes it.

You describe your conclusions as "intelligent discussion"? You went to some "fringe site", like floppingaces.net, and took <a href="http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/03/14/i-have-to-agree-with/">the post of "Curt"</a>, there....and tried to pass it off as a compelling reason that there is no merit to the serious concern and reaction about the firing or 8 US attorneys for political reasons.

Do you really believe that your "dueling Googles" dismissal of my argument, complete with original research not dug up by "Curt" and passed off by him, and by you, as NY Times "reporting", is an adequate response.....something that holds up your end of an "adult discussion"?

I lost respect for Curt when I noticed that he listed his admin. contact on the domain registration for floppingaces.net with the street address of the LA County Sheriff's Dept. location where he works, but with the zip code from his actual Fullerton, CA home address. Domain registrations are invalid if they display false of inaccurate contact information.

"Curt" posted the link to the NY Times editorial excerpt that you used in your post. I'm assuming that he used the Sheriff's dept. street address to discourage anyone from finding out who it is that is posting the republican talking points on that site, or to intimidate anyone who is curious about him?

Can anyone post a conservative argument, or a point, that is supported by a third party source that has integrity and is not part of a "talking points" campaign.... or has association to one of the propagandist individuals or entities that I've posted about earlier, here?

dc_dux · 03-19-2007, 08:01 AM

The next showdown with the WH will occur later this week. There are many unanswered questions, going back to the start of Bush's second term, regarding WH involvement to push out the "non-Bushies" among the sitting US attorneys under the guise of poor performance.

There is also the issue, in one case, of potential WH attempt to interfer in a probe of Dusty" Foggo as part of the Cunningham corruption scandal.

Quote:

(US attorney) Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who'd resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA.

On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, sent an e-mail to deputy White House counsel William Kelley, asking Kelley to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...s/16931329.htm

Will Bush allow Rove, Harriet Miers and William Kelley, the deputy White House counsel, to testify voluntarily? Will they comply with a subpoena? Or will they roll out the fallacious argument that senior advisors to the Pres are covered by executive privilege.

Or will the WH cut a deal to push Gonzales out if the Senate Judiciary Committee agrees to backs off on WH testimony?

Rekna · 03-19-2007, 09:19 AM

The moral of the story is the law should not apply to Bush and friends.

Astrocloud · 03-19-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrosis

I was hoping for adult discussion. I did not find it in this comment.

... OR ... you can't defend your statement so you refuse to discuss it.

Kadath · 03-21-2007, 06:05 AM

Here is an editorial by David Iglesias, one of the attorneys. It seems pretty telling to me. It also seems to me that the defense of this action can be boiled down to two things: "Clinton did it" and "they serve at the pleasure of the President." While the second of those is true (the first is a misrepresentation) Nixon fired people who served at his pleasure too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/op...=1&oref=slogin

Article click to show

host · 03-23-2007, 06:30 PM

Should the RNC and the Bush admin. be investigated for RICO statute violations....are they essentially an ongoing criminal conspiracy, masquerading as a politcal party and the executive branch of our federal government?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260801,00.html
Documents Show Gonzales Approved Plans to Fire Several U.S. Attorneys
Friday , March 23, 2007

AP

WASHINGTON —
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to newly released documents that contradict earlier claims

that he was not closely involved in the dismissals. click to show

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm
Posted on Fri, Mar. 23, 2007
U.S. ATTORNEYS

New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records

By Greg Gordon, Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the four U.S. attorneys weren't chosen only because of their backgrounds in election issues, but "we would expect any U.S. attorney to prosecute voting fraud."

Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Bush has said he's heard complaints from Republicans about some U.S. attorneys' "lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases," and administration e-mails have shown that Rove and other White House officials were involved in the dismissals and in selecting a Rove aide to replace one of the U.S. attorneys. Nonetheless, Bush has refused to permit congressional investigators to question Rove and others under oath.

Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, <h3>Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.</h3>

Rove thanked the audience for "all that you are doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the integrity of the ballot is protected." He added, "A lot in American politics is up for grabs."

The department's civil rights division, for example, supported a Georgia voter identification law that a court later said discriminated against poor, minority voters. It also declined to oppose an unusual Texas redistricting plan that helped expand the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. That plan was partially reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank DiMarino, a former federal prosecutor who served six U.S. attorneys in Florida and Georgia during an 18-year Justice Department career, said that too much emphasis on voter fraud investigations "smacks of trying to use prosecutorial power to investigate and potentially indict political enemies."

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys.

Bradley Schlozman, who was the civil rights division's deputy chief, agreed in 2005 to reverse the career staff's recommendations to challenge a Georgia law that would have required voters to pay $20 for photo IDs and in some cases travel as far as 30 miles to obtain the ID card.

A federal judge threw out the Georgia law, calling it an unconstitutional, Jim Crow-era poll tax.

In an interview, Schlozman, who was named interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City in November 2005, said he merely affirmed a subordinate's decision to overturn the career staff's recommendations.

He said it was "absolutely not true" that he drove out career lawyers. "What I tried to do was to depoliticize the hiring process," Schlozman said. "We hired people across the political spectrum."

Former voting rights section chief Joseph Rich, however, said longtime career lawyers whose views differed from those of political appointees were routinely "reassigned or stripped of major responsibilities."

In testimony to a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing this week, Rich said that 20 of the 35 attorneys in the voting rights section have been transferred to other jobs or have left their jobs since April 2005 and a staff of 26 civil rights analysts who reviewed state laws for discrimination has been slashed to 10.

He said he has yet to see evidence of voter fraud on a scale that warrants voter ID laws, which he said are "without exception ... supported and pushed by Republicans and objected to by Democrats. I believe it is clear that this kind of law tends to suppress the vote of lower-income and minority voters."

Other former voting-rights section lawyers said that during the tenure of Alex Acosta, who served as the division chief from the fall of 2003 until he was named interim U.S. attorney in Miami in the summer of 2005, the department didn't file a single suit alleging that local or state laws or election rules diluted the votes of African-Americans. In a similar time period, the Clinton administration filed six such cases.

Those kinds of cases, Rich said, are "the guts of the Voting Rights Act."

During this week's House judiciary subcommittee hearing, critics recounted lapses in the division's enforcement. A Citizens Commission on Civil Rights study found that "the enforcement record of the voting section during the Bush administration indicates this traditional priority has been downgraded significantly, if not effectively ignored."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chaired the hearing, said, "The more stringent requirements you put on voting in order to get rid of alleged voter fraud, the more you're cutting down on legitimate people voting."

Acosta, the first Hispanic to head the civil rights division, said he emphasized helping non-English speaking voters cast ballots. In 2005, he told a House committee that he made an unprecedented effort to monitor balloting in 2004 to watch for discrimination against minorities.

Justice spokesman Roehrkasse said Acosta "has an impressive legal background, including extensive experience in government and the private sector" and as a federal appeals court clerk.

A third former civil rights division employee, Matt Dummermuth, 33, was nominated to be U.S. attorney in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December. Before his appointment, he was counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. He was a special assistant to the civil rights chief from 2002 to 2004.

Details of his involvement in reviewing voter rights couldn't be determined, and Dummermuth, a Harvard Law School graduate, didn't return calls seeking comment.

Bush administration officials have said that no single reason led to the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys. But two of those who were forced to resign said they thought they might have been punished for failing to prosecute Democrats prior to the 2006 congressional elections or for not vigorously pursuing Republican allegations of voter irregularities in Washington state and New Mexico.

Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico has said he thought that "the voter fraud issue was the foundation" for his firing and that complaints about his failure to pursue corruption matters involving Democrats were "the icing on the cake."

John McKay, the ousted U.S. attorney for western Washington state, looked into allegations of voter fraud against Democrats during the hotly contested governor's race in 2004. He said that later, when top Bush aides interviewed him for a federal judgeship, he was asked to respond to criticism of his inquiry in which no charges were brought. He didn't get the judgeship.

Rove talked about the Northwest region in his speech last spring to the Republican lawyers and voiced concern about the trend toward mail-in ballots and online voting. He also questioned the legitimacy of voter rolls in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

One audience member asked Rove whether he'd "thought about using the bully pulpit of the White House to talk about election reform and an election integrity agenda that would put the Democrats back on the defensive."

"Yes, it's an interesting idea," Rove responded.

Despite the GOP concerns, Bud Cummins, the Republican-appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas who was fired, said he had "serious doubts"

that any U.S. attorney was failing to aggressively pursue voter fraud. click to show

Quote:

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-...ey-a-criminal/

Bush’s New US Attorney a Criminal?
Published March 13th, 2007 in Articles

BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide.
Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by Greg Palast

There’s only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That’s replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush’s firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn’t bend to political pressure.

griffin-caging.pngBut the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn’t mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails — potential evidence of a crime — to email addresses ending with the domain name “@GeorgeWBush.com” he sent them to “@GeorgeWBush.ORG.” A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns “GeorgeWBush.org.” When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called, “Caging” lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.

tim-griffin.jpgThe Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not forward.” Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.
We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn’t living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.....

The 2004 BBC reporting and the emails accidentally sent to www.georgewbush.org:

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/3956129.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004, 17:06 GMT 18:06 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
New Florida vote scandal feared

By Greg Palast
Reporting for Newsnight

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

Election supervisor Ion Sancho believes some voters are being intimidated
Two e-mails, prepared for the executive director of the Bush campaign in Florida and the campaign's national research director in Washington DC, contain a 15-page so-called "caging list". ....

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200411150...dletteroffice/
DEAD LETTER OFFICE

E-MAIL FROM THE GEORGEWBUSH.ORG "CATCH-ALL" MAILBOX

OCTOBER, 2004: Recently, we at GeorgeWBush.org happened to notice that our mail server had a default "catch-all" mailbox, which for the past several months had been quietly gathering any and all e-mails addressed to [INSERT-ANYTHING-HERE]@georgewbush.org. We felt the need to share.

10.29.2004 UPDATE: GeorgeWBush.org initially posted a select few highlights of the e-mails from its catch-all mailbox. But in response to overwhelming interest in this material, we have since dug back into the pile. You'll find today's newly posted e-mails in the YELLOW shaded boxes below. Also, the catch-all box has now been disabled, having been suddenly overwhelmed by thousands of spam and virus e-mails.

The hypocrisy of these two, knows no bounds:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090901963.html
.....The Post's story reported that Rove inadvertently received a District homestead tax deduction on his Palisades home, even though he had not been eligible for the benefit for more than three years. Rove was eligible for the deduction when he bought the home in 2001, the story said, but a change in the tax law in 2002 made the deduction available only to District property owners who do not vote elsewhere. Rove is registered to vote in Texas.

The District's Office of Tax and Revenue accepted blame for the mistake in a letter to Rove, expressing regret that it had failed to rescind the deduction. Rove agreed to reimburse the city an estimated $3,400 in back taxes, and a White House spokeswoman said it had been an innocent misunderstanding.....

Quote:

http://austin.about.com/cs/georgewbu...eney_texan.htm

.....According to the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, a presidential and vice presidential candidate residing in the same state cannot both earn that state's electoral votes. Governor George W. Bush is, without a doubt, a resident of Texas. Since 1995 Dick Cheney has lived in Highland Park (Dallas), Texas.

Voter Registration vs. Bona Fide Resident
In July, shortly before being named as Bush's running mate, Cheney changed his voter's registration from Texas to Wyoming where he was raised, served as a U.S. Congressman, and still owns a home. However, one of the requirements for Voter Registration in Wyoming is that the registrant "Be an actual and physically bona fide resident of Wyoming" living in the state for one year before becoming a resident.Interesting side note: According to a news report in the November 22, 2000 Austin American-Statesman, Cheney claimed the homestead tax exemption on his Dallas home (put up for sale just this month) which is only allowed on property the owner considers their main home. So, did he simply consider it his main home for tax purposes but not for Presidential electoral vote purposes?....

Elphaba · 04-15-2007, 04:20 PM

Bravo, Host! As always, you are way ahead of us all. I was about to post that the whole "voter fraud" nonsense was merely a red herring and that increased scrutiny is being given to the 85 surviving US Attorneys. Here is another example:

Link

Quote:

BLOG | Posted 04/13/2007 @ 4:58pm
Conyers, Sanchez Seek Rove's RNC Emails

/snip
A new letter issued by key members of the House Judiciary Committee specifically expresses concerns that push the inquiry beyond the eight to look at the potential that some of the 85 U.S. Attorneys who were not fired may have been kept on because they used their powers in a manner that pleased Rove and his minions.

/snip

In a letter dispatched this week to Duncan, Conyers and Sanchez have requested copies of emails sent and received on RNC accounts that discuss the performance of any U.S. attorney, including questions of whether to retain, dismiss or seek resignations.

The letter goes into detail about the Wisconsin case in which a state employee was prosecuted by a Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney on a timeline that coincided with a tight gubernatorial race between incumbent Jim Doyle, a Democrat, and Congressman Mark Green, a Republican with close ties to the Bush White House. The employee, who was charged with steering a contract to a Doyle campaign donor was convicted and jailed. Republicans made the case a prime feature of their fall campaign against Doyle.

This month, a federal appeals court panel, on which the majority of judges were Republican appointees, threw the conviction out and ordered the jailed woman freed from federal prison. One of the federal judges referred to the evidence against the state employee as "beyond thin" and the panel repeatedly questioned how and why the U.S. Attorney, Steven Biskupic, brought the case. /snip

dc_dux · 04-15-2007, 06:05 PM

The Bush crowd knew what they were doing. The cries of voter fraud provided the cover for the Bush administration, and particularly political appointees in DoJ, to support the more insidioius efforts to suppress the votes of minorities:

Quote:

Unanimous or near unanimous Justice Department career staff findings of minority voter suppression were overruled by political appointees.

The goal in Texas in 2003 was to, as Tom Delay boasted, create a redistricting plan that would knock Democratic Members of Congress out of office and have them replaced with Republicans. However, eight career professionals in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ unanimously concluded that plan discriminated against Latino and African-American voters. The political staff, led by Hans von Spakovsky, overruled the career professionals and approved the plan. In 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated the plan in part because of Voting Rights Act violations.

Georgia passed a law requiring photographic identification to vote in 2005. Voter identification requirements reduce minority voting. The career professionals were near unanimous in their disapproval of the plan and again the political staff overruled them and approved it. A United States Court of Appeals has since ruled the law unconstitutional.
http://houseoflabor.tpmcafe.com/blog...ession_efforts

Fortunately, we still have a Court that understands that voting rights are sacred and above Republican politicization of the Justice Dept.

host · 04-15-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The Bush crowd knew what they were doing. The cries of voter fraud provided the cover for the Bush administration, and particularly political appointees in DoJ, to support the more insidioius efforts to suppress the votes of minorities:

Fortunately, we still have a Court that understands that voting rights are sacred and above Republican politicization of the Justice Dept.

How can you presume anything about "the Court". How much of the Reagan / Rehnquist mindset is still alive and "on the bench"?

Information here suggests that Reagan tapped Rehnquist because they shared the same indifference to racial inequality:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...st#post2201368

Rehnquist's dramatic lack of fitness and his "problem", first, as a poll "monitor", and then, in Phoenix, makes it seem that the problem of a "reverse" strategy when it comes to protecting voting rights is an entrenched attitude among many party members in position to make an official difference, if they weren't so partisan and lacking a sense of duty to protect voting rights of minorities with a long history as targets of those who have tried to interfere with their right to vote without unequal burden or challengeL
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...st#post2176531

dc_dux · 04-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Host...its a bit off topic, but Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and David Souter, a Bush I appointee both have demonstrared a seriousness of judicial temperment without being driven by a Reagan/Rehnquist ideology. I dont presume anything with the two recent Bush appointees (I have more faith in Roberts than Alito) but we shall see.

Where we do agree is that this administration has damaged the integrity of the executive branch of government more than any in history.

03-04-2007, 06:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:32 PM..

03-04-2007, 09:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Just a quick paranoid question.... ummmmm who would prosecute the officials in charge, if Bush decides to call Martial law and dismiss Congress or not have the '08 vote? If you had federal prosecuters that were honest, they may actually find ways to enforce and prosecute the laws. Plus, who's going to prosecute say Halliburton for war profiteering? Just one example. Things like this are very scary and the sad thing of it is, people still support this man. What does he have to do, to get even his staunchest supporters to say enough? Or are they so wrapped up in the BS and trying to save face they can't admit anything wrong because it will tear down their house of cards and lies? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

03-05-2007, 09:00 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Perhaps we will learn more tomorrow (Tues). Four of the fired (resigned under pressure?) US attorneys are appearing voluntarily before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the morning and the same four and two others have been subpoened to appear before a House Judiciary Subcommittee in the afternoon. The obvious next step of the Congressional investigation will be a request for AG Gonzales to appear .and if he chooses to decline, whether the House and/or Senate will subpeona him....particularly in light of more allegations. Or to call in Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who oversaw the U.S. attorney's offices ...to explain his own sudden resignation. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-06-2007 at 06:12 AM..

03-14-2007, 09:17 AM	#9 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:16 PM..

03-14-2007, 09:36 AM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Another question to ask, given that these firings were politically motivated against those who would not "play ball," is what have the remaining US Attorneys been up to? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-14-2007, 09:52 AM	#13 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	two characters __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:16 PM..

03-14-2007, 04:57 PM	#15 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Didn't some of "those people" try to get Fitzgerald fired early in the investigation? He was too high profile for this bit of sneakiness. Did you hear that the fired attorneys investigated Democratic wrong doing seven times more often than that of Republicans? Obviously, the Dems must be really "bad people" to have caused this imbalance. Perhaps there was a ten to one expectation? ...jus' sayin' __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-15-2007, 04:31 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	One of the 8 fired federal prosecutors, Carol Lam, was the one that successfully prosecuted Randy 'Duke' Cunningham.

03-15-2007, 04:54 AM	#18 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	I read about this yesterday, but the source I read it from also mentioned that Clinton did the same thing, except he fired all of them rather than some. Is that true? __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

03-15-2007, 04:59 AM	#19 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Actually, it's customary for prosecutors to resign when a new administration comes on board. They're considered political appointees, and they're not in the job for life (like judges). The job is considered a jumping-off point for state-wide offices like Senator or Governor. Getting rid of the previous administration's appointees isn't news. Firing your own midstream is. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

03-15-2007, 09:28 AM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's not that he fired them. It's that he/his administration ranked them all according to republican loyalty and then cut off the bottom of the list. Primarially, the ones who prosecuted the lions share of republican's during the term. It's also that he used a provision in the Patriot Act to bypass congress in giving the replacement judges recess appointments.

03-15-2007, 09:59 AM	#22 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	It's snowing subpoenas. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

03-18-2007, 04:56 PM	#25 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	There is a huge difference between cleaning the slate of US attorneys when entering office (this is the tradition and has been happening almost every time a president takes office) and firing 8 specific ones because they participated in investigations that the GOP didn't like. This is completely different than Clinton. It is not the firing of the attorneys that is wrong it is the political ramifications the the side stepping congress when appointing new ones that is wrong.

03-19-2007, 09:19 AM	#32 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	The moral of the story is the law should not apply to Bush and friends.

03-21-2007, 06:05 AM	#34 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Here is an editorial by David Iglesias, one of the attorneys. It seems pretty telling to me. It also seems to me that the defense of this action can be boiled down to two things: "Clinton did it" and "they serve at the pleasure of the President." While the second of those is true (the first is a misrepresentation) Nixon fired people who served at his pleasure too. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/op...=1&oref=slogin Article click to show WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters. Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly. United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political. Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico. Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead. A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.) When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.) As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds. What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials. After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute. Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me. President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me. David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month. __________________ it's quiet in here

04-15-2007, 07:16 PM	#39 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host...its a bit off topic, but Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and David Souter, a Bush I appointee both have demonstrared a seriousness of judicial temperment without being driven by a Reagan/Rehnquist ideology. I dont presume anything with the two recent Bush appointees (I have more faith in Roberts than Alito) but we shall see. Where we do agree is that this administration has damaged the integrity of the executive branch of government more than any in history. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-15-2007 at 07:21 PM..