Comments (14)

hibiscus wrote on March 2, 2007 1:21 PM:

so they had lawyers in place to research everybody. pelosi, clinton, obama, edwards, richardson.

chimpeach wrote on March 2, 2007 1:38 PM:

Is there no law or regulation that forbids a federal prosecutor working on a case from leaving office and going to work for the defense? I can't believe this is allowed to happen. And the same goes for Barbara Comstock leaving the DoJ and becoming Scooter Libby's chief fundraiser and cheerleader. Your average six-year-old has a better grasp of the meaning of "impropriety" than these corrupt assholes.

Node of Evil wrote on March 2, 2007 1:48 PM:

Some questions I've been thinking about this morning:

1.) Were the members of Congress who contacted Iglesias acting on their own or under direction of someone else? Perhaps one of them let slip that that was the case while on the call (perhaps as part of a threat). That could make for interesting hearings next week.

2.) How and why would the Federal Attorneys know about this in advance? That, combined with question number one, leads us to some interesting places...

3.) The firings were executed according to a plan, in my view. Who came up with the plan?

4.) Where did they get their list of names? Did someone query local Republican party offices to see who should go down? Or, was there awareness at the national level that certain prosecutors were a "problem" (both for indicting Republicans and being seen as too slow to indict Democrats) and their names were already on a list prior to the elections?

The Political Junkie wrote on March 2, 2007 2:25 PM:

It appears that the high-powered law firm that hired Debra Wong from the U. S. Attorney's office, hired her because of what she possibly knows and are paying her big cheddar to keep her quiet.

tekel wrote on March 2, 2007 3:17 PM:

Node: Where did they get their list of names? Did someone query local Republican party offices to see who should go down? Or, was there awareness at the national level that certain prosecutors were a "problem" (both for indicting Republicans and being seen as too slow to indict Democrats) and their names were already on a list prior to the elections?

I'm going to go with option (b). This should land Abu Gonzo in prison, at a minimum.

EH wrote on March 2, 2007 4:06 PM:

It also raises the question of USAs possibly complying with the type of requests that the fired-8 resisted. I'm not saying that every election season indictment of a Democrat means a weak USA having their strings pulled by a Congressperson, but it does make me say, "hmm."

tom baker wrote on March 2, 2007 4:26 PM:

Look! You can actually see the pawns being manipulated! Is there just no authority that can weigh in on these glaring, shocking examples of conflict-of-interest?? Are our laws that weak, that we can't prevent these chiselers and con-men from running their racket in broad daylight?? Can "We the People" have an agency like the FBI that fights against this criminal operation that calls itself "conservative politics"??

JFC!!

dqueue wrote on March 2, 2007 6:41 PM:

Node writes: Were the members of Congress who contacted Iglesias acting on their own or under direction of someone else? Perhaps one of them let slip that that was the case while on the call (perhaps as part of a threat).

And I wonder if perhaps a bonafide, documented, testified-to, charged blackmail may finally emerge during the bush administration's reign of terra? We have seen bribery, corruption, perjury, large scale theft, money laundering, solicitation of prostitution, espionage... But gosh darn if we haven't seen actual evidence of blackmail...

bob wrote on March 2, 2007 7:20 PM:

From Laura Rozen:

"Among the powerful partners at Gibson Dunn, the firm that offered Yang a golden parachute, you will remember, is Theodore Olsen, the Bush White House former solicitor general."

She will likely be "screened off" from the Rep. Jerry Lewis defense, but the timing definitely raises some eyebrows.

Al in Austex wrote on March 3, 2007 8:06 AM:

Ok at the bottom of all these scandals is the question of why how come ? I still maintain that all of this is to allow corrupted officials to be more corrupted by defence contractors -that would then make more money off the Earmarks -its a self sustaining money making machine - look at the Dukester, Foggo , and Brent Wilkes . And more troubling this allows piles of money to go back into the of nefarious official and contractors (such as Blackwater & Titan ) for black ops that even now are illegally being used "in the War on Terrorism " )
We need a Special Prosecutor to look at all of this . Paging Patrick Fitzgerald
Al in Austex

Al in Austex wrote on March 3, 2007 8:09 AM:

Ok at the bottom of all these scandals is the question of why how come ? I still maintain that all of this is to allow corrupted officials to be more corrupted by defence contractors -that would then make more money off the Earmarks -its a self sustaining money making machine - look at the Dukester, Foggo , and Brent Wilkes . And more troubling this allows piles of money to go back into the hands of nefarious official and contractors (such as Blackwater & Titan ) for black ops that even now are illegally being used "in the War on Terrorism " )
We need a Special Prosecutor to look at all of this . Paging Patrick Fitzgerald
Al in Austex

daria g wrote on March 10, 2007 2:30 PM:

Also, should we take a closer look at those attorneys who were NOT purged - ie - does the record show any significant ongoing corruption investigations mysteriously wrapped up or closed by an AG around the same time? We're only looking at the ones who refused to play along, but.. I hate to suggest it but one has to wonder if one or two did.

Diane wrote on April 24, 2007 12:40 PM:

Following up on node of evil's question, why has no one asked the New Mexico Republicans why they called David Inglesis?
I have a feeling the Dems know and are waiting for Miss 5th Amendment to testify?

I think the timing was right for these US Attorney's to be replaced. They had shown they were a liability to Repubs., they had just lost the election. But look where this all leads back~ to Karl Rove. He is gearing up to get these people in place to take down more Democrats before the 2008 elections.
I guess an 80% target rate is not good enough for him, especially if it does not win you an election. Look what lengths they have gone to in the 2000 and 2004 election.

Chris_C wrote on April 24, 2007 3:49 PM:

I shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised we haven't seen mass resignations from the US Attorneys . As this scandal grinds on it becomes more and more obvious that they hold their positions only as 'loyal Bushies' and partisan hacks.

Anyone of principle in such a position would have to resign.