« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
OK, there's a lot to sift through in the two stories out from The Washington Post and New York Times today, but let's just focus on the tick-tock of events outlined in the two stories.
So here's the storyline (and please save your expressions of disbelief until the end):
The idea to replace U.S. attorneys was first floated by White House counsel Harriet Miers in February 2005. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "rejected that idea as impractical and disruptive." And Karl Rove "vaguely recalls telling Miers that he also thought firing all 93 was ill-advised."
So in March 2005, a counselor to Gonzales, Kyle Sampson (who went on to become Gonzales' chief of staff in September 2005) sent an e-mail to Miers that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Here's how the Post describes the breakdown:
Strong performers "exhibited loyalty" to the administration; low performers were "weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc." A third group merited no opinion.
The Post doesn't mention it, but in December 2005, the administration, via Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter's (R-PA) chief counsel, slipped a provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that made it possible to replace U.S. Attorneys permanently without Senate confirmation.
In January 2006, "Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end: [Michigan's Margaret] Chiara, [Arkansas' Bud] Cummins, [San Diego's Carol] Lam and [San Francisco's Kevin] Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post."
In March, the Patriot reauthorization bill finally passed Congress and was signed into law.
In June, U.S. Attorney for Arkansas' Eastern District Bud Cummins gets a call asking him to resign.
In August, "Justice officials" discuss "bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment." The way to bypass them, of course, would be to use the Patriot Act provision.
In September, Sampson put together another list of candidates, totaling nine. Cummins, he said, was "in the process of being pushed out." Six of those nine, including Cummins, were among the eight ultimately fired in December.
Also that month, Sampson wrote to Miers saying that "I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed." He urged using the Patriot Act provision in order to get their "preferred person" appointed.
In October, New Mexico's David Iglesias was added to the list, "based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases."
Also in October, President Bush mentions complaints about voter-fraud investigations to Gonzales in a conversation in October 2006. "Gonzales does not recall the conversation, Justice Department officials said."
In November, Rove learns that the eight prosecutors are being replaced.
On December 4th, Sampson emails "the White House with a copy to Ms. Miers outlining plans to carry out the firings":
“We would like to execute this on Thursday, Dec. 7,” Mr. Sampson wrote. Because some United States attorneys were still in Washington attending a conference, he planned to postpone telling them they were being fired. He wrote, “We want to wait until they are back home and dispersed to reduce chatter.”
On December 7th, the calls to the seven remaining U.S. attorneys went out.
In mid-December, Sampson suggests that Gonzales use the Patriot Act provision to put Karl Rove's former aide Timothy Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term. "[I]f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" he wrote to a White House aide.
So that's the story, or at least the story the administration is telling. Now, Sampson resigned yesterday, the Post reports, "after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress."
In other words, Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, unbeknownst to other Justice Department officials, kept all this to himself. A rogue operator within the Justice Department, right under Gonzales' chin!
A little background on Sampson: he had worked earlier with Gonzales as deputy White House counsel from 2001 through 2003. He then moved on to the Justice Department as a counselor to then-AG John Ashcroft, moving up to become chief of staff in September 2005.
It's unclear whether Sampson will be made available to congressional investigators now that he's resigned.
Comments (89)
Ron Byers wrote on March 13, 2007 9:14 AM:Who were the other candidate prosecutors. The ones not redacted in the informaton seen by the post. Were they political operatives like Griffin?
Great time line. Best I have seen on this so far.
JF / Philly wrote on March 13, 2007 9:22 AM:While this story is increasingly amazing to me, I can't help but get upset knowing that this story will never get traction beyond the beltway...
There are too many 2nd tier actors involved and the crimes are too complex for your casual news observer to pay attention to.
I've read blogs that think this case may be a perfect case for impeachment (i.e. no statutory laws broken but power clearly abused), but I just don't see a Democratic Congress using this to make thier case. If they are not going to impeach on pre-war intelligence manipulation (and Pelosi is on record as saying she won't), then they are not going to impeach anyone on this, no matter how bad it gets...
I think Democrats are content to let all of the bad stories just fester and create a long lasting stain on this administration (and Republicans / Conservatives in general). And honestly, I don't think that's a bad long term play...
But keep up the good work TPM...it's always the right thing to expose the corruption in any case.
Ron Byers wrote on March 13, 2007 9:30 AM:JF I disagree. This is a very important story. If I were a US Attorney this morning and read that Harriet Miers wanted to fire me and all of my brother and sister USAs but was stopped only because the AG said it was impractical, I would be wondering just why I should hump my butt putting away bad guys. The lack of loyalty Gonzales shows for his USAs alone is enough to send shockways through the country.
Why did Harriet want to sack all of them? Please tell me somebody. What was she thinking? Was she wanting to parachute in political operatives for the 2006 election? After all the USAs were all appointed by Bush. They were his babies.
Ron Byers wrote on March 13, 2007 9:31 AM:"shockwaves" not "shockways."
Peter wrote on March 13, 2007 9:36 AM:Been meaning to make this point -- Wilson and Domenici made their calls to Iglesias at his home and at his hotel because they wanted to evade being recorded on the US Attorney's office's recorded line. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jon F wrote on March 13, 2007 9:39 AM:Agree Ron, and also, one has to ask not only what did the USAs do/not to get them terminated, but what did the 80 odd remaining do/not do to keep their jobs. This whole saga questions the loyalty of AG to his USAs, but also questions the confidence/impartiality of the remaining USAs.
Emily wrote on March 13, 2007 9:39 AM:Has Specter fired his chief counsel? Specter first denied that he's be the one to add the provision to the Patriot Act to make it possible to appoint new US attorneys without Senate confirmation. Then it came out that it was his counsel who'd done it.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 9:40 AM:I think the point about Meiers wanting to sack all of the USAs is supposed to be a defensive move- e.g. 'see, we started with all 93, and whittled it down to ONLY 7...'...
But... What I wanna know is, when can we expect to see the perjury charges start? It's a crime to lie to a Congressional committee- whether or not you are under oath (the only difference is in the statute charged- the penalty is exactly the same). And all of this stuff makes a damn good case that Gonzalez, at a minimum, lied to Congress.
Yellow Dog wrote on March 13, 2007 9:40 AM:This story is going to get traction because US Attorneys are among the most visible federal employees at the local level.
At least here in Kentucky, the two US attorneys get pretty substantial press, especially when they attack local corruption (as Greg van Tatenhove has done with vote-buying cases in the Eastern District.)
If Greg had been among the fired US attorneys (highly unlikely, as he is one of Mitch McConnell's pets), everyone in the state would be know it was because he had failed to meet bush's or mitch's political expectations, not because he wasn't doing his job.
DG wrote on March 13, 2007 9:41 AM:I would guess that the idea that they originally wanted to fire all 93 of them is the cover being floated out there by the WH. Then they can keep saying that it was like what Clinton did. That is what I hear over and over-how Clinton fired all of them when he came in and this is the same thing. It makes them look reasonable- they only fired some of them!
bp wrote on March 13, 2007 9:43 AM:Good point Peter. I am just wondering why CNN is giving it such casual play. Perhaps because one of the fired prosecutors is not named Clinton?
EasyRider wrote on March 13, 2007 9:45 AM:Mass firings to give cover to the intent to fire for political reasons due the lack of political USA positions against Dems and actually being impairial in justice.
klyde wrote on March 13, 2007 9:46 AM:[Why did Harriet want to sack all of them? Please tell me somebody. What was she thinking?]
If you fire everyone you leave less of a trail. You reappoint your boys and girls and don't reappoint the non-team players that way it looks like routine house cleaning. But like everything the junta touches even their purge has turned to shit on them.
quinn wrote on March 13, 2007 9:48 AM:The most important part I find in this is that we now know that they had ranked all USAs and THEN had Specter insert the provision in the Patriot Act. This, in my mind establishes intent.
I am also curios to know if my Senior Senator got played for a fool or if he knew what the White House was up to when they inserted the provision in the Patriot Act. He has claimed a staffer did it, but based on this timeline, I would not be surprised to find out he cut some sort of deal/trade off
Nell wrote on March 13, 2007 9:49 AM:I'd also like to draw your attention to a comment by 'Aunt Deb' on a Feb. 6 Muckraker post about Specter's 'complete surprise' about the provision slipped into the PATRIOT Act.
She noted that Sampson was the White House's candidate for the Utah U.S. Attorney slot that Tolman, staff to the Judiciary Committee under Hatch and Specter and PATRIOT Act-reviser, ultimately got.
I'd like to see on the timeline these dates:
- when Tolman brought the revision to Specter's chief counsel
- when Warner, the holdover U.S. Attorney in Utah, was relieved of his position
- when Tolman was nominated (and when the back-and-forth of Sampson v. Tolman happened -- presumably earlier)
It looks very much to me as if Specter okayed the PATRIOT Act revision in return for his preferred candidate being nominated for U.S. Attorney.
za wrote on March 13, 2007 9:50 AM:Ron, you're onto it there, bud. Sometimes I forget that even in these "political scandals" there are victims, who may not remain quite for long.
Imagine busting your ass for this DOJ, and then seeing your colleagues treated this way. And then, most importantly, wondering it you're next. So this firing might also be a warning to others who think they are actually independent prosecutors.
JF / Philly wrote on March 13, 2007 9:51 AM:Ron: I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying this story will not have some legs...Of course it will...it already has with WP and NYT picking it up (Funny note: Resident bad guy John Solomon is heading up the writing done in the WP)
But 93 USA's (as you state) plus the political class and political junkies (like me) are not a wide enough cross-section to scare the WH. When you're talking about a Chief of Staff here and a Chief of Staff there...when one USA was fired for being too aggressive in one case and another USA fired for not being aggressive enough...and some actually had poor performance records, while others had good track records but were fired anyway....Do you see where I'm going?
I'm not saying it's not an important story that needs to be told, but don't get your hopes that this will result in anything more than a few mid-level firings (one already done) and another stain of corruption placed on the Bush administration...
Nell wrote on March 13, 2007 9:52 AM:Clearly, Tolman needs to testify to Congress. Who originally thought of the revision to the PATRIOT Act? Who talked to him about it?
Leta wrote on March 13, 2007 9:53 AM:It is very clear that most of the “Gonzales 8″ were fired because they wouldn’t let their offices be part of the personal destruction political tactics of Karl Rove, or were replaced to reward Rove/Bush lap dogs and good soldiers….i.e. Tim Griffin (AR). So, here we have 8 U.S. Attorney’s thrown to he curb for lack of servitude and that’s a story in itself. But the question needs to be asked, of the 85 other U.S. Attorney’s who apparently were in favor, hence the implication that they were willing to use their power for political purposes…just how many Democrats were indicted, investigated or threatened by a U.S. Attorney or his office since Gonzales took office, for that matter, since Ashcroft. Every single case in any U.S. Attorney’s office that has any political undertones (Democrat) has a cloud over it. Guilty or innocent, the DOJ may have compromised 100’s of cases that are currently in the pike throughout this country.
Arkansan wrote on March 13, 2007 9:53 AM:Don't forget the reason they thought they could get away with it is because they'd done it before:
"Bush removal ended Guam investigation
US attorney's demotion halted probe of lobbyist"
By Walter F. Roche Jr., Los Angeles Times | August 8, 2005
"WASHINGTON -- A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/
Leta wrote on March 13, 2007 9:53 AM:It is very clear that most of the “Gonzales 8″ were fired because they wouldn’t let their offices be part of the personal destruction political tactics of Karl Rove, or were replaced to reward Rove/Bush lap dogs and good soldiers….i.e. Tim Griffin (AR). So, here we have 8 U.S. Attorney’s thrown to he curb for lack of servitude and that’s a story in itself. But the question needs to be asked, of the 85 other U.S. Attorney’s who apparently were in favor, hence the implication that they were willing to use their power for political purposes…just how many Democrats were indicted, investigated or threatened by a U.S. Attorney or his office since Gonzales took office, for that matter, since Ashcroft. Every single case in any U.S. Attorney’s office that has any political undertones (Democrat) has a cloud over it. Guilty or innocent, the DOJ may have compromised 100’s of cases that are currently in the pike throughout this country.
CB wrote on March 13, 2007 9:55 AM:Wow. It's rough being a chief of staff for anyone in the Bush administration. They're the #1 fall guys for all the shady maneuvers around there.
West Ailsworth wrote on March 13, 2007 9:55 AM:"While this story is increasingly amazing to me, I can't help but get upset knowing that this story will never get traction beyond the beltway..."
It was a huge front page story in the Virginian-Pilot in Southeastern Virginia today.. this is getting serious national coverage
Englischlehrer wrote on March 13, 2007 9:57 AM:Do we have enough proof that these firings were political? If so, that should be enough to begin formal impeachment proceedings against Speedy Gonzales. He said that they were under no circumstances political firings...
JF / Philly wrote on March 13, 2007 9:57 AM:Here would be an interesting exercise (perhaps one that Rove and Co. already did) for someone to do:
Take all 93 USAs and plot individual statistics around inictments / convictions of government officials by political party. Does the evidence bear out that the 8 fired USAs fit the mold that is being alleged?
If someone has already done this, could someone post a link to the results?
Ron Byers wrote on March 13, 2007 9:59 AM:Can you imagine the damage done this morning by the report that Miers wanted to fire all the US Attorneys but was stopped by Gonzales, not because he was being loyal to his USAs, but because he thought it was impractical. I doubt if Gonzales lasts a week. Maybe not even a day. How the hell could he ever look any of the USAs in the eye ever again.
Oh, note that David Iglesias wasn't on the hit list until sometime late last fall.
quinn wrote on March 13, 2007 10:00 AM:The other belief I get out of this is who is truly behind it.
These actions have Rove's fingerprints all over it. If there was one person in that administration who would think of using USAs to investigate voter fraud against Democrats to contest every last vote, it's Rove.
Nell wrote on March 13, 2007 10:02 AM:JF, I think weary cynicism is not the right take on this. Gonzales has lied to Congress to cover up the U.S. Attorney purge-for-political-reasons he's overseen. This is going to be the end for him.
And Carol Lam needs to be put right back into her San Diego job with a ringing vote of confidence from Gonzales' replacement at Justice.
Who replaced U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang, who resigned in November and in January went to work for the law firm defending Jerry Lewis?
lutton wrote on March 13, 2007 10:03 AM:I'd also add to this timeline, perhaps as a post script: Jan 4, 2007: Harriet Miers Resigns As White House Counsel
Maybe she knew that this process had tainted too many people beyond repair, including herself, and got while the gettin' was still good.
I recall their being some curiousness as to the 'real' reason she was stepping down at that time...
Myra wrote on March 13, 2007 10:04 AM:FORGET IMPEACHMENT.
REMOVAL is what we want. Cheney will resign within 10 days - probably sooner. It's all Cheney's fault, of course. The investigations & hearings have done their job.
Within days, one of the Leaders will knock himself out. Impeachment accomplishes nothing. Removal afterwards is only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate (67 votes!) Where would we get them? THINK.
Barbara wrote on March 13, 2007 10:11 AM:I totally agree. I don't "listen" to any media except NPR and NY Times and I'm often appalled at NPR's willingness to quote the Republican spin without pointing out that it is totally and provably spin and not true.
sholom wrote on March 13, 2007 10:15 AM:In answer to Nell above, who asked about the timeline regarding the fact that the newly resigned Kyle Sampson was the WH pick for US Attorney in Utah. There is a good story with timeline in today's NY Times about that http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13sampson.html
It's be interesting to merge that timeline with Spector's PATRIOT insertion and the TPM timeline in this post to see if there are interesting overlaps, etc.
JF / Philly wrote on March 13, 2007 10:16 AM:Ron: Good point on Gonzales's rep amonst his USA's...there must be pretty low morale amongst the USA corps and Gonzales these days (also the FBI after the Patriot Act abuse stories also hit)
Myra / Nell: Have we been watching the same Administration for the last 6 years? I would love nothing more than to see Bush et al gone tomorrow. But this isn't the first major scandal to hit this administration and much larger scandals have only resulted in...Libby convicted...and that only resulted in a backlash against Fitzgerald...Libby will most likely be pardoned...
Keep pushing all of the corruption though...it's out there and deserves to be publicized...and while I would not get my hopes up for impeachment, etc...it will result in a whole generation of voters associating the Republican / Conservative movement with corruption...which will result in a more liberal governing body for a longer period...that's the prize in all of this..
SteveW wrote on March 13, 2007 10:22 AM:It's unclear whether Sampson will be made available to congressional investigators now that he's resigned.
What ever happened to subpoenas? Subpoena people. Then they must either answer questions or assert a privilege (such as 5th Amendment, attorney-client, executive privilege). Recently, Congress has let people refuse to answer questions without asserting a privilege.
nffcnnr wrote on March 13, 2007 10:25 AM:I can't wait to see these crooks raise their right hand and give their sworn testimony on all this. Lots of lights, lots of cameras, lots of sweat beading on their foreheads as they are called to account for this abuse of power. Thank you 2006 voters for a Democratic Congress. And great thanks to TPM for keeping us posted! And BTW, what is the official "-gate" name for this scandal? i think i saw "8-gate" somewhere. Maybe "Gonzo-gate"?
KG wrote on March 13, 2007 10:28 AM:I think Harriet Mier's early involvement is very curious. She's always been a Bush player, but I find it difficult to believe she'd conceive of this move alone. Who was pushing her - and to accomplish what - for her to initially suggest removing all USAs? And she first floated the idea a month after Bush was sworn in for his second term?
The oddest thing about this timeline is that it doesn't show Rove at all until a year and a half after Miers first proposed axing all 93 USAs. I find it difficult to believe that he just "learned" of it then. More smoke...
Kynn wrote on March 13, 2007 10:29 AM:Don't forget that in the middle of all this, Miers gets nominated to Sandra Day O'Connor's SCOTUS seat. (Oct 2005)
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 10:30 AM:See it for what it is. The Administration realized in 2000 with Bush v. Gore that if you had enough legal firepower, insider complicity and the gall to put the screws into full use, you win.
Plain and simple that's what we've got here -- on a different level.
BerkshreHideaway wrote on March 13, 2007 10:31 AM:It would be good to augmet this excellent timeline by bringing it up today and including key elements of the cover-up, such as Gonzalas' testimony before congress.
Thanks for the great muck-raking!
Blue Tooth wrote on March 13, 2007 10:41 AM:Just as important as the firing of less than totally compliant USA's are two other factors:
1. Who is replacing these fired USAs?
2. What is the behavior of the other USAs who are politically obedient?
Tim Griffin (Bud Cummin's replacement) is particularly odious since he has been implicated in Republican Party caging activities to disqualify Democratic voters prior to the 2004 election. Caging is a Federal felony and the Republican Party already pleaded guilty to this once and signed a cease and desist decree. So, they are appointing a felon to be a US Attorney.
The pattern of prosecution of voting fraud and political abuses amongst these USAs reveal a very strong bias again Democrats (by about 7 to 1).
Englischlehrer wrote on March 13, 2007 10:47 AM:Removal from office is ideal but we must follow the actions available to us by the Constitution, the real Constitution, not the one that Gonzo's been playing with.
What if the Republicans filibuster the impeachment? That's what we want, just like the vote on Iraq, getting Republicans on the record for how they vote on some important issues. The next two years could actually kill the Republican party and the core of the "good" conservatives might give it another name and start up again.
P J Evans wrote on March 13, 2007 10:48 AM:Rove is in this up to his ears. Cheney maybe, Shrub maybe. Rove violated his security clearances, too, and should have been fired long ago.
Gonzales: impeachment ASAP. This isn't the first time he lied to Congress.
Rick B wrote on March 13, 2007 10:50 AM:In the ranking of all 93 US attorneys, I want to know who the ones at the top were, and what they did to get there.
That's the real scandal behind this whole thing. The US attorneys are being politicized in the way they investigate, bring cases, and in the timings of things like information releases and spedific filing of charges.
How would we be able to isolate the top tier of us attorneys, and is it possible to find out the number of state and local cases they acted on, broken down by party of the people charged?
harpodog wrote on March 13, 2007 10:52 AM:The Gonzales 8 are not the only USA victims. For instance, there is also the highly unusual replacement that occurred in Minnesota in February 2006 of the highly respected and successful AG, Thomas B. Heffelfinger, with a 32 year old Gonzales crony, e.g., "The Curious Case of Rachel Palouse". http://www.tpt.org/aatc/aggregator/sources/9
jeffgee wrote on March 13, 2007 10:58 AM:This is yet another case that needs to be investigated. How likely is it do you think that Thomas B. Heffelfinger's name also is on the original Miers' hit list? And how many more earlier unusual USA replacements occurred?
I'd say the most important firing was of Carol Lam since she prosecuted Duke Cunningham (R, Corruption). Her dismissal looked more like vengeance for sending the Duke to stir than the performance issues claimed by AG AG. His was a criminal case; the other USAs' dimissals were for insufficient political loyalty during election seasons. Not good either, but not on the level of Duke's crimes. If Lam had prosecuted a Democrat, she would still have her job.
C92 wrote on March 13, 2007 11:03 AM:All of the firings are suspect and any time Rove is involved, political revenge is obvious.
It's beyond ironic that the reason given for firing the USAs were that they weren't prosecuting what the Rove said were vote fraud cases. The prosecutors refused to investigate because there was no evidence. For their diligence, they were dismissed and replaced with Bush loyalists. Standard operating procedure in Mayberry. John DiIulio said it best in 2003: "What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."
Does that make Gonzales Barney Fife?
Usually, document dumps happen on late Friday afternoons to avoid weekday media scrutiny. This time the shit hit the fan on Monday. This week will be interesting.
The voter fraud claim is laughable.
Remember it was Karl Rove himself who seems to have committed voter fraud in voting in Texas elections when he was really a DC resident.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=791
The case against him was dismissed because the DC bureaucracy asked Karl for a copy of his signed "DC homestead" declaration. Conveniently, Karl couldn't find it.
KY3 Democrat wrote on March 13, 2007 11:11 AM:I think Leta has it about right: we cannot view *any* political investigation or prosecution since 2001, by *any* USA appointed under Bush, as anything other than TAINTED.
Here's what we do: stand down all 93 USA offices; subpoena every case file, complaint, phone call, and investigatory note related to political malfeasance. Look for patterns of corruption and influence. Find out who was prosecuted on scant evidence, and who was *not* prosecuted on strong evidence. Find out who called whom, when, and why. Then, indict and try every son of a bitch we catch.
It's not just 8, its 93. It's not just since last fall, it's since 2001. It's not just about Domenici and Wilson and Hastings, but probably about lots of other members of Congress.
KY3 Democrat: "It's not too late to investigate Ann Northup, either"
TheraP wrote on March 13, 2007 11:14 AM:I feel like - if I really let go of all my outrage, my blood pressure would boil, and I would have a heart attack.
So I am hanging onto my calm, but not my peace of mind.
These folks will not go quietly into the night. And my greatest fear is the gullibility of so many voters and the ability of rove and his ilk to play on that gullibility.
It's psychological warfare we're engaged in here.
But just as in Iraq all the kings' men are no match for the hoards of Iraqis putting their heads together, I hope that the netroots can accomplish a pull-back from the brink of fascism, to which this administration has brought us.
THANK YOU TPM'ERS FOR YOUR VIGILANCE!!!
My security word is "seed" and let us be the seeds of new growth for our republic.
kis wrote on March 13, 2007 11:14 AM:As horrible as it is, the real crime here is firing Lam to obstruct her investigation. Everything else is just window dressing. How long has Lam been working on the Cunningham case? 2005?
TheraP wrote on March 13, 2007 11:19 AM:I can't resist this further comment to my comment above.
There is a huge ad after the post reading:
HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE? lower your blood pressure.... etc.
Gave me a chuckle!
PacificCoaster wrote on March 13, 2007 11:21 AM:Questions: Is all a person has to do to keep from testifying before Congress is resign?? Does it take a special investigation to force everyone involved to testify?? Are you buying that Harriet Meyers is the brains behind this?? And isn't the deal that every president appoints their own 93 USA's? Did Bush leave Clinton's in place???
Crumit wrote on March 13, 2007 11:24 AM:That darn Harriet! We'll need to get rid of her--oh wait. Phew! And now that Sampson's gone, too, that will be that. Nina Totenberg can move on.
AJ wrote on March 13, 2007 11:24 AM:The PATRIOT Act MUST be repealed, in it's entirety, and then used as an example to be taught to children in grade school of a time when America went bad, and was overtaken by evil people, and how the citizens eventually rose up and took their country back...
The PATRIOT Act MUST be killed. End of story.
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 11:27 AM:scooter lies--it's not a crime.
abu Gonz lies--it's not a crime.
mcnulty lies--it's ditto.
moschella lies--it's ditto.
anyone see a pattern here. these folks don't believe they owe anyone--not the judiciary, not congress the truth. even under oath.
rockfish wrote on March 13, 2007 11:29 AM:I'd like to see this overlaid and tied to the findings of Shields and Cragan in their study of investigations into state and local politicians cases of corruption where 79% were Democrats. Also, if the original beef was lack of vigorous investigation into voter fraud, what about all the stuff that went on in Ohio and Florida?
mbbsdphil wrote on March 13, 2007 11:29 AM:Surely, Congress can simply subpoena Mr. Sampson, whether or not he remains a Justice Dept employee, though I imagine Justice could still block his testimony by asserting his employer's right of confidentiality and "executive privilege".
This has all the characteristics of a classic "Let's do it, but make it legal first (by corrupting the law)," Karl Rove Special.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 13, 2007 11:34 AM:Yeah. Sen. Specter was as "completely surprised" as Karl Rove. Pity, he didn't say it under oath.
Mr. Sampson must be more ambitious than he thought, falling on his sword so quickly just for being an efficient bureaucrat.
The casualties of Mr. Bush's wars are not all in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Disputo wrote on March 13, 2007 11:41 AM:I agree with the others above who suspect that Rove is the prime mover behind all this. In fact, I suspect that the purpose of the Monday info dump was to implicate Miers in order to shield Rove -- akin to what happened with Libby during the Plame probe.
Speaking of the Plame probe, has anyone considered that the reason it was initially suggested to fire all 93 USAttys was in order to get rid of Fitzgerald? I don't expect that that would have automatically removed him from the Plame probe, but by losing his job as USAtty for Northern IL could have been then use as a pretex for removing him from the probe.
mbbsdphil wrote on March 13, 2007 11:47 AM:There is nothing illegal or impeachable about the president's removal of a US Attorney. It may make him politically vulnerable; it won't be enough to remove him from office or prosecute him.
There has to be a crime. A vague, "Karl's corrupting the system of justice" is attractive, and correct, but it won't do.
Each crime, obstruction of justice or perjury, for example, has specific elements, each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A Special Prosecutor would have a heckuva time. There may soon be enough smoke for Congress to appoint one.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 13, 2007 11:51 AM:I agree wiith KG about Harriest Miers . . . Bumping all 93 in one shot sounds like the let them eat cake attitude of Comander Codpiece rather than the mousy Miers (not to say she ain't scum).
Is this a round of throw the first rat off the ship to the wolves?
Are we to believe that the Troll Doll that woulda been queen resigned cuz the Chimp-in-Charge was boinking the piano playing ice skater cuz his wife is living in a hotel as the tabloid news would have us beleive?
Is Ms Miers prepping her passport to leave for Dubai?
Is Harriest bearding for Mad-dog Rove(r) after the fact?
What does she know and why did she quit?
C92 wrote on March 13, 2007 12:03 PM:Let's revisit this one more time.
The Patriot provision was slipped in by Spector's staff.
At the time, today's US Attorney for Utah Brett Tollman was the guy that got the provision in.
At the same time, Tolman was competing against Gonzales' Chief of Staff (now resigned) Kyle Sampson for the US Attorney job in Utah.
Press reports play Sampson as the White House's choice - and Tolman as Spectors', Hatch's, Frist's, McConnells' and DeWine's choice.
The Patriot provision got in.
And Tolman (36 years old) got the US Attorney job.
Does anyone else smell something here?
Anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 12:12 PM:To expand upon above. Spector/Hatch et al triumphed to get their guy appointed to the US Attorney job to Utah -- over Gonzales' Chief of Staff (the White House choice). A deal must've been struck -- maybe if Tolman were to get the provision in, the White House would reward him? There's too many important Senators wrapped around him not to investigate.
(from http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640196822,00.html)
In 2003, his (Tolman's) work caught the attention of U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who at the time was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Later Sen. Arlen Specter, R- Penn., who took over as judiciary chairman, brought Tolman aboard. For several years, Tolman helped the two senators gain support for the renewal of the Patriot Act, legislation that drew criticism from lawmakers and citizens alike for concerns about the constitutional rights of Americans.
"The Patriot Act is one of the most misunderstood laws on the books," Tolman said, adding he recognized a need for checks and balances regarding citizen rights. However, Tolman said he felt the law was vilified by some. "The Patriot Act became the embodiment of the fear of the unknown."
And here's the article saying Tolman was Hatch's el al choice:
Nell wrote on March 13, 2007 12:45 PM:http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_049180925.html
Here are questions that a reporter (or, better, someone with subpoena power) need to get answered ASAP:
December 8, 2005: Patriot Act reauthorization conference report released. House approves it December 14.
What was the date of former Utah U.S. Attorney Warner's lunch with Kyle Sampson, where Sampson said he wanted that job?
January ___, 2006: Warner submitted his resignation. (Hatch did tribute to him on Senate floor January 25).
January 2006: Hatch lets WH know he prefers Tolman for the job.
? December 2005-March 1 2006: Tolman brings revision to Patriot Act to Specter's chief counsel.
March 2, 2006: Senate approves Patriot Act reauthorization.
Did House and Senate approve different versions of the reauthorization? If so, is that legal?
Did Specter agree to look the other way as the revision was made, in order to get Tolman the job?
Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 13, 2007 12:49 PM:Is anyone else having Bastille Day dreams?
treebark wrote on March 13, 2007 12:52 PM:The Bush Administration NEEDS this little item "slipped" into the patriot act But Spector Knows nothing about it. He's my senator and I absolutely don't believe him.
C92 wrote on March 13, 2007 12:57 PM:Nell, Treebark
Spector really seems like he might be in "cahoots" or conspiracy with the White House on the provision.
He got the legislation done.
And his staffer got rewarded with the office.
And keep in mind, it wasn't just Spector behind Tolman -- it was also Frist, McConnell, Hatch and DeWine. The big guns.
According to this article:
Ariadne wrote on March 13, 2007 1:00 PM:http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_049180925.html
I think that after the 2006 elections, the WH decided to move on, and fast track the firing of the USA's. Imagine what all of those unapproved USA's could do, say, in Oct. 2008 - they could Menendez the democratic candidates, and hopefully enough dirt would stick to influence election results. To say nothing of purging the voter rolls in order "to prevent voter fraud."
Disputo wrote on March 13, 2007 1:02 PM:Did House and Senate approve different versions of the reauthorization? If so, is that legal?
The provision was placed in during the conference committee (which resolved discrepancies between the H and S versions).
Nell wrote on March 13, 2007 1:21 PM:@Disputo: That makes more legal sense to me, but is not the impression I get from having followed the TPM narrative on this. In conference, or after, I'd very much like to know the exact date that the revision was made to the bill.
If the provision did sit there for almost three months and no Senate staffer spotted it, then I weep for our democracy. Given the history of how this regime has worked, given that the PATRIOT Act I was abused from the moment it became law, there should have been closer-than-close scrutiny.
Pol Richard wrote on March 13, 2007 1:44 PM:They needed Lam out because of where, and to whom, her investigations would lead. The rest is smokescreen. Can't fire her alone--that would be too obvious. Can't fire them all, that wouldn't have flied politically. So fire a few more, just enough so that it hides the obvious firing of Lam, and conveniently gets rid of other USAs that were only somewhat troublesome.
This news is falling on a Monday because they want to get it moved completely out by this Friday. Watch--Gonzales will either resign or completely blame it on Kyle Sampson. By the end of the week no more news, spin is that they've solved the problem and it is time for everyone to move along.
Mark F. wrote on March 13, 2007 2:21 PM:Clearly the insertion by Specter's office of the provision to bypass confirmation is an essential part of the plot. And I'm not buying for a second that Specter wasn't aware of what was going on. Specter's part of this.
Linda wrote on March 13, 2007 5:07 PM:You people are nuts. It's politics, yes. Politics is not a crime. So, silince your political oppenents by making them all criminals, regardless of what the law says. Sounds like you are the jack-botted thugs.
MDC wrote on March 13, 2007 5:35 PM:I agree with Linda... the 'crime' here is a little hazy to me. USAs serve 'at the pleasure of the President.' Bill Clinton swept out all 93 USAs. It seems fair to call it 'mean,' or 'political' or however you want to spin it, but 'illegal' seems inappropriate and unwarranted. Is it any wonder that VP Cheney has to suppress his urges to roll his eyes and say something condescending? It's like working with children!
centavo wrote on March 13, 2007 6:02 PM:To Linda and MDC,
Does the concept "obstruction of justice" mean anything to you?
centavo
Ariadne wrote on March 13, 2007 6:32 PM:Two points: 1) If there was nothing suspicious about firing the USA's for political reasons, why lie about the reasons for firing them? 2) It's putting in place USA's with no need for Senate approval that is raising red flags.
Pol Richard wrote on March 13, 2007 7:43 PM:Linda and MDC,
Do the "shoe on the other foot" test:
Let's say that during the Clinton administration, a USA had been investigating bribery and corruption of several Democratic congressmen, and doing a pretty successful job by all indications, and this USA was getting further and further in their investigations to even more Dems. Let's say Dems controlled the Congress and inserted a provision (well, apparently let a staff person insert a provision!) ducking previous oversight the Senate used to have. Then the Dems lost Congress to the Reps. Let's say at that point the USA (and others) had been dismissed for political reasons, and that Clinton's gang excuses were as over the map as the current administration's excuses are.
In the exact case, switching Reps for Dems, Republicans would be up in arms over this. You'd hear in on Rush, Hannity, Fox, Novak, etc. They'd be screaming about it.
Dems need to scream louder, and more to the point. The Republicans have so far succeeeded in making the issue one of manners or timing. Nobody really seems to be talking about the firing of Lamm and how that brings to a sudden stop her wide-ranging and successful prosecution of Congressional corruption. This is the issue the Democrats should be screaming about, and they should be on every single talk show talking about Lamm and her prematurely halted prosecution.
anonymous wrote on March 13, 2007 7:57 PM:I think this story may have legs beyond the Beltway.
In my small town, my (Republican) family lawyer, who is an old-fashioned, small government Republican, finished a conversation about this story with me by miming beating his head against the wall, and saying "They're insane down there." They already lost him over Iraq, and now...
Anyhow, if this kind of conversation is going on in the local power structure of every small town in America -- and almost by definition, the lawyers are part of that structure -- then the effects of this story are going to be tectonic.
Anonymous wrote on March 14, 2007 12:03 AM:
jack moss wrote on March 14, 2007 12:25 AM:Watergate had a lot less legs than this for two years. Just b/c much of America isn't paying attention yet, doesn't mean they don't get pissed when they find out that people were fired for doing their job and that the firers (the president and attorney general) then lied about it.
Says it all...http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/03/13/slow-talk-for-the-ignorant-and-unwilling/
In case you don’t know, the “Lefty Logic” is: Bush is evil = Therefore everything Bush does is evil = something is inherently wrong in Bush doing (on a far lesser scale than his predecessor) what others have done.
Now on the fired US attorney let’s review what is fact.
Let’s say that Bush didn’t like Carol Lam - thought she smelled funny, whatever. The fact is that she served at the will of the President and therefore he may let her go at will. He doesn’t need a reason.
It could be the weather.
It could be moon phases, you know, a mood swing.
It even could be that he wanted to clean the house he should have cleaned back in 2004.
Whatever it was for Lam and the others - and it could even be because Republicans were unhappy with their performance - he had the legal right and authority to show them the door.
Simple enough?
Of course not. This is why I normally assign the psychological term “psychosis” to the Logic of the Left because it so applies those who truly can no longer determine reality.
Psychosis is defined as:
“Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren’t there).”
MDC wrote on March 15, 2007 12:55 AM:To Centavo: My understanding, based on, say, the purge of USAs when President Clinton took over and coincidentally fired the Attorney that was digging into Whitewater, that the Assistant USA remains on the job (and he's not a political appointee)... so I suspect that if a case for obstruction of justice would hold water, I think it would have cropped up back then. Since it didn't, then I suspect that charge sounds good but doesn't have the legs to go forward.
To Pol Richard,
Along the same lines, I think there WAS some hue and cry at the time, but, seeing as USAs serve at the pleasure and all that, it would have just been whiney, petty and small to continue once displeasure was registered... So, shoe being on the other foot, we should probably fall back the law rather than public rants, calls for resignation, and hystrionics. But that's just me... it might work for some folks.
Perhaps there's more to it, but one would think that there would be more than just this posturing for the cameras if there was. Basically, as far as I can tell, this 'scandal' is just a bunch of people expressing thier unhappiness, NOT actual indictments. This has been percolating for months and nothing actionable has come out, and I doubt that's for a lack of trying.
This whole affair strikes me rather like Kerry's response to our invading Iraq: "sure we voted to allow him to invade Iraq... but we didn't expect him to actually do it!" I again refer to Cheney's sad head shaking.
Kiki wrote on April 23, 2007 12:36 PM:test
jenny@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 1:51 PM:how do i make my penis bigger
clar@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:41 PM:hello
rose@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:23 AM:hello
sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 1:42 PM:hello
kate@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 2:44 AM:hello
gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 3:02 PM:buy cialis
green@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 4:30 AM:hello
michael@aol.com wrote on May 23, 2007 11:09 AM:free viagra