TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo

Today's Must Read

By Paul Kiel - March 19, 2007, 8:47AM

It's becoming one of the central rules of the U.S. attorney purge scandal: whatever "performance related" complaint the administration claims as the justification for a U.S. attorney's firing, it's actually an area of performance for which that U.S. attorney was lauded.

In this instance, the White House has said that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico was removed in part due to his handling of voter fraud complaints. That's backed up by the numerous instances of powerful New Mexico Republicans (including Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)) complaining to Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and President Bush about Iglesias' decision not to prosecute certain cases of voter fraud.

What does this mean? It means that Iglesias must have been lauded by the Justice Department for his handling of voter fraud cases. And not just lauded -- but cited as an example for U.S. attorneys across the country. From The Washington Post:

One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.
David C. Iglesias, who was dismissed as U.S. attorney for New Mexico in December, was one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a "voting integrity symposium" in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed.

Iglesias, a Republican, said in an interview that he and the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee, Steven M. Biskupic, were chosen as trainers because they were the only ones identified as having created task forces to examine allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 elections. An agenda lists them as the panelists for a session on such task forces at the two-day seminar, which featured a luncheon speech by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

According to Iglesias, the agency invited him back as a trainer last summer, just months before a Justice official telephoned to fire him. He said he could not attend the second time because of his obligations as an officer in the Navy Reserve.

There are, of course, other instances of this rule.

Justice Department official William Moschella told Congress that U.S. Attorney John McKay of Seattle was fired because of he'd been too aggressively pushing his office's regional law enforcement information-sharing program. But McKay pointed out during the hearing that the DoJ had actually made his system the DoJ's pilot project and chosen McKay to lead the U.S. attorneys' work on the issue.

Similarly, San Diego's Carol Lam was supposedly fired because of her office's failure to prosecute immigration cases. But it turns out that the Justice Department vouched for Lam's handling of such cases just three months before she was fired, citing, for instance, the fact that half of her staff was devoted to prosecuting such crimes.

One of the more remarkable aspects of this story, indeed, is the fact that the Justice Department chose a small group of the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country and then tried to portray them as incompetent. As you can see, it's been a losing effort. And in every case where the cover story has been blown, it's revealed political motivations for the firing.

Note: The whole voter fraud thing is actually the second line floated as the reason for Iglesias' firing. The first (what might be called the cover story's cover story) was that there had been a failure of leadership in his office. Iglesias, Moschella announced to the Congress, had often "delegated to his first assistant the running of the office." What Moschella did not mention is that Iglesias is a Navy Reserve officer, which means that he's required to serve 40 days during the year -- something, of course, that the Justice Department knew full well when they gave him the job.

Comments (409)

carole wrote on March 19, 2007 8:58 AM:

Paul, Just in case you took the weekend off (deservedly), the Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials database was updated by the authors on 3/17.

http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

wvng wrote on March 19, 2007 8:59 AM:

Classic Rove strategy. Attack your enemies strength. Amazingly, when people (and the news) actually pay attention it doesn't work.

Kathleen wrote on March 19, 2007 9:00 AM:

I suppose none of us is surprised that the Bush Administration's level of incompetence extends to their corruption. Maybe a few of their various undertakings will be tied together into a joint case study for the Harvard Business School and the Kennedy School of Government.

Congratulations to everyone in the TPM family for all the praise and credit heaped upon you.

db wrote on March 19, 2007 9:03 AM:

Arlen Spector where are you? Hiding under your desk, no doubt. Hoping no one will notice your silence on the AG and the entire scandal. Hoping no one will ask how, it is that while you were chairman of the judiciary committee, you made this whole USA purge plan possible by secretly slipping in that change in the PA reautorrization law, the one that by-passed senate confirmation for interim USAs.

Arlen Spector, you have a lot to answer for.

SteinL wrote on March 19, 2007 9:09 AM:

A day in the White House, after November 7.

Bush meets with yet another irate Republican who is upset about the State USA remaining unwilling to make up charges against a Dem winner of a seat.
President blows off steam after the nth visit - "won't someone rid me of these offending USAs? Or else, bring me the head of Alberto Gonzales."

Mark it down as another absolute misuse of power by the people who brought you the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century.

CocoaLove wrote on March 19, 2007 9:11 AM:

This is absolutely fascinating reading about the USA purge and the machinations of Karl Rove as the likely catalyst. When you have real Congressional oversight plus a New Media that digs for the truth and ignores the spin, we the people get to see the real workings over the last three years of the in-Justice Department.

Thank you, TPM and TPMmuckraker for giving me faith once again in media. This is long overdue.

nobody wrote on March 19, 2007 9:11 AM:

Rove should be taken to Gitmo and water-boarded repeatedly for 20 minutes at a time just because he claims to be a member of the human race.

douglas wrote on March 19, 2007 9:16 AM:

And isn't it amazing that the NY Times, in its FRONT PAGE article yesterday, that basically regurgated GOP talking points until about the 15th or so graf, didn't bother to find out about this little nugget.

Englischlehrer wrote on March 19, 2007 9:18 AM:

Man, it's a Monday and I don't have to work, 2:11pm in SW Germany, listening to old Howard Stern shows and thinking how lucky I am to live in an age where I can keep abreast of the most incompetent of administration bungling that is actually just trying to juggle a lot of things at one time, trying to remember all the lies and suppositions that form the basis of their most earnest answers.

I have now become convinced that blogs have become a major force in American journalism and it's going to become up to 25% of my American Newspapers class I teach here in Germany. I would love some advice on maybe 5-7 blogs ranging from most liberal to most conservative and I could have groups of students following a certain scandal or story from these different blogs and then put them in groups to try and discuss the issue with where they got their information. Any ideas?

Also, we need to shed more light on:

*Did Speedy Gonzales try and stop an illegal investigation (warrantless wiretapping) when it looked like he might be part of the inquiry by asking Bush to make the security clearance out of reach for reporters looking for information?
*We need to know more about ALL the USAs, with a short profile of each and also a "batting stats" of things like:
ratio of dem v. rep investigations (higher than 7:1 might become possible)
number of convictions for each major crime, including voter fraud, especially in florida and ohio

things like that and we or rather TPM could make THEIR OWN SCALE of the 93 attorneys to see how you would rank them all and it could put this thing in a completely new light, showing how there is a huge tumor on our justice system's spine of partisanship in justice.

gonzone wrote on March 19, 2007 9:18 AM:

I thought the "you can tell theye're lying because theri lips are moving" wdas meant as a joke but obviously, for this White House, it is a literal.

justintime wrote on March 19, 2007 9:19 AM:

Demand the Bush/Rove/Gonzales stooges step down.
Let's put Iglesias and the other fired prosecutors back on the job.
And give them all a raise.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 9:19 AM:

The epitome of corrupt politics. The Bush administration makes clear to the remaining prosecutors precisely the kind of objective law enforcement that threatens its interests - while reassuring its sponsors that it knows how to clean house.

Mr. Bush promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House. In fact, The Man Who Would Never Be His Father disinterred Boss Tweed, cloned him, and made him his political adviser and Vice President.

gonzone wrote on March 19, 2007 9:20 AM:

aarg!
wdas = was
theri = their
darn keyboard! :-)

Rich wrote on March 19, 2007 9:21 AM:

It would seem that every member of the Bush Administration is as familiar with the "internets" as a research tool as George W. Bush. How else can one explain their failure to understand that Lexis Nexis and Google searches could dismantle every argument that they have attempted to put forth?

bp wrote on March 19, 2007 9:23 AM:

Karl Rove spoke about a President's ability to fire US Attorneys and cited Clinton's actions in having Janet Reno get the whole lot to resign after taking office in 1993. He neatly avoided saying that Presidents do that when first taking office. Then he went on TV and repeated this blather.

Question: if Rove can opine on this in public why can't he do the same before a Senate committee? Didn't he shed his privilege? Can someone help? Thanks.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 9:27 AM:

Has anyone bothered to notice that the only person we have saying that Iglesias's selection to train AUSAs on voter fraud is Iglesias, himself. As an attorney I can attest to the fact that it's often among the least qualified attorneys who get stuck running training for other attorneys. The training sessions, in themselves, show nothing. Or, at least, nothing positive for Iglesias.

I say this as someone who thinks that Gonzales never should have been confirmed as AG both because he lacks the competence for the job and the independence.

B W wrote on March 19, 2007 9:30 AM:

The NYT smacks down the voter fraud angle big time.

NYT: Phony Fraud Charges
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/opinion/16fri1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

And this article is even better:

Election fraud, my foot
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=22125

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 9:33 AM:

There's so much here to tease apart.

A. Iglesias is criticized for delegating authority: Wait a minute, I thought that is exactly what bush is claiming - he delegated to gonzales. And gonzales is claiming he delegated to Sampson. I think this argument is like a draw in chess.

B. Now Iglesias is charged with not doing what he's an expert at doing. Guess he should have ignored all his own rules, huh? Too bad this administration ignores all the experts!

C. McKay is charged with trying to get law inforcement to share information. Isn't that exactly what was wrong before 9/11 - that information was not shared and thus we were at risk?

D. But on the other hand, if you take their charge against McKay (that information should not be shared), then how come they are using the lack of information-sharing as an excuse for why testimony to Congress was not accurate?

Just use their arguments against them! Whatever they claim, it seems to be a hidden way of actually exposing themselves.

These people are seriously off their game. The game is up. The evidence is everywhere to be seen. And what we're not seeing is obviously full of more evidence.

It's everybody to the life boats and nobody's in charge!

eCAHNomics wrote on March 19, 2007 9:33 AM:

Classic Rove strategy. Attack your enemies strength. Amazingly, when people (and the news) actually pay attention it doesn't work.

Posted by: wvng
Date: March 19, 2007 08:59 AM

Beat me to it. But it bears repeating.

paul lukasiak wrote on March 19, 2007 9:37 AM:

David Lyon wrote

Has anyone bothered to notice that the only person we have saying that Iglesias's selection to train AUSAs on voter fraud is Iglesias, himself. As an attorney...

Since when did Troll University start giving out law degrees?

No one bothered to notice because its not true... the Post article states that the DoJ confirms Iglesias's account:

"The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country, according to an account by Iglesias that a department spokesman confirmed."

lynn erb wrote on March 19, 2007 9:42 AM:

Appearing on This Week on Sunday, Sen. John Sununu said that Gonzales should resign because he can no longer be an "effective advocate" for the President. Since when is this the role of ehe AG?

yellojkt wrote on March 19, 2007 9:48 AM:

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post gives TPM Muckraker a lot of credit for keeping this story on simmer until it gained traction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/18/AR2007031801722.html

I hope this is the final straw that will make Torqueberto Gonzales decide to spend more time with the family. He has been destroying our system of justice from the inside for too long now.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 9:50 AM:

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove is a voracious reader. Problem is, when he reads Kafka, he is not appalled, he is looking for good ideas.

The growing USA scandal reminds me of a cat at a mousehole, or Joe Stalin. Stalin was famous for periodic bouts of liberality. He encouraged new leaders to come out of hiding and try their ideas. Desperate to realize their dreams and build a new Russia, they did. Having once identiified them, Stalin crushed them. People forgot, or were too afraid to remember, and he would do it again.

Mr. Rove is not the moral equivalent of Joe Stalin. Nor of Goebbels or Mao. He studies their methods of gelding their enemies. His tools are different, the punishment he metes out more restrained, but his goals are the same.

Englischlehrer wrote on March 19, 2007 9:52 AM:

when is the Bush press conference today, if any?

bob wrote on March 19, 2007 9:56 AM:

BP,

Rove has no privelege. Executive privelege, according to a 8-0 SCOTUS decision in the Nixon case, applies only to the POTUS and VP, and only on matters of diplomacy nad military concern.

Rove is a political rat that has no real constitutional protection.

BD wrote on March 19, 2007 9:58 AM:

Iglesias was canned for a "failure of leadership in his office. Iglesias, Moschella announced to the Congress, had often "delegated to his first assistant the running of the office." That's exactly Gonzalez's excuse for this fiasco happening - Sampson was running this whole thing, not Gonzalez. If they dumped Iglesias for this why shouldn't Gonzalez be fired for the exact same failure of leadership?

Decatur Dem wrote on March 19, 2007 9:58 AM:

David P. Lyons at 9:27 AM:
"Has anyone bothered to notice that the only person we have saying that Iglesias's selection to train AUSAs on voter fraud is Iglesias, himself. As an attorney I can attest to the fact that it's often among the least qualified attorneys who get stuck running training for other attorneys."

I hope your legal writing is clearer than your blogging.

(code word: expert)

horatio wrote on March 19, 2007 10:01 AM:

We all owe TPM a debt of gratitude for nailing the bastards. The New York Times has continually avoided reporting on the real news behind what the Washington Press Corp(se) says is news. I have yet to read about the republican flunkie who slipped the change past Specter in the Patriot Act reauthorization process. That would be a real story, but after years of taking dictation from Ken Starr, Rove, and Libby the Grey Lady is off her game. Keep up your excellence.

ross wrote on March 19, 2007 10:02 AM:

One angle of this story that has been overlooked is that these positions are a grooming ground for nominating Supreme Court Justices and this is a window into how and who theBushies want to get into the supreme court, maybe they are anticipating another opening soon? This could be the reason to get Karl's buddy in so quickly. Also I think this may be the reason none of these guys who were fired spoke up or made a fuss at first, because they were still somehow hoping their resume could lead to the supreme court.

Legalize wrote on March 19, 2007 10:03 AM:

I'm missing something entirely here. What is the benefit of citing one's strength as an alleged "deficiency," as a means of justifying one's removal as a USA? Why not look for any actual deficiency (I mean, we all have areas of lesser strength), and just cite that as the reason for the firing. It seems a lot easier to support that later on when questions arise. I mean, there's a paper trail of positive reviews following these USAs around.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 10:05 AM:

Mr. Rove no longer wants effective USA's; he wants partisan tools.

Mr. Rove has less than two years before he leaves office. Now is the time to begin to disrupt the thousands of lawyers, investigators and staff who might investigate his administration's corrupt past. Take off the head, the attorney exemplars, and you demoralize, halt the steps, of those they lead, and the professional and civic community that relies on them for objective law enforcement.

Slash the tires before you abandon the car. Before new ones are mounted, and the owner catches up with you, the statutes of limitation may have run.

gjdodger wrote on March 19, 2007 10:07 AM:

crusading prosecutor...naval reserve officer...attractive, young minority...say, think there's any chance someone could talk iglesias into running against domenici in the primary? :)

FS wrote on March 19, 2007 10:10 AM:

Let me say it again. Attorney General Gonzales delegated his authority to Kyle Sampson, yet no one is saying he should be fired for that.

sm wrote on March 19, 2007 10:11 AM:

Maybe they have created such a deep smokescreen that they don't know the truth anymore, or what lies they've already used.

EasyRider wrote on March 19, 2007 10:14 AM:

"Executive privelege, according to a 8-0 SCOTUS decision in the Nixon case, applies only to the POTUS and VP, and only on matters of diplomacy and military concern."

Remember for this president and the GOP, "Up is Down."

They will fight and support to bitter end.

C92 wrote on March 19, 2007 10:17 AM:

Brett Tolman edged out the White House's pick (now fired, but still being paid, Kyle Sampson) for the US Attorney job in Utah.

You can't repeat that enough. Tolman edged out the White House's choice -- Kyle Sampson -- the guy that conspired with Harriet Myers and Karl Rove to fire US Attorneys who weren't loyal Bushies.

Again. Tolman edged out Alberto's guy. Bush's guy. For a position that Alberto and Bush had the sole authority to fill. Indefinitely.

So what wat the quid pro quo? What did Tolman do to get ahead of Sampson?

Did the White House know during the selection process (in March 2006) that Sampson had left an incriminating email chain about the attorney replacements? Was his being passed over for the job their punishment?

Did Tolman have something big on someone? Was he touched in a personal place by someone important?
Since Tolman was on Specter's staff at the time of the Patriot II debacle, was it Specter who got Tolman in his job? Was the job placement Specter's payback for doing the White House's bidding and getting Patriot II in there?

WHY IS BRETT TOLMAN SO IMPORTANT HERE? WHY WAS HE SO WELL TAKEN CARE OF? WHAT DID/DOES HE KNOW?

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 10:17 AM:

Legalize, for the same reason the Swift Boaters attacked John Kerry's war record.

Exemplars, by definition, often have few professional faults. Attacking their strengths is the most aggressive method of undermining them. It questions what they stand for, makes them defend what needs no defense.

Before it is even launched, it makes a counter-attack - aimed at the attacker's hypocrisy and lack of his opponent's strength - appear as if it were merely political payback. The resulting brawl plays to the strengths of the attacker.

It is very effective. Like casting Dracula as a blood donor.

Ron Byers wrote on March 19, 2007 10:19 AM:

The problem for the administration is that their cover story keeps changing. After the third iteration it has became impossible for anybody to listen to anything they say without laughing.

Alberto Gonzales and friends are not only liars, they are incompetent liars.

As to David Lyon's comment. This story was uncovered by turning every rock. Lyon has a point. He isn't a troll. We can't trust everything every Bush victim tells us. Our job is to get to the truth. If we don't we come off looking just as foolish as Alberto Gonzales. We have to verify.

In this case the DoJ has verified that Iglesias did conduct the course. Remember he was not on the list until after Domenici talked to Bush. That is very, very telling.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 19, 2007 10:19 AM:

Legalize, for the same reason the Swift Boaters attacked John Kerry's war record. Its illogic makes it very effective.

SeeDee wrote on March 19, 2007 10:33 AM:

gjdodger...By the next primary there is a chance, at least, that Domenici will be wearing a striped suit in some Federal gray-bar hotel...and maybe his cellmate will be Rove or Gonzalez or Foggo or Cunningham or Ney, or...the list is almost endless.

And maybe Domenici's N-Mexican cohort, Heather Wilson, will, likewise, be sittin' in some pokey in N. Mexico.

Rusty wrote on March 19, 2007 10:37 AM:

Did I just hear a Presidental "presser" announced on NPR? Diane Rhem has a good show about the firing of the USA's on.

CC wrote on March 19, 2007 10:38 AM:

I still think some folks are missing the bigger picture here:

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2007/03/your-white-house-press-corpse.html

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 10:41 AM:

One of Senator Domenici's four nominees to replace David Iglesias is Pat Rogers, a GOP operative.

According to the released emails, Monica Goodling, DOJ spokesperson, met with Pat Rogers and another New Mexico GOP bigshot, Mickey Barnett, in DC on June 21, 2006 to discuss a "sensitive" matter. J. Scott Jennings, Rove's assistant, was the one who asked Goodling to meet with the two men.

On March 10, Josh linked to a New York Times story about Iglesias in which Rogers was interviewed. Rogers told the NYT that he met with Iglesias in October 2006 and was "stunned" at his response to questions about corruption.

But Rogers did not tell the NYT that he and Barnett had already put the screws to Iglesias five months earlier. Nor did he mention that he was one of Domenici's nominees for the AG job. The emails, of course, had not been released yet.

Pat Rogers is a director of the American Center For Voting Rights Legislative Fund, a 501(c)(4), an affiliate of the American Center For Voting Rights. These purpose of these organizations is to promote voter suppression.

BTW, the Brad Blog has been doing an excellent job covering the American Center For Voting Rights and other voter-related issues.

David Iglesias obviously was set up by Domenici, Rogers and Barnett working in tandem. I wonder if Rove is supporting the Rogers nomination, too.

DallasNE wrote on March 19, 2007 10:42 AM:

It looks like Bush and company counted on having a rubber stamp Congress through 2008. How else can you explain this sudden carelessness with audit trail smoking guns.

It has been previously reported that Bush does not use e-mail just because of the audit trail issue. Some also use RNC e-mail accounts rather than the Whitehouse e-mail system for the really political stuff. It looks like the guidelines have technically not kept up with the technology.

oldtree wrote on March 19, 2007 10:47 AM:

We might want to stop using the "incompetent" label with regard to the administration's activities. They are completely planned and involve hundreds of people conspiring to obstruct justice.
there are numerous people within that are "incompetent, stupid, ignorant, sociopathic, etc.. but their designs are part of a plan that is very genuine, the removal of a democratic government and it's replacement with an authoritarian one under the control of those willing to spend money to own it.

we should not continue to call them "incompetent" as a group. my own opinion is to call them the "criminal conspiracy" and they have numerous incompetent appearing stooges.

luckily, some of them are so stupid and egocentric as to believe that their excrement has no odor. it has allowed prosecutors to unravel some of the crimes, even when the government withheld all evidence requested. (another necessary crime to protect their conspiracy)

Legalize wrote on March 19, 2007 10:55 AM:

I don't think the swiftboat analogy is applicable here. Kerry's military service wasn't "exemplary" and I don't think it was ever made out to be; it was appropriate, comendable, and honorable, but by no means the defining aspect of his career. Plus, the USAs to a person, have a long paper trail of praise being handed down by the very people who claimed to have fired them for "performance reasons."

This just seems like a very failed and ineffective tactic here (as we've seen by the litany of documents obtained by only cursory discovery) because a USAs' records are VERY public; they're all right there for all to read. All one has to do is actually read them.

I don't see anything remotely rising to the level of "evil genius" in this one. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that the sole source of Rove's "genius" was that no one bothered to ask questions before; if we shed even a little bit of light on anything he puts his hands on, the scheme collapses immediately.

The man is a punk, which is far from genius.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 10:56 AM:

Arlen Spector, you have a lot to answer for.

Posted by: db
Date: March 19, 2007 09:03 AM

Wild applause. Absolute agreement. Arlen is a rat's rat, hiding behind the skirts of his "renegade" staff who do dirty deeds and provide him with his plausible, (like hell), deniability. It's incredible the trouble he's caused and he just continues to operate like he had nothing to do with it all.

connski wrote on March 19, 2007 10:57 AM:

the administration has two meanings for "performance".
1. political performance - the political ends of prosecution -
the "pleasure" of the president and republican legislators and operatives.

2. professional juridical performance; following the standards of legal practice in the pursuance of doj objectives.

so iglesias could be commended for establishing a program for prosecuting voter fraud according to legal precedent. good performance. if that program didn't prove that democrats were getting illegal voters through the polls - bad performance.

so the administration's apologists can claim that failure to achieve political goals is poor performance. that's using the judiciary prejudically - a corrupt practice. democrats should correctly be looking for cases of prejudicial political prosecution by USA's in all jurisdictions.

connski

connski wrote on March 19, 2007 10:58 AM:

the administration has two meanings for "performance".
1. political performance - the political ends of prosecution -
the "pleasure" of the president and republican legislators and operatives.

2. professional juridical performance; following the standards of legal practice in the pursuance of doj objectives.

connski

shackhound wrote on March 19, 2007 11:06 AM:

How many times have we heard this:" The U. S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President". Not the AG, not his chief of staff, not the White House Counsel's office. The President, we are told by all those who would normalize this action, is the sole decider here. So why not ask the President why these public servants were dismissed? If it had nothing to do with performance and nothing to do with what the prosecution of Republicans, then surely the President knows why these people were fired.

Citizen 92 wrote on March 19, 2007 11:07 AM:

"...It looks like the guidelines have technically not kept up with the technology..."

Posted by: DallasNE
Date: March 19, 2007 10:42 AM

FALSE.

The rules are very clear on this matter. Presidential appointees working at the White House, while "working" (formulating policy or strategy or serving in a confidential manner) are creating "Presidential Records." Memos, phone calls, records of meetings, e-mails are all Presidential Records.

Presidential Records are governed by the Presidential Records Act. The act stipulates the handling and preservation of such records and work products. At the end of a Presidential administration, the records pass to NARA (the National Archives and Records Administration) for eventual use by the public.

Regardless of the manner of transmission, using White House, RNC e-mail accounts or carrier pigeons, ALL creators of Presidential Records are required to properly archive and maintain them.

The White House computer system is set up to automatically capture outgoing emails to complay with the Presidential Records Act. An RNC account is probably not. This does not allevivate the responsibility of the appointee from properly retaining and archiving this information.

So there are only two defensive postures --

1/I was stupid, I didn't know. It won't happen again.

2/I was willfully ignoring the law.

I think this will boil down to another b-s claim of the "power of the presidency" in regard to the PRA.

alex wrote on March 19, 2007 11:10 AM:

Rove's real endgame: Having failed to maintained Congressional control throughout the las two years of Bush43's term, Karl Rove is poisoning the younger Bush's surrounding water with the older's washups. First Rumsfeld out, replaced by Gates. Next Gonzales, replaced by some other stooge with good credentials (read: in private sector since 94, some big sounding title from before) that can make it through an unfriendly senate.

He's seeing the writing on the wall for the lunatic fringe and tipping the boat far to the right to dump them over the side. Hoping though that there's some sort of sober balast in reserve to right the ship for some sort balance is a mistake however. It's slash and burn from here on out folks.

Jalmari wrote on March 19, 2007 11:23 AM:

Bush doesn't like experts. He doesn't trust them and they make him look bad. He doesn't want qualified professionals in any department. This has to be the first administration in history where competent, professional expertise is considered a disqualification.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 19, 2007 11:24 AM:

How else can one explain their failure to understand that Lexis Nexis and Google searches could dismantle every argument that they have attempted to put forth? Posted by: Rich
Date: March 19, 2007 09:21 AM
---

Easy. Because they know that hardly anyone in the MSM was going to bother using the Google or the L/N. Stenography does not require research.

foggylady wrote on March 19, 2007 11:26 AM:

Even if Gonzales "resigns" will he be truly gone"?

Rumsfield resigned, but is reported to be working at the Pentagon as a "contractor" with top secret clearance. I find this scary.
Sampson 's "resignation" was planned to be no more than an office shuffle.
And Michael "FEMA" Brown continued working for FEMA as a contractor to help the agency assess what went wrong in the response to Hurricane Katrina. ( love the irony.)
I wonder where the other resignees are?
Like a bad smell, they linger.

Mark Shapiro wrote on March 19, 2007 11:29 AM:

mbbsdphil said:

"Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove is a voracious reader. Problem is, when he reads Kafka, he is not appalled, he is looking for good ideas."

Appallingly correct. Rove uses Kafka and Orwell as training manuals. Rove is a huge danger to our polity.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 11:33 AM:

foggylady

Don't factor out Scooter Libby either. I bet he stayed on payroll for some time after he left the White House.

We did learn from the testimony of Jim Knodell on Friday that, at least as of Friday, Libby no longer has a security clearance.

Crust wrote on March 19, 2007 11:35 AM:

As Douglas said at 9:16, I was pretty amazed to see the front page of the NY Times on this: Republican talking points on this until well until the article.

Well, not that amazed. The news pages of the Times continue -- on balance -- to show an amazing deference to the Bush administration on a whole range of issues, continually trying to assume the best and giving short shrift to all the evidence to the contrary.

workaday joe wrote on March 19, 2007 11:42 AM:

Why it's important to get Gonzales

I may still be suffering from the circa 2003 shellshock that other left-leaners experienced about that time, but I think that the Rove-Cheney-Bush machine really is/was a splendid thing. It's like a well-crafted chessboard with all of the pieces working together (although rather frayed of late).

But here's the thing.

Gonzales is a keystone. He has the ability to essentially hide anything illegal or unethical happening in the Administration. All of those investigations that weren't investigations. All of those scandals that cost four Army Corporals their careers. All of those weird signing statements. If the A.G. really wanted oversight, it could've happened.

I'd love to think the Dems could exert considerable influence in who the next A.G. is. But I don't see Bush agreeing to anyone they might like. I predict that the position will remain technically vacant with either a deputy put in the "acting" spot or with a recess appointment (I hear John Bolton is looking for work again). Not good options.

Does anyone know whether Congress can essentially install an A.G. that may not be to the liking of the Administration? Some kind of uber-ombudsman? Is there any precedent on this?

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 12:03 PM:

I applaud you for the journalistic instinct, meticulous research and clear presentation of an ugly political scandal that has been ignored by the MSM, who are caught once again to be alseep at the wheels. My only fear is that they will come after you, like they did Dan Rather, and that you have even less resources to fall back on for fighting back. :( Please be aware that when the furor has more or less faded, they are certain to be out to get you by hook or by crook, but know that your readers out there will be behind you all the way with the action and support you need should that ever happen! Keep up the muckraking, the MSM has failed us, and the blogs are our last hope before the next election.

Mrs. Linder-Phx.AZ wrote on March 19, 2007 12:05 PM:

Ann Coulter committed federal fraud when she voted twice in Florida. She was being investigated. What has happend to that criminal potty mouth's case?

Senator Robert Menendez(D), New Jersey, was under huge attack during the elections, and charges were being brought against him by the AG(R). Menendez won the elections and we never heard again if the AG dropped the case or there it was all political WH fabrication. Great Job Senator Menendez.

Funny that one of the attorneys fired is from Arkansa, and replaced with a Rove intimate friend and cronny. Hillary, the screws were in for you, dear. What a bunch of criminals these bushies are.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 12:19 PM:

paul lukasiak:

I wasn't contesting that Iglesias led the seminar, fairly obviously. I was contesting his characterization of the import of that fact, again, fairly obviously.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

Ron Byers:

Thanks for the support but, again, the question isn't whether Iglesias ran the seminar. The question is whether that, in itself, amounts to a vote of confidence in his ability. In my experience, it does not.

Jason wrote on March 19, 2007 12:28 PM:

""Mark it down as another absolute misuse of power by the people who brought you the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century.
Posted by: SteinL
Date: March 19, 2007 09:09 AM""

WoW.
The kind of post quoted is what gives the Republicon's fodder.

Jan wrote on March 19, 2007 12:29 PM:

I'm not sure where to put this comment, but I wanted to make it public.

MAJOR KUDOS to TPM, who is being congratulated all over the MSM today for the great work on this story. (Well deserved, I guess I should add.)
This and Raw Story are the two sites I go to every single day of my life; and I've been coming to this site since it was a teeny-tiny infant.
Anyway, I couldn't be more proud of y'all!!!
Keep up the GREAT work.

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 12:34 PM:

Perhaps it is true that being selected as a trainer does not make one an expert in that particular area of training. However, it seems Iglesias was one of only 2 USAs who created task forces to examine voter fraud. That would make him more experienced in examining voter fraud than all of the other USAs apart from Biskupic.

"Iglesias, a Republican, said in an interview that he and the U.S. attorney from Milwaukee, Steven M. Biskupic, were chosen as trainers because they were the only ones identified as having created task forces to examine allegations of voter fraud in the 2004 elections. An agenda lists them as the panelists for a session on such task forces at the two-day seminar, which featured a luncheon speech by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 12:37 PM:

paul lukasiak Ron Byers:

I take back my last two posts: my first post was unclear. My apologies for my lack of clarity and my subsequent snark.

My point, clumsily made, was that Iglesias is the only one saying that his role in the seminar translates as a vote of confidence in his abilities in voter fraud cases. That is not necessarily true.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 12:38 PM:

Qwerty:

Sure, but experience does not necessarily translate to competence.

Vulture Breath wrote on March 19, 2007 12:54 PM:

C92: I'm not sure Brett Tolman getting the USA job in Utah over Kyle Sampson is all that significant. Tolman was Orrin Hatch's choice. And Sampson has ZERO prosecutorial experience - in my opinion, that should disqualify anyone from getting a job supervising a large office of prosecutors. Who knows, maybe the WH owed Hatch a favor. He's been passed over one or more times for the Supreme Court, so maybe they feel like they owe him for that? I don't know.

vergil wrote on March 19, 2007 12:56 PM:

Yay for the Dem-controlled congress.
Yay for the blogs -- especially TPM and kos.
Yay for our awakening media.
Yay for the Rove hubris that made him think he could get away with anything.
Maybe we will yet get to see this little turd in prison stripes.
According to the Greeks, the gods will always punish hubris. You can run, but you can't hide.

Anonymous wrote on March 19, 2007 1:02 PM:

Vulture Breath

Wasn't the whole purpose of this "interim appointment without end" authority to do an end run around the home state senators' ability to weigh in on appointees?

Why would they get this authority only to defer to a senator's recommendation?

Plus Kyle was the White House's guy. The "junior Karl Rove." Surely they wanted to give him a plum post for his troubles.

And Tolman wasn't just Hatch's patron. He worked for Specter. And also had the support of McConnell and DeWine.

I really think there's something more here.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:03 PM:

I'm not saying there isn't more here: I just haven't seen it demonstrated yet. But, as a Republican (!) friend of mine said to me this morning, "with this administration you need to take a closer look at everything they do."

aqualung wrote on March 19, 2007 1:12 PM:

Well David P. Lyons. I guess the law is very much different than medicine. When I go to an educational medical meeting I hear from experts in the area under discussion. If they weren't experts, why would I waste my time? Either lawyers like to waste their time or your observations are not very honest. Gee, I wonder which it could be? The argument is all a red herring anyway. Iglesias, Lam, McKay and on and on. Something is very rotten in the state of Justice.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:19 PM:

Lawyers don't like to waste their time: that's why most talented lawyers avoid teaching training seminars: because they're a waste of time. Lawyers, however, often are expected to go through a variety of continuing legal education hoops. Normally -- not always, but normally -- the teaching side of the CLE hoops is conducted by people whose time is not especially valuable, because the better lawyers -- as a general rule -- prefer to spend their time actually practicing law rather than preparing to teach a seminar.

Unless there's travel to a great destination involved. Then all bets are off.

TheraP wrote on March 19, 2007 1:25 PM:

Lyons,

Simply put, if someone is placed in charge of something - that in itself is a vote of confidence by those who placed you in charge. Iglesias thus had the confidence of the AG - personally - in that area.

The whole issue is about confidence not expertise.

Thus, for the AG's office to first endorse someone for something and then complain about that same something is inconsistent.

That is the whole point. Inconsistency by the AG's office - and the AG personally - with regard to Iglesias.

You should stop beating a dead horse - as you do not seem to be gathering any supporters. And instead many poeple here have disagreed with your reasoning on this.

ineedalife wrote on March 19, 2007 1:25 PM:

So one USA replaced with a Rove protege was in Arkansas, long time residence of a potential Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Another is in New Mexico, coincidentally, home of another Democratic candidate Bill Richardson. Is Rove laying the grounds for another persecution of the President, ala Whitewater, if a Democrat wins in 2008?

Kurt Klapkowski wrote on March 19, 2007 1:30 PM:

DPL: Sorry you practice in an area where expertise is not found on the part of presenters. I practice environmental law and I have found the folks doing those presentations to be the most knowledgeable in the field.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:35 PM:

TheraP:

What you have posted simply isn't necessarily the case. People get tagged to do a lot of jobs for a variety of different reasons, some of them having nothing to do with either genuine competence or confidence of superiors. To the extent that this training seminar was not a high priority for the DOJ -- and I think we've all had employers who've required attendance at training sessions that are not actually seen as valuable -- then Iglesias's involvement may signify next to nothing. Then again, sure, it may. At present, however, we simply don't have sufficient facts to say there's a "there" there.

StephenH wrote on March 19, 2007 1:37 PM:

I quite agree with previous posters that this 'attack where they are weak' strategy has Rove's fingerprints all over it. It also proves how this entire thing has been/still is being directly managed by the White House. Bush pretends the justice department is handling it, when in fact he and Rove get together every morning to decide what lie to try next. It stinks to high heaven.

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 1:40 PM:

David Lyons,
"Sure, but experience does not necessarily translate to competence."

Surely with all else being equal, an experienced person is assumed to be more competent than an inexperienced person. I'd be interested to know which way you would vote if, hypothetically, you had to pick a heart surgeon to perform a complicated surgery, one with or without experience.

With the track record of this Administration, inexperienced cronies have been hired to top positions that have life-and-death repurcussions, eg. heckavajob Brownie, to the nation's detriment. If it has to be a Republican, I'd rather have an experienced crony than an inexperienced hack.

Besides, Iglesias record was never questioned - the NYTimes detailed some of the cases he was being fired for, and it seems there was no basis to conclude that he was incompetent. He did pursue the voter fraud tips, but concluded the violator was motivated by money, not politics.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:42 PM:

Kurt,

Glad to hear it. I should say, too, that some training sessions, like trial clinics I attended when I first started practicing, were extremely beneficial. Most CLEs/training sessions I've attended, however, have not. Indeed, one partner at the firm I used to work -- who is a great trial lawyer -- used to laugh about a colleague of ours who used to regularly deliver CLEs on trial practice without ever having actually first or even second chaired a case.

TheraP wrote on March 19, 2007 1:42 PM:

Lyons - your dogged pursuit of this issue bears investigation - of you, not of the issue.

I recommend therapy.

Pastor Doodah wrote on March 19, 2007 1:43 PM:

People who have no real street creds, who's every accolade position or distinction was *purchased* in some fashion simply cannot get their minds around the idea that there are people who are at the tops of their professions simply because they are the best. They are not trickers or frauds or "nephews", but actual professionals with nickle-plated track records. These people actually believe that just because their own reputations were built on lies and could therfore be easily destroyed by lies, that the same is true for everybody.

Not this time.

TheraP wrote on March 19, 2007 1:45 PM:

let's all just forget about "lie -ens"

And pay attention to the matter at hand.

Clearly this is a distraction - like a maladaptive defense mechanism.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:47 PM:

Qwerty:

"Surely with all else being equal"

A crucial qualifier. Again, we just don't know. I'm not saying that argues against further investigation. With this administration I think most everything ought to be overseen. I'm simply saying I'm not yet convinced there's a genuine "there" there in any of these cases.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:49 PM:

TheraP:

I'm really sorry that you regard this place as a site for something other than genuine discussion. Please forgive me for having threatened your comfortable echo chamber.

bohdi wrote on March 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

Iggy is hoist by his own petar. People who enable criminals should not whine when their employers sink knives between their scapula.

What amazes me is why a CIA psyop hasn't targeted Rove a long time since. How Himmler managed to survive as Queen snake in the midst of a venomous pit slithering with all manner of predators mirrors the above. Goebels too lives some 17 years as a fully functioning and untouchable psychotic before self immolation. This tells us well about the level of participation in their crimes that the public and the collective embraced. In our time this includes Democrats,bloggers,operatives,hacks and the generally foul seed formerly known as 'the electorate', a lazy and greed crazed culture of imbeciles. We have all helped pry the door open and fed the great American Facist Troll.

The Rovian attack of targeting the strength of an opponent is classic Goebels. An entire 3 volume series could be written on why it works and how easy it is to implement. These American facists have been incredibly committed and effective in successfully staging the first complete coup detat on home soil in some time. Just ask Arlan Spectre, who's name tells you all you need to really know about him, about his creation of the ludicrous magic bullet theory. Operatives learn early how easy it is to fool frightened and stupid people and how to simply wait out the rest,inudating them with mounds of legalese and false documentation.

These people are beasts and they are now being cornered. We had best all watch out for false flags.

workaday joe wrote on March 19, 2007 1:54 PM:

David Lyons-

I appreciate the perspective you bring. Please don't let the TheraP's of the world shut you out of the discussion.

The end of honest discussion is the beginning of the end of any movement.

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 1:56 PM:

Don't get me wrong - I'm sure Iglesias isn't above politics, but with Republicans, you just have to pray and hope that there may be a shred of integrity left that at least precludes abuse of power. For example, I doubt that Iglesias aggressively pursued Republican voter fraud as he did for the Democrats. He is being fired for not abusing the power of his office, and that's "a good thing", imagine that. It's a sad day for our supposedly independant judiciary.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 1:57 PM:

workaday joe,

Thanks very much.

Mrs panstreppon wrote on March 19, 2007 2:06 PM:

C92, Good questions about Brett Tolman.

On the DOJ side of the PA revision issue is William E. Moschella who was Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, when the revision was made.

Moschella told McClatchy on 3/14/07 that he "pursued the changes on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House."

Yeah, right. We are then supposed to believe Moschella ordered Brett Tolman to make a major revision to pending legislation and Tolman made the revision without discussing it with anyone besides Moschella.

As Dahlia Lithwick of Slate put it:

"But this was not some minor technical amendment. It was a substantial enhancement of executive power."

Lithwick's comment came from her excellent 3/5/07 story in Slate,"Spector's Detector".

http://www.slate.com/id/2161260

Moschella and Tolman should be hauled in front of Congress to explain themselves and they better not show up without every single document related to the revision.

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 2:11 PM:

David Lyons.

"Again, we just don't know".

Ah,finally, we're getting somewhere. Your arguments haven't made the case for incompetence either. Being selected as a trainer doesn't translate into incompetence. We have only partial facts on which to base our judgement - undoubtedly, he is more experienced and took more initiative than most USAs in creating task forces for voter fraud, he's had highly positive evaluations, none of the accusations of poor performance stood up to scrutiny, and he did not bow down to political pressure this time. We still don't have the whole picture, but I'm sure if there were skeletons in his closet, they would have been by now polished to a shine and hoisted high by the rightwing media circus.

Qwerty wrote on March 19, 2007 2:18 PM:

I take the issue of voter fraud seriously enough - I'd like to know what they are teaching at these seminars and if there are inherent biases that favor the systematic fraud of one party over the other! I've heard of all the Rovian dirty tricks but I haven't heard a single instance of a prosecutor who took them up. Maybe this is a wake-up call for USAs to leave politics behind and live up to their pledge of allegiance to the country and its Constitution.

John wrote on March 19, 2007 2:32 PM:

The author of yesterday's ridiculous NYT article is Christopher Drew, the same guy who did the hatchet job on Obama a few weeks back, reporting on what was in the end _nothing_ about his investing.

kathi smith wrote on March 19, 2007 3:00 PM:

David P. Lyons: Please get back to your billable hours. You are not furthering the dicsussion. That said, I agree with a thread I find in your critique of Iglesias, and remind us all that these fired US Attys were Bush political hacks themselves prior to being appointed US Atty. We have to remain careful not to lionize the fired USA's, but rather, to focus on the unfired ones, the "loyal Bushies" who out there in the federal districts doing Bush's dirty work day in and day out.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 3:10 PM:

kathi smith:

Is a discussion only furthered when the same refrain is heard over and over? Sorry I bothered to ask some questions and demonstrate some independent thought. I'll mind my time as I see fit. If you don't like what I'm saying, then you're certainly free to move along.

Shari Lieber Silverman wrote on March 19, 2007 3:53 PM:

One thing that seems to be sliding by very quietly in this whole "8 of 93 fired" USA situation: the 85 USAs who were not fired. At this point it would seem that we as a country should be extremely sceptical about a supposed lack of partisanship and willingness to pursue truth dispassionately on the part of the remaining 85. They evidently passed the Bush loyalty test. Perhaps in addition to finding out why 8 USAs were fired, we ought to question why these particular 85 others were allowed to stay?

Shari Lieber Silverman wrote on March 19, 2007 3:56 PM:

kathi -
Sorry, didn't see your post about the remaining 85! You said it so much better than I did, and I agree.

The Oracle wrote on March 19, 2007 9:35 PM:

Remember Mark Foley and all the news headlines about a Republican representative stalking young House pages that dominated the news leading up to last years November elections?

Now put this in context with Rove and Gonzales (and some Republicans in Congress) pressuring the U.S. Attorneys to bring or announce indictments against Democrats during the same time frame before the election.

And also remember that just weeks before the elections, Karl Rove confidently stated that the Republicans would retain control of both chambers of Congress. He said he's seen "the numbers" and Republicans might lose a few seats, but would still maintain control.

Anyway, the Mark Foley scandal placed all Republicans in a bad light, especially the enablers of Foley's behavior in the House of Representatives, so Rove and Gonzales hit upon trying to fabricate a scandal against the Democrats by having compliant U.S. Attorney bring suits against Democrats, including using the claim of voter fraud.

Oh, and remember the stories before the elections last year (BradBlog) in which Republican "voter registration" hacks were collecting voter registration forms from members of both parties and turning in the Republican's forms while trashing the Democrat's forms.

In other words, to put the December 2006 U.S. Attorney firings in context, we have to look at what pressure was being applied on all of them before the November 2006 elections. The Mark Foley scandal, I believe, is the critical issue that Republican strategists like Rove were trying to force off the front page of newspapers...and replacing these Foley stories with manufactured scandals against Democrats.

Just a thought.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 19, 2007 10:14 PM:

Except that a good number of these firings, including Lam, were being discussed before the Foley scandal hit.

Plus, Lam was on the chopping block apparently months before she informed Justice that she was going to subpoena the contractors, as the "smoking gun" e-mail itself shows.

sweetgumroot wrote on March 19, 2007 10:30 PM:

On Rove's Role and Motivation:

This feels very obvious to me, so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's point as my own.

What is Rove's unabashed and clearly stated goal for American politics and Government?

One Party Rule.

His professional and personal raison d'etre.
The operating maxim.

One Part Rule.

He is an extraordinarily goal oriented strategic operator, and thinker.

If he complied in orchestrating these USA removals, then they must be objective to his goal.
In this particular case, the 2008 elections will represent the pinnacle of Rove's reach into domestic electoral politics. Never again will he have this scope of opportunity to exert his influence over our political landscape, and to forward his life's work.

Therefore, this issue is also, if not more, about the USAs who were not canned, and the replacements to those who were. Tim Griffin is the only one the press has had a look at. His background, experiences and new found influenced likely scares the bejezus out of any Democrat considering running for office in Griffin's jurisdiction.

Remember these people - ruthlessness is a point of pride, and winning by total destruction of the loser is a doctrine with biblical compunction.

What background do the others USAs have?
Will Feinstein's push to amend the Patriot Act apply retroactively so we can have Congressional scrutiny of these new USAs?
Have the many (how many?) Federal Judgeships awarded by Bush been vetted as potentially amenable to Rove's objective?
What's the performance evaluation of the USA who launched the timely probe into Sen. Robert Menendez late last year?
Does anybody doubt that a steady trickle of Democrat probes, investigations and a few indictments coming out from May through October of 2007 would genuinely influence the sacred swing voters? Galvanize the vocal MSM and right wing bloviators? And put the timorous Dems back in a position of weakness and defensiveness?

Think back on the last 5 years. I've never heard so much grumbling from the right about the justice system. It used to be limited pretty much to runaway jury awards that punished corporations for negligible malfeasance. Now it's every judge is either by the book or a liberal activist. Liberal prosecutors on witch hunts (for perjurers!). Now we have USAs letting Dems get away with election fraud. Only since the Roberts and Alito confirmations has the noise machine quieted about an activist SCOTUS.

The MSM has been backing up this tune for some years.

Bush seems to give some cabinet officers free run to follow their dreams (I don't think he has any of his own). My feeling: Rove has established a significant network of influence in the justice system and it's a means to an end that strategic and very well thought out.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 5:53 AM:

The man who campaigned as the Great Uniter, and declared himself the Great Decider, will burn in history as the Great Divider with all of the catastrophic consequences that are escalating every hour, of every day.

How pathetic that as the sun begins to set on his failed Presidency, he blames the people of our Nation, saying we have some psychological trauma rather than learning the lessons of his enormous mistakes. He will never understand that a grateful nation would rise with relief, if he only had the wisdom to learn and change, and a grateful world will rise with relief, when his days in
office are done.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to create fear throughout the land, rather than bravery, courage and valor.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to launch partisan and dishonest attacks on genuine American war heroes because they happen to be members of the other political party.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 as a reason to become the only President in our history to become a world-wide advocate for torture and detention practices that every leader, of every democratic nation, everywhere in the world, has publicly or privately pleaded with
him to abandon.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for showing contempt for the advice of our military commanders by allowing the man he compares to Hitler, to escape from Tora Bora, to pursue an obsessive war in Iraq, that many of those same commanders warned him about, while he publicly claimed he always follows their advice.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for treating the Chief of Staff of the Army with ridicule and contempt, when General Shinseki so honorably tried to warn him.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history, for putting his hand on the Bible and pledging to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution while using 9-11 to claim the unilateral power to break it.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history by accepting the sacred duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land, while using 9-11 to create fears to claim the unilateral powers to violate them.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for dishonoring a spirit that had Democrats and Republicans singing God Bless America at the doors of our Capitol, to personally promote a politics so venomous, vile and vindictive that he fills the air with talk of treason and enemies lists compiled by hate filled supporters.

Even when one of his media partisans slanders the Army that landed at Normandy and the Marines who took Iwo Jima with preposterous falsehoods that they committed war crimes, the self-styled war president lacks the moral integrity to speak out, for fear of offending what he proudly regards as his base.

Even when the trailer park trash of American politics slanders and demeans some widows of 9-11, this partisan who promised to bring honor and integrity to Washington lacks the moral stature to speak out, even against that.

George W. Bush will be morally impeached by the court of history for trying to frighten our people into war with Iraq, with tall tales of Saddam Hussein working with Osama Bin Laden to create mushroom clouds of nuclear extermination that would kill the people of New York.

George W. Bush will be impeached by the court of history for using 9-11 to fan the flames of fear so violently, that at one point, the Capital City of the land of the free and the home of the brave was turned into a panicked hutch of rabbits running to the stores for duct tape, gas masks, bottled water, and bullet proof vests while the Vice-President of the United States fled to hiding spots at undisclosed locations.

How ironic, how pathetic, and how fitting that as America prepares to honor the heroes of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee issues a report detailing fraudulent exploitation of false intelligence, one of America's national networks exploits 9-11 with a docu-fraud of falsehoods, while our "wartime" President exploits 9-11 one more time, with one more taxpayer financed tour of fear, desperately trying to win one more national election.

Five years ago some of the finest Americans who God ever put on this earth gave their lives for their brothers and sisters, for their neighbors and families, for the country that they and we love so much, so deeply and so passionately.

No one ever took a poll to determine whether these American heroes were Democrats or Republicans, because it does not matter.

Joseph Smith wrote on March 22, 2007 6:34 PM:

I don't know if you saw from Dahlia Lithwick's March 5th article on Slate. Brett Tolman was DoJ's go-to-guy on Sen. Orrin Hatch's staff to "handle" the addition of the now infamouse permanant interim appointment clause into the USA PATRIOT Act. She quotes Sen. Specter as saying...

"I then contacted my very able chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, to find out exactly what had happened. And Mr. O'Neill advised me that the requested change had come from the Department of Justice, that it had been handled by Brett Tolman, who is now the U.S. attorney for Utah, and that the change had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota."

alex@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:28 PM:

hello

alex@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 6:28 PM:

hello

poll@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:00 AM:

hello

poll@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 7:00 AM:

hello

rice@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:03 PM:

hello

rice@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:03 PM:

hello

sett wrote on May 14, 2007 7:03 PM:

Lesbian sex

max wrote on May 24, 2007 9:08 PM:

man video bodypussy movie hairyva tanksex gayguy softwarechat ragazze videomovie ringtoneebony bitchsluts anal indonesianmovie adult

max wrote on May 24, 2007 9:08 PM:

man video bodypussy movie hairyva tanksex gayguy softwarechat ragazze videomovie ringtoneebony bitchsluts anal indonesianmovie adult

max wrote on May 24, 2007 9:08 PM:

man video bodypussy movie hairyva tanksex gayguy softwarechat ragazze videomovie ringtoneebony bitchsluts anal indonesianmovie adult

max wrote on May 24, 2007 9:09 PM:

man video bodypussy movie hairyva tanksex gayguy softwarechat ragazze videomovie ringtoneebony bitchsluts anal indonesianmovie adult

max wrote on May 24, 2007 9:09 PM:

man video bodypussy movie hairyva tanksex gayguy softwarechat ragazze videomovie ringtoneebony bitchsluts anal indonesianmovie adult

viris wrote on May 25, 2007 3:09 PM:

kissing turtlenecktheme fromshemale anal comixsex boobnl advice datinganiston bollywood picabsolutely lesbiancelebrity submitddfprodcomnewspaper beach guidespank nasty black

viris wrote on May 25, 2007 3:09 PM:

kissing turtlenecktheme fromshemale anal comixsex boobnl advice datinganiston bollywood picabsolutely lesbiancelebrity submitddfprodcomnewspaper beach guidespank nasty black

viris wrote on May 25, 2007 3:09 PM:

kissing turtlenecktheme fromshemale anal comixsex boobnl advice datinganiston bollywood picabsolutely lesbiancelebrity submitddfprodcomnewspaper beach guidespank nasty black

viris wrote on May 25, 2007 3:10 PM:

kissing turtlenecktheme fromshemale anal comixsex boobnl advice datinganiston bollywood picabsolutely lesbiancelebrity submitddfprodcomnewspaper beach guidespank nasty black

viris wrote on May 25, 2007 3:10 PM:

kissing turtlenecktheme fromshemale anal comixsex boobnl advice datinganiston bollywood picabsolutely lesbiancelebrity submitddfprodcomnewspaper beach guidespank nasty black

Mobile phone wrote on May 26, 2007 2:33 AM:

dancing black nakedfree hairy gaylesbian fetish cyberfuck hentaideelishis fatherzango movie freefree massage extraitandie camreservation register hotelnaked hairy

fronin wrote on May 26, 2007 8:54 AM: