Comments (67)

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 9:29 AM:

"He's hearing good reports from the committee. In particular, Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."
- - - - -

Yet another reason to thank the deities for TPM. Given attitudes like that from the offices of the very Democrats who are supposed to take the lead in renewed oversight efforts -- not just go through the motions then drop it... well I'd wager that even at that point in a TPM-less world, the scandal would be over. (Granted, we don't know everything behind this second-hand report of what Schumer's counsel said to an interested third party, but it certainly rings basically true, and it's not impossible to imagine the Democrat leadership as less than aggressive.)

I mean, can't Schumer's office do anything like the kind of work TPM has on its own? Isn't that part of the gig? Do they ONLY respond to public pressure? Is that real leadership?

As Kevin Cline said in "A Fish Called Wanda" -- DisapPOINted!

Agjobs wrote on March 20, 2007 9:32 AM:

"Dump" is the operative word for this steaming pile.

mark wrote on March 20, 2007 9:44 AM:

It's more than ironic that ideal outcome of this document avalanche will be to paint Justice as administratively incompetent as possible. To the extent that the story becomes poor, heartless treatment of employees, Abbott and Costello communication strategies, and general managerial ineptitude the focus is removed from the real problem

kentuck wrote on March 20, 2007 9:46 AM:

This appears to be a diversion or an attempt to find a scapegoat or to justify the firing of one or two US Attorneys via proof of email. Hey! Look over here. Do not be too quick to fall for anything that voluntarily comes out of this White House. It is doubtful, as secretive and careful as they are, that anything of substance or incriminating toward "them" will be released. Just my opinion.

TheraP wrote on March 20, 2007 9:54 AM:

The word is "smell."

That says it all!

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 20, 2007 9:55 AM:

For me, the story that jumps out is that news outlets are actually researching and investigating something . . . anything . . . after six years of doing squat . . . six years of being stenographers and reprinters.

Pete wrote on March 20, 2007 10:04 AM:

Ordinarily I would say Mercer should keep his day job, but under the circumstances I suggest he explore the possiblity of becoming a stand-up comic.

Chris wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 AM:

A bit of knee-jerk frustration above after reading the passage of what was supposedly going on on the inside as this scandal gasped for air in the birth canal.

After all, when they did get more information, Schumer's work was anything but done. Plus, I'm not familiar enough with the biopsy of how this scandal found its traction in places like Schumer's office -- only what happened thanks to the blogs. Perhaps someone will dissect the give and take between the politicians and what places like TPM forced into the mainstream. Until then, maybe I'll cut Chuck more slack than I gave him above...

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 10:13 AM:

From what I read last night, complaints from the Border Patrol about Lam's prosecution of illegal aliens which began in May 2006 appear to be the basis for the case against Lam.

Darell Issa made a big deal about a 2004 Border Patrol "internal report" in the media in May 2006, going so far as to appear on Lou Dobbs. Lam said Issa was misrepresenting the report and it had been altered.

The Border Patrol complained to Senator Feinstein in June 2006 which generated her inquiry about Lam.

Issa brought Chairman of House Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner into the Lam issue and both men met with Lam in August 2006. Unusual?

In July 2006, Lam successfully prosecuted two Border Patrol agent for smugglin illegal aliens so the Border Patrol had an axe to grind.

In the beginning of May, someone at the DOJ asked if Lad had been woodshedded abou prosecuting illegal aliens and a week later, the Border Patrol was on the case.

Sounds fishy to me.

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 10:14 AM:

"For me, the story that jumps out is that news outlets are actually researching and investigating something . . . anything . . . after six years of doing squat . . . six years of being stenographers and reprinters."

The NYT seems to accept the talking point that at least Lam was fired for performance reasons.

Sloppy as it is, the dump was still vetted to remove information unfavorable to the administration, and to release information which emphasizes their talking points.

Somewhere this morning I read that Schumer’s legal chief assured the WH in February that the story was on its last leg. What that says to me is that after everything, all the lies and corruption, the Democrats and their staffs are still willing to be bamboozled. It’s sickening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20documents.html?_r=2&ref=washington&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Barbara wrote on March 20, 2007 10:16 AM:

Was reading through readers posts. I think this one is very worth paying attention to. Mrs. Panstreppon's post on 3:20, 1:33 am. Carol Lam was in court prosecuting Border patrol members for smuggling in illegals when they began slamming her.

Jeff wrote on March 20, 2007 10:16 AM:

What struck me is that there did not seem to be any documents covering the planning stages of the purge. I wonder if planning was done "off line" so there would be no paper trail or if those documents were not provided.

grandpa john wrote on March 20, 2007 10:18 AM:

The question then becomes Why was Lam being disparaged and put down?

nobody wrote on March 20, 2007 10:18 AM:

Impeachment is not an option, unfortunately. There aren't enough Democrats in the Senate to assure success (60 votes).

However, how about a grass-roots effort to get Patrick Fitzgerald appointed as AG? Could it be done?

JGabriel wrote on March 20, 2007 10:21 AM:

From Top: "The New York Times reports, Chiara also wrote in the emails that 'she was being removed to make way for a member of Congress who was expected to lose his seat in the November election.'"

The Times gets this wrong - unless I'm reading the memo incorrectly.

The unnamed congressman was expected to be appointed to the position at VAWA (Not USA-MIW) that Chiara first suggested for her new assignment, if she was being pushed out as US Attorney.

Books Alive wrote on March 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

Patrick Fitzgerald as AG? What makes you think he'd be interested? I think he's looking forward to the Conrad Black trial.

Dan D wrote on March 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

Barbara: I am wondering the very same thing. All the Sampson/McNulty emails I have seen (I went through about 6 of the PDFs last night) are long into the planning process, discussing media strategy, talking points, who calls who and when...

But where is the genesis email? Is it a Rove email the Admin is withholding? Or they blamed Miers for the whole thing, so where is that email?

Where are the discussions where they figure out what post to give Cummins? Why Arkansas?

L.A. Piltz wrote on March 20, 2007 10:24 AM:

Schumer's office was suckering McNulty in, soothing him mischievously, building up trust so as to facilitate getting more inside information from DOJ. After all, Schumer's been a pit bull in the media about this, demanding Gonzalez' resignation. I think that is what was really going on there.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 10:27 AM:

From downstairs:

DOJ-Released Documents 1-9 page 26.
Chiara requests a change from McNulty regarding firing. Please state truth as political not due to performance.

And AG Gonzales said under oath ... ?

nellieh wrote on March 20, 2007 10:35 AM:

Is there a paper, a TV reporter, or blogger tracing back to the origination and procedure of how the provision to by-pass the Senate in USA appointments got us to this point? I can't believe two people did this after dark and it surreptitiously became law. Without the involvement of others. Since when can un-elected political hacks write and place provisions in a bill unannounced and unknown either by the majority leadership of the legislative body or office they work for? Specter denies knowing it was done.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 20, 2007 10:36 AM:

From Feb. 1 2007 email by fired USA Margaret Chiara of Michigan:

"Now that it has been widely reported that departing USAs have either failed to meet performance expectations or that they acted independently rather than follow DOJ/EOUSA directives, the situation is so much worse. You know that I am in neither catagory. This makes me so sad. Why have I been asked to resign? The real reason, epecially if true, would be a lot easier to live with. Margaret"

Back to Gonzales, who made an AFFIRMATIVE representation under oath that all of the firings were made for a single, clear and non-ambiguous reason. Apparently DOJ refused to give USA Chiara any explanation for her firing. Why all the secrecy ?

kentuck wrote on March 20, 2007 10:38 AM:

Mrs Panstreppon says:
"From what I read last night, complaints from the Border Patrol about Lam's prosecution of illegal aliens which began in May 2006 appear to be the basis for the case against Lam.

Darell Issa made a big deal about a 2004 Border Patrol "internal report" in the media in May 2006, going so far as to appear on Lou Dobbs. Lam said Issa was misrepresenting the report and it had been altered."
=====================
The important point to remember is that 2006 was a year that had a lot of Republicans running scared over the "immigration" issue. They had to appear to their followers as very serious about that issue - especially in Southern California and AZ and NM, amongst other places. Some Congressmen, like Issa, were scared to death of this issue. So why not put pressure on the US Attorney?

With that said, I would not take my eye off the ball and get myself buried in thousands and thousands of emails that can be interpreted in thousands of different ways. Intentionally or otherwise, it is a great diversion.

Once again, this Administration is attempting to manipulate the media and the American people. They want this story to die. If these emails are accepted as they are presented by this White House, they will argue that these USA's were dismissed for performance reasons. After all, the "emails" prove it.

It's a shell game. The nut is under another shell. Do not be deceived. There is much, much more here. Bush and Rove will be protected at all costs. Gonzales will not be thrown overboard so easily. There will be a PR campaign and a propaganda blitz to save him. Bet on it.

The best thing to do is to keep the heat on by investigating and asking questions...and putting these folks under oath. This is our government they are criminalizing. Do not buy this email diversion by this White House. They are not going to give you anything that incriminates them. If they are the source, you should immediately doubt their validity.

We will see their strategy unfold before the day is over, most likely. They will vet it thru the Limbaugh program and thru FOX news. Just keep your ears open...

jgh88 wrote on March 20, 2007 10:50 AM:

Yes, the NYT did not do their hoework and got the Carol Lam firing WRONG by implying that it was performance-related. Particularly in view of the glowing letter that the Assistant AG sent to Feinstein and others about Lam's good to excellent performance on immigration issues and that half her staff was devoted to prosecuting immigration offences. Also the glowing reports on Carol's performance from the San Diego AG, the San Diego FBI and the "Shock" expressed by the Defense lawyers when she was fired.

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote on March 20, 2007 10:54 AM:

I smell a rat -- the usual rat in document production. Looks like they're probably withholding communications between the White House and DoJ, likely on some bogus claim of privilege.

The Senate needs to ask the DoJ whether it is withholding any documents based on a claim of privilege and if so, demand that the DoJ generate a "privilege log"--which is standard in litigation and which describes the documents in a general manner, gives dates, "to" and "from" information, etc., without revealing content.

That would put DoJ in a nice bind.

Clayton wrote on March 20, 2007 10:57 AM:

Ok, the real question is, "Can we get politics out of the AG's office?".

This should be a demand by every fair minded citizen.

David wrote on March 20, 2007 11:12 AM:

Are Spector and the Senate investigating how they pass legislation without knowing about it?

If not, how about TPM?

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on March 20, 2007 11:18 AM:

Kentuck, you are absolutely right. The latest document dump is a smokescreen.

For one, there are no emails or other documentation about revising the Patriot Act either before or after the revision was made.

The explanation we've been given is that William Moshcella, a DOJ attorney, decided to revise the way USAs are appointed all on his own. Moschella then ordered Brett Tolman to insert his revision into the Patriot Act. As Dahlia Lithwick put it, the revision was "not some technical amendment. It was a substantial enhancement of executive power."

The only document we have so far about the revision is one that refers to applying it in Tim Griffin's case.

Two, there are no emails or other documentation referring to Lam's investigation of Cunningham, Wilkes, Foggo etc.

Where are the documents discussing the status of Lam's investigation and the implication of firing her in the middle of one of the biggest corruption cases in years?

CT Voter wrote on March 20, 2007 11:31 AM:

Thanks, TPM, and all you readers, for going through these.

It is encouraging to see major news organizations actually behave like news organizations and not stenographers, as someone said earlier.

And will the Senate look into how Arlen Spector's office aided and abetted this disaster? And if he didn't know what was going into the bill, should he really continue as a Senator?

Cugel wrote on March 20, 2007 11:31 AM:

It seems clear now that D.O.J. insiders were also fueling the scandal by leaking to various attorney's and judges and other people with connections to the Democrats on the Judiciary committee.

It's a very bad idea to do something underhanded and possibly illegal that also terrifys and angers the bureaucracy.

A lot of the Bush scandals were exposed becuase they arrogantly stepped on everybody's toes. Unfortunately up till now with Congress and the courts firmly in Republican hands there was no where for whistle-blowers to go.

Only the "Bushies" got used to acting with the license of Roman Proconsuls in some occupied country. They forgot that now there's going to be some accountability, that the things they do that would be covered up before won't be now.

We're only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg emerge into view.

I like the quote from some democratic congressman: "every tree we've barked up so far has had a cat in it." This is just going to unravel.

And the amazing thing is that the Republicans seemed to know it before the election. That's why they were in such a panic, hoping to drum up some Democrat scandal to deflect all the media attention away from the Foley scandal and Iraq, allowing them to say "see! Everybody does it! And anyway, this is nothing compared to Clinton!"

Thus, the genesis of the current purge-gate scandal.

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 11:32 AM:

“Why Arkansas?”

Two reasons. First, they needed a hack without a conscience to dig up 20 year old dirt on Hillary and seat a grand jury to investigate her “crimes.” Keep in mind she hasn’t lived here in 15 years and only rarely visits, usually for fundraisers. This isn’t her home.

The second, and in my opinion more important reason, is that former Governor Huckabee was as corrupt as they come. Much of his corruption was not likely to come to light unless a Democrat won last November (Huckster was term limited). Sure enough, the Democrat won, and what was reported in the press regarding Huckabee’s shenanigans was outrageous. God knows what he did that wasn’t reported, it may never be known since he physically destroyed every computer that even had remote contact with the Governor’s office. Of coarse, as it turns out he didn’t need to be so destructive to hide his culpability, since there is now no one at all with interest in the investigation.

The Arkansas state AG is weak, so he apparently has no authority to investigate the former governor’s crimes. The local prosecutor, who has the authority, won’t prosecute for reasons unknown. That leaves the US Attorney (there are a list of federal laws Huckabee violated as well). Any USA with a minuscule amount of integrity would recuse himself and request an outsider look into it, or investigate it himself. That would lead to yet another Republican corruption scandal. This new scandal would surround second tier presidential candidate, and certain future senatorial candidate, who also happens to be the only Republican Arkansan with potential in that race.

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 11:33 AM:

correction: should read, "unless a Republican won.."

whaleshaman wrote on March 20, 2007 11:35 AM:

L.A. Piltz wrote:

Schumer's office was suckering McNulty in, soothing him mischievously, building up trust so as to facilitate getting more inside information from DOJ. After all, Schumer's been a pit bull in the media about this, demanding Gonzalez' resignation. I think that is what was really going on there.

i was thinking the same thing. why say we're after you -- just to have them destroy evidence, or whatever people due when they're running scared?

JEP (John Edward Patterson) wrote on March 20, 2007 11:38 AM:

"You honor us with your readership and generosity. But please don't contribute if you're in anything like that kind of situation. That's meant very seriously and very sincerely."

Josh, thanks for regarding those of us with limited resources, sometimes people with money just don't remember whenthey didn't have it. You clearly must have "been there" or you wouldn't make these kinds of concessions so publicly.

This administration has been great for billionaires, but very hard on the common man.

However, I am one of many who will gladly, eventually, give something, even if its just a little bit, to you, to FDL, and some others who are doing the work our MSM should be doing.

When we had the chance, we gave $10 a month to the Dean campaign way back when, and when our resources return to normal we hope to do the same for some of our favorite blogs.

It may be a while coming, but it WILL happen. I can't imagine a better way to allocate limited reousrces.

John Emerson wrote on March 20, 2007 11:40 AM:

Do we have a list of the loyal Bushies? It seems that they should be looked at very carefully.

cass Weller wrote on March 20, 2007 11:40 AM:

Just a naive question. Is there a mechanism in place to prevent DOJ from misplacing or destroying documents unfavorable to their case?

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 11:42 AM:

Just a naive question. Is there a mechanism in place to prevent DOJ from misplacing or destroying documents unfavorable to their case?

JEP (John Edward Patterson) wrote on March 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

"Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."

"But that will be it"
SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY...

fresh pampers all around the wingnut circles...

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 11:51 AM:

""Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."

"But that will be it"
SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY...

fresh pampers all around the wingnut circles..."

Schumer’s office did not drive or lead in this investigation; they have jumped on a moving train, which is nice, but undeserving of credit.

But for the personal outrage of the fired attorneys’, there would be no scandal today. Sen. Pryor, who is normally worthless, did work to make it a local issue, but the story had no legs until the USA’s started screaming bloody murder.

Schumer’s legal chief was likely accurately reported to the WH the status of the investigation at that point.

JEP (John Edward Patterson) wrote on March 20, 2007 11:58 AM:

"but undeserving of credit"

That's bullshit...

don't fault the pioneers because the pilgrims got here first...

JEP (John Edward Patterson) wrote on March 20, 2007 12:01 PM:

"Do we have a list of the loyal Bushies? It seems that they should be looked at very carefully."

85 US Attorneys as co-conspirators?
Let me press the issue of the SURVIVING US-A's, if Iowa is any indicator, there is an ongoing conspiracy against Democrats, by Republican planted US-A's, and it may have actually accelerated since this exposure of their colleagues questionable removal and replacements.

Matt McCoy, the Democratic state senator from Des Moines' south side, is being persecuted in a classic case of entrapment, by the US-A that was appointed to that district.

If there's a provable passle of politics in this process, wouldn't these US-A's themselves be subject to some serious scrutiny from Congress? One thing is for certain, it certainly opens the door for McCoy's defense attorney to demand charges be dropped. This political hackery makes our US-A's impotent.

When they can't be trusted to keep politics out of the legal process, they surrender their legal credibility and provide a very good case for the defense to use against all of them, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. And when 83 of them agree to it, nationwide, does that constitute a conspiracy?

But am I using the term "conspiracy" too loosely here?

Or is it really quite accurate?

If there is an agreement (8 to 1 prosecutions against Dems vs. Reps should be proof enough) between these Loyalists to "go after" Dems, and more than one of them agreed to this plan, isn't that, essentially, a conspiracy?

From what I've read about "bushies" in these emails, it would appear there are about 85 co-conspirators we can be sure were involved (93-8), and at least two DOJ administrators, AND old TBlossom hissef', it all seems to be in those emails.

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 12:02 PM:

"Just a naive question. Is there a mechanism in place to prevent DOJ from misplacing or destroying documents unfavorable to their case?"

If they destroyed documents at this point, it would be illegal. But I have no idea who would prosecute it.

Dump Doolittle wrote on March 20, 2007 12:27 PM:

"The best thing to do is to keep the heat on by investigating and asking questions...and putting these folks under oath."

However, some of the best questions will be generated by bits of info in these emails.

What the...my security code word is "screw."

David wrote on March 20, 2007 12:32 PM:

Recall that a novel feature of Hitler's governance style was to insist that Wehrmacht officers take a pledge of PERSONAL LOYALTY TO HIM rather than to the State.

Arkansan wrote on March 20, 2007 12:38 PM:

Perhaps I stated that poorly. My point was that without the fired US Attorney’s indignation, which was caused by administration testimony at a Judiciary Hearing, this scandal would not have had legs.

Schumer’s legal chief probably saw it that way as well at the time he told the WH the issue was dying down. At the point the Schumer staffer said it was all but over, there was no reason to think anything more would come of the firings. In other words, there wasn’t some sort of Machiavellian maneuver on the part of Schumer’s guy as was suggested, just a frank statement of the realities of the moment.

gunther wrote on March 20, 2007 12:40 PM:

(1) Karl Rove = Bush's brain.

(2) Alberto Gonzalez = Bush's bitch.

(3) Dick Cheney = ...Sometimes life presents us with such clarity that there is no need to resort to metaphors as an aid to understanding.

Woopig wrote on March 20, 2007 1:53 PM:

"Why Arkansas?"

Arkansas is also considered an early swing state in the '08 elections. Arkansas typically goes Rethuglican in presidential elections but 1) the Rep party is in shambles here and 2) Dems swept the statewide offices in '06

So not only do they want Griffin here to dig up dirt on Hillary (tho after Ken Starr is there any left?) they need Griffin to suppress voters, particularly in Democratic Pulaski County. Pulaski Co. voter rolls were in some disarray a few years ago (just needed to be updated - serious neglect over the years but no intent of voter fraud) I'm sure Griffin was planning on "looking" into that prior to all this. Oh yeah - the Pulaski Co. clerk? Democrat

kathi smith wrote on March 20, 2007 2:22 PM:

"He's hearing good reports from the committee. In particular, Sen. [Charles E.] Schumer's counsel told him that the issue has basically run its course, that they need to get a little more information from us … but that will be it."
- - - - -"Schumer’s office did not drive or lead in this investigation; they have jumped on a moving train, which is nice, but undeserving of credit."
Correct! Also remember, when this first broke, Dianne Feinstein was all over it, and then mysteriously quit looking into it. She must have remembered asking for more immigration prosecutions out of Lam.

Vulture Breath wrote on March 20, 2007 2:25 PM:

It is very gratifying to see assholes being exposed as assholes. May more assholish behavior see the harsh light of day.

Thank you, Macaca.

Vulture Breath wrote on March 20, 2007 2:31 PM:

I can't remember when I saw this, I think it was last spring or summer. Maybe in Eric Zorn's Chicago Tribune column. Gonzales was in Chicago and a reporter asked him how Fitzgerald was doing and Gonzales gave a very, very lukewarm endorsement of Fitz. If you could even call it an endorsement. I think he even said Fitz "serves at the pleasure of the President." The reporter wrote something like, "Maybe Fitzgerald shouldn't re-sign his lease...."

Kind of interesting in light of everything....

rita wrote on March 20, 2007 3:27 PM:

11-1 page 14

USAtty in Northern Marianas Island district didn't prosecute any child exploitation charges in 2005. Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff must be proud.

Brad wrote on March 20, 2007 4:29 PM:

I can't shake the opinion that the Bushies are amazed that people are actually reading the documents. I'll bet they thought that 3000 pages would be enough to scare everyone off...It would work for them.

Cavalor Epthith, Esquire wrote on March 20, 2007 4:31 PM:

My staff at the Daily Pitchfork came across the number of these USAs that were members of thwe Native American issues Subcommittee (NAIS). One of their major fuctions was to investigate malfeasance related to government involvement in Indian gaming. Indian gaming these days means Jack Abramoff and I think this is more than just a curiosity.

greensmile wrote on March 20, 2007 6:25 PM:

Here is a lesson to the public, at least to the uppity, tuned in web public, that I am hearing: The most important and legally defensible consideration that spared attorneys from being fired was their public visibility. That means we the noisey libruls need to keep our noses to the sources and our fingers to the keyboards. Make the MSM do their job or do it for them but keep the bad and the good loudly before the public so bush league personnel decsions have to weigh reactions and can't be completely caprecious.Certainly Fitzgerald is no loyal Bushie, and apparently even Sampson couldn't bring himself to rate him as weak, given that he'd won the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002. is an example of that spotlight effect of good publicity.

shambolic wrote on March 20, 2007 6:36 PM:

So the recipient of the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" was rated by the Attorney General as "not distinguished". Is this one of those, depends-on-what-the-word-"distinguished"-distinguishes things?

shambolic wrote on March 20, 2007 6:40 PM:

Greensmile, I was thinking the same thing. The best thing a Bush-appointed US Atty can do for job security right now is to go hammer and tongs at any Republican in sight. They should change DOJ to DOPJ -- the Deptartment of Poetic Justice.

The Oracle wrote on March 20, 2007 8:19 PM:

After what Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and Sampson have done to the U.S. Attorneys (USAs), the remaining USAs (not fired for partisan reasons) have as much credibility left as the Bush administration...none.

Remember that Foleygate dominated the news before the elections last November. Afterward, eight USAs were fired the first week of December. Weren't they "loyal Bushies" enough? Had they been prosecuting Republicans (Lam) when they should have been prosecuting Democrats (Iglesias)?

Oh wait, Iglesias was prosecuting Democrats in New Mexico, but he failed to release grand jury indictments before the November elections, even after being pressured by Domenici and Wilson.

I have a feeling that the firings of the USAs last December is additional fallout from Foleygate.

Rove was desperate to bump Folegate coverage off the front pages of newspapers, off talk shows, off the airwaves completely if possible. One way to accomplish this was for the USAs to make charges (false voter fraud charges, anyone?) or bring indictments against Democrats in the weeks just before the November elections, during the critical weeks in which Foleygate was peaking as an issue.

In other words, to neutralize the damage being done to Republicans because of Foleygate, Rove and his partisan pals would have tried every "swift boat" tactic in the "culture of corruption" Republican book of "dirty tricks." And the USAs were wielded as a weapon in this "dirty trick" Rovian endeavor.

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:14 PM:

hello

dmitry@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:15 PM:

hello

rice@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 2:58 AM:

hello

oeiasyj jpsurevdm wrote on September 14, 2007 6:40 PM:

qvlifeks kjqy afeyjbpcd zgnubi oxzq tfpaucz nuvrqgd

oeiasyj jpsurevdm wrote on September 14, 2007 6:41 PM:

qvlifeks kjqy afeyjbpcd zgnubi oxzq tfpaucz nuvrqgd

idgqmxfuo ziory wrote on September 14, 2007 6:44 PM:

geas croxu xuwkdqnr jvsouyi wdvptrqe owqpsaz nlzrdtyi geydpns aiflzhsvn

idgqmxfuo ziory wrote on September 14, 2007 6:45 PM:

geas croxu xuwkdqnr jvsouyi wdvptrqe owqpsaz nlzrdtyi geydpns aiflzhsvn

idgqmxfuo ziory wrote on September 14, 2007 6:46 PM:

geas croxu xuwkdqnr jvsouyi wdvptrqe owqpsaz nlzrdtyi geydpns aiflzhsvn

sphr ujobcrpx wrote on September 14, 2007 6:48 PM:

dukirtfqs bongs lucfkrqni ntslwegby qbimvus hijrdug oyrefuq [URL=http://www.xopyhiucz.upxqfr.com]topr lvmxucnhw[/URL]

sphr ujobcrpx wrote on September 14, 2007 6:49 PM:

dukirtfqs bongs lucfkrqni ntslwegby qbimvus hijrdug oyrefuq [URL=http://www.xopyhiucz.upxqfr.com]topr lvmxucnhw[/URL]

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:55 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night