Comments (70)

profmarcus wrote on March 21, 2007 9:11 AM:

when i first read "by their own admission," i read it as by the admission of the fired attorneys themselves... maybe it's too early in the morning and i just need more coffee...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

Crust wrote on March 21, 2007 9:21 AM:

It would be interesting to get a comment out of Ashcroft on the whole scandal. I was struck reading Iglesias' op-ed in this morning Times how Ashcroft had personally stressed to him that he should be non-partisan as a prosecutor.

I think there are a lot of people who are surprised how much they miss Ashcroft (relative to Gonzales, anyway).

Here's the link for Iglesias' op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Glenn wrote on March 21, 2007 9:21 AM:

I'm waiting for the smears of James Comey to start up. It's clear from several things -- his handling of the Plame investigation, his refusal to sign off on illegal wiretapping -- that he was not a "loyal Bushie" but rather someone who took the administration of Justice seriously. He had a decent rep here in NY from his brief stint as Southern District US Attorney, too. And so his praise for these fired USA's could be quite damning -- time for the Rove attack machine to start besmirching his name.

TheraP wrote on March 21, 2007 9:28 AM:

I suspect that those most skilled at careful reasoning within any profession are also most careful about ethical decision-making within their profession.

Thus, it does not seem by chance that these attorneys at the top of their game were same ones who resisted pressures to behave unethically.

By extension the questionable ethics of our AG suggest to me that his legal skills may also be seriously wanting!

MNSpectator wrote on March 21, 2007 9:32 AM:

See, it was "performance-related"! They performed far too well... in "Bushie"-land, that's gotta be a cardinal sin...

NCProsecutor wrote on March 21, 2007 9:33 AM:

I think Sampson was talking not about McKay's performance as USA but rather about McKay's candidacy for a federal judicial spot in Seattle. Given the serious Democratic tilt in Washington state right now, Sampson was simply stating a political reality -- that McKay, who (I think) had the support of both Democratic senators, would be the best candidate they were likely to have.

FYI, when McKay failed to make the list of finalists proposed by the judicial selection panel for the judgeship, it was because GOPers voted against him.
AP story

The story also quotes an e-mail from Sampson in which he says McKay "got screwed by Washington's judicial selection commission" and asks a presidential aide if McKay can still be considered for the post.

kentuck wrote on March 21, 2007 9:34 AM:

With this Administration, they want to look at all your secrets and listen to all your conversations. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you complain? However, they want no one to look at their secrets or to listen to their conversations.

The time has arrived for the Democrats to either shit or get off the pot. They must pursue the truth, no matter how much moaning and groaning comes from this White House. It is necessary.

NCProsecutor wrote on March 21, 2007 9:34 AM:

Oops. Story link didn't make it in my comment above. See here:

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8O09Q000.html

Punchy wrote on March 21, 2007 9:35 AM:

I was shocked that Bush continued to use that line of excuse last nite. It's all but clear to everyone but The Twenty-Eight Percenters that this was all politics, Rove-style. I guess it's all they have--just keep repeating the "they sucked" line until CNN parrots it back.

And doesn't this just infuriate those Attys? Wouldn't making nice with them shut them up faster than embarrassing them? I fail to see how Bush's speech last nite will do anything to quell this disaster (a sentence that could be applied to about 15 things...)

Nina wrote on March 21, 2007 9:35 AM:

I believe the Bush Administration just doesn't care how carefully they portray their concocted reasons for the purge. It is part and parcel of their hubris: above the law, above scrutiny, above reproach. Listen to Bush's press talk yesterday... When questioned about the firings having possibly compromised ongoing investigations, he simply batted it away, lamely repeating his initial talking points. No effort. It seems a genuine struggle for Bush to even appear to exert himself when he responds to legitimate queries. The entire country is suffering from diminished expectations of him and his ability to govern.

JAN wrote on March 21, 2007 9:38 AM:

I would love to see some WH documents related to the Patriot Act and the insertion of that fine print concerning bypassing the Senate when appointing the replacements.

JohnW wrote on March 21, 2007 9:42 AM:

Its obvious they were fired because they were too good.

Dan D wrote on March 21, 2007 9:47 AM:

As I was going through the document dump, it looked to me like they went out of their way to find every critical email or slip up they could dream up on the fired USAs. A lot of it was pretty petty stuff.

In McKay's case, the department had been steadily cutting his budget year over year, and he was forced to let go a lot of staff, and thus couldn't pursue as many cases. He told the state and local prosecutors about this, and it made the papers, which pissed of DoJ.

It's constructive dismissal: He failed to do more with less.

SteinL wrote on March 21, 2007 9:49 AM:

They were fired to ensure that the other USATTYs toed the line and knew what was best for them. If the top performers could be dismissed this simply, then the rest were walking on hot coals "performance-wise" ...

Justitia is blindfolded, she should play no favourites.
The Bush White House clearly wanted to poke out an eye, gag her, throw her in the trunk and dispose of her.

kentuck wrote on March 21, 2007 9:55 AM:

Interesting article in the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-performance21mar21,0,6718386.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Aeneas wrote on March 21, 2007 9:56 AM:

A wise man told me years ago that in any modern organization fallout comes from the top.
He meant that the competent and ethical people vote with their feet, or, as in this case, get pushed out by superiors for refusing to compromise their ethics to pursue the not so ethical ends of those with the power to fire them.
Some of us are "oversocialized" in psych speak and that makes us poorly equipped to survive in bureaucracies.

quinn wrote on March 21, 2007 9:57 AM:

along the lines of what JohnW states above, here's a thought that popped in my head. Say you have a group of people and you want them to toe the line, in this case follow your directives regarding what and what not to prosecute. How do you get them to believe that you are serious? Well you can some of them. And to make a serious point, you don't can underperformers, you can those who did a good job (as determined by their peers)with the express intent of sending a message. Thus, the remaining USAs would look and feel if there well respected peers were dumped just like that, they might be inclined to fear for there positions more. Just a thought. That's the smiking gun in the emails I keep looking for

kentuck wrote on March 21, 2007 9:58 AM:

continued from above link:

"WASHINGTON — Senior Justice Department officials began drafting memos this month listing specific reasons why they had fired eight U.S. attorneys, intending to cite performance problems such as insubordination, leadership failures and other missteps if needed to convince angry congressional Democrats that the terminations were justified.

The memos, organized as charts with entries for each of the federal prosecutors and labeled "for internal DOJ use only," offer new details about disputes over policy, priorities and management styles between the department and several of its U.S. attorneys.

The prosecutors' shortcomings also were listed in a talking-points memo, indicating the willingness of the Justice Department to make public what are normally confidential personnel matters in order to counter its critics."

tryggth wrote on March 21, 2007 10:00 AM:

I wonder if being close to Comey (in whatever sense) was a factor in the "evaluation". Comey's name didn't surface in the floated list of Gonzales replacements.

DallasNE wrote on March 21, 2007 10:02 AM:

The Bush administration and the always compliant MSM are spinning this as a separation of powers issue. That is pure bullcrap.

This is an abuse of power issue, plain and simple. Any attempt to frame it otherwise must be fought with vigor. Even the 18 day gap of missing documents is an abuse of power issue.

Bring Rove and Meirs before Congress in public session and under oath. They still have 5th amendment rights. Let them plead the 5th if it comes to that. Congress could also hold them in contempt but what US Attorney would stand up and prosecute the cases? Sure, Bush could appoint a Special Prosecuter; fat chance of that happening. We have ceased being a nation of laws. Today we are a nation of men and the means Bush, who has set himself above the law. It is beginning to look like the only law left on the books is Impeachment but the Republicans in Congress would block that.

Capital J wrote on March 21, 2007 10:12 AM:

A commenter above wonders what Ashcroft might be thinking about this. I'm wondering the same about Janet Reno. Have any reporters tried to find out?

Daryl Cobranchi wrote on March 21, 2007 10:15 AM:

It was a performance issue. Rove et al. evidently believed that it was the USA's job to help secure a Permanent Republican Majority. The fired attorneys weren't willing to perform their jobs.

Donna wrote on March 21, 2007 10:19 AM:

Am I missing something? This latest document dump appears to be, in the main, e-mails that were sent after the firings, right? So, the documents proffered are reflecting attempts to postdatedly 'explain' the firings..... so where are the, in the main, pre-firing documents that are needed to give a full record of what transpired before the firings [including communications with the WH]?

I guess I am thinking of this document dump, and even the human-interest material about the 63 year old Michigan USA as red herrings.

Hank wrote on March 21, 2007 10:28 AM:

I hear there may be a vacancy at the top of the Justice Department soon. Perhaps Bush should consider David Iglesias for Attorney General.

Jan Hammer wrote on March 21, 2007 10:35 AM:

Can there be a clearer demonstration of what is valued in the Bush Administration. Loyalty over
ethics, cronyism over excellence, lies over truth. The whole batch ought to be fired or impeached.

melior wrote on March 21, 2007 10:47 AM:

Karma will be satisfied when the next President gains access to all the NSA copies of Rove and Cheney's emails discussing their corrupt activities, and releases them to the public.

micahd wrote on March 21, 2007 10:51 AM:

I have never bought the incompetence line about Bush, let alone about Rove who is, again, at the center of this scandal as he was at the dark rotting center of Plamegate. There's got to be a reason. There's got to be a risk calculation that makes sense. In the Plame Affair it was maintaining the credibility of the WMD story.

Here, it's got to be that one of these eight Republican Attorneys (incidentally, as my brother David points out "Say what you will about Nixon ... at least he went after Democrats!") was onto something big. The best bets, I think, have to be that the Duke Cunningham scandal goes farther up the totem pole than we thought previously or that one of these attorneys was in the process of uncovering a massive Republican voter suppresion scheme authored by Rove.

http://micahd.blogspot.com/

Don Lowell wrote on March 21, 2007 10:52 AM:

Thes are all good attorneys who wouldn't bow down to the scumbag masters in DC!!

Lindy

anon wrote on March 21, 2007 10:54 AM:

It worries me--Greenwald's arguments about the ratio of bluffing to firm ground notwithstanding--that they aren't trying harder to quiet this mess down. It's quite possible that they want this showdown because they believe they can win. I realize that--from a rational point of view-- there are relatively few good legal reasons for them to refuse to testify. But if they force the courts to decide, it seems likely that they are very close to having the judges they need in line.

longtimeobserver wrote on March 21, 2007 11:02 AM:

It's all about "What have you done for me (or to me) lately."

Brad wrote on March 21, 2007 11:13 AM:

It would be really interesting to see conviction rates for all of the USAs, and their offices, to see where the purged rank...

Harriett wrote on March 21, 2007 11:15 AM:

I get upset when those talking about Lam forget that Feinstein has a letter dated 3 months before she was fired, indicating that the DOJ felt she was doing an excellent job on prosecuting immigration cases! Saw D. Shuster on countdown last night, and he never mentioned it. This letter, for me anyway, seals the case beyond a shadow of a doubt, so why isn't it the center of attention (for her dismissal)? It proves the rationale for firing her was a lie.

surfsup wrote on March 21, 2007 11:21 AM:

What does this tell you? This morning I worked worked with someone who mentioned he was from New Mexico and my first thought was "How about this David Iglesias mess?!?!"

aard wrote on March 21, 2007 11:22 AM:

This isn't really surprising. All this praise for the attorneys is merely the obligatory GOP "heck of a job" noise, often heard just before Bush (or one of his loyal henchmen) drops the axe.

rrose wrote on March 21, 2007 11:29 AM:

what micahd said makes a lot of sense, i.e., that one of those attorneys may have been on to something very big. paranoia? maybe, maybe not.

Dick Hendricks wrote on March 21, 2007 11:29 AM:

Is it too early to seriously consider that the real reason why "the Bush", of "the Bushies", will not can his sorry excuse of an Attorney General is that, if he is gone, they will have to find another Attorney who will support to entire range of wrongheaded, extra-legal, illegal, and possibly criminal "legal opinions" which Gonzales has cooked up, or supported, in the past 6 years. If they get a serious legal mind in that job, the entire legal house of cards on which they base so many of their disasterous policies, military, economic, social, will fall apart.

djcrow wrote on March 21, 2007 11:35 AM:

Arlen Specter is at the root of this. He needs to be put under oath and answer for the provision "snuck" into the Patriot Act. Blaming an aide for this is a lie. Specter is a real slimeball. His fence riding has become very tiresome. He is a schill, a liar and a real danger to national security. He must be held accountable.

Essolith wrote on March 21, 2007 12:01 PM:

Specter is a phony and only interested in himself as the BMOC for the republican party.

DallasNE wrote on March 21, 2007 12:10 PM:

"It's all about "What have you done for me (or to me) lately."

Posted by: longtimeobserver
Date: March 21, 2007 11:02 AM"

Bingo!

Patrick Fitzgerald saved his job by allowing Rove to testify one last time and correct his earlier perjury. And this is Rove's way of showing thanks?

But, then again, this is just par for the course with this administration.

alex wrote on March 21, 2007 12:17 PM:

In the first days of the feeding frenzy, Bush said from Mexico that Gonzales would have to go up to the Hill and explain it. In the next days Sampson went down, quickly to give in to a Hill testimony, which now looks to be a disastrous thrashing in the making.

Gonzales and Sampson then are going to the hill for sure in public testimonies. Anything Rove and Miers would say in private will surely contradict their public testimonies if they're hoping to lie.

Their only hope is to thread a needle of innocence viewed partly open and partly hidden, proving incompentence (DoJ public testimonies) without maliciousness (White house coordinated, that is, advocated against by private WH testimony). What a sh*t sandwich.

The fact that Bush sent Gonzales to the hill in the first days was brilliantly stupid.

mjr wrote on March 21, 2007 12:35 PM:

When bo0b Barr comes out and blisters this administration for ripping the constitution, then one knows all is not good in the White House. It will be interesting to see how long the Republicans stick with the Administration on this mucky mess.

elrapierwit wrote on March 21, 2007 1:07 PM:

Of course they were star prosecutors and top performers. That is Rove's consistent pattern to strike at those who are the best and strongest and blame it on their stellar attributes as the rationale for their dismissal. Those we have 'performance issues' as the reason TOP performers are jetissoned.

If you want to destroy the integrity and credibility of our entire judiciary you take out the BEST first to intimidate the mediocre minions and slackards beneath them. If the best and brightest go first, the rest quake in their boots and grab their quivering testicles out of fear that any moment they too could get the ax, UNLESS they fall in line and become toadies.

It is frightening how Bush (the decider) & Rove (the architect) have basically set in motion a system that will topple our entire democracy. The reason this democracy has worked is because people believed in the rule of law. That is the fundamental underpinning to our entire system of democracy. Destroying the judicial system means no one will beleive their civil liberties or constitutional rights are protected in a partisian system. The entire judiciary becomes nothing but a hammer for the mob. That is what Bush & Rove have done.

The evidence is clearly there that they have prosecuted far more elected democrats than would occur with any statistical randomness, meaning that elected officials who should be representing the citizens will be unable to for fear of the law.

The worst thing is that all these GOP operatives have been left in the judicial system to be detonated whenever Rove chooses. In CA, neither senator was consulted to replace Lam, nor the Governor, instead it is some big time political GOP contributor. If this is process has not been criminalized and policized...nothing has. Lam had called for an search warrant on the #2 man at the CIA. You have to have evidence to even get a warrant.

It sounds like every single department under the executive branch has been corrupted and politicized. The CIA, NSA, Pentagon, and the judiciary.

Griffin the fella who is being installed as the Atty General to replace Cummins was responsible for purging the voter roles in the 2000 Fl election. And Cummins directed the voter chad counting for the GOP in 2000.

All we hear on the news is this is about the Democratic Congress vs. a GOP executive branch.
That's the spin, not that our ENTIRE judiciary has been politicized!!

Mooser wrote on March 21, 2007 1:40 PM:

Every Bush-apointed prosecuter is tainted now. They will all have to go. We must assume that the prosecuters who were "loyal Bushies were onboard with all Rove's schemes.

shambolic wrote on March 21, 2007 1:43 PM:

Take the administration's line at face value. (OK, well at least try for a second.) Gonzales's defense is that he was out of the loop; he had no idea know what his immediate subordinates were doing and cannot be held responsible for the decisions they made on his behalf. But the fatal rap on Iglesias was that he was an "absentee landlord"? Why does Gonzales have the president's confidence but the canned USA's didn't? Again, if you take their line at face value.

Dab wrote on March 21, 2007 1:51 PM:

At least Iglesias was serving the country as military (which the AG knew about) while he was absent. What was Gonzo doing?

Jason wrote on March 21, 2007 1:54 PM:

"They serve at the pleasure of the pResident."
"One Day With The King."
What do those two have in common?
George W Bush IS NOT KING!
He serves at the pleasure of the people and his people serve at the pleasure of congress and the faux surpreme court. (the bunch in there now have partisan reasons for their decisions rather than the Constitution). Bush was ruled with a nasty iron fist when he was a child. That is the only thing he understands. He's like an uneducated schoolyard bully. There's always someone bigger. Hello Democratic Party...? Please pick up your sledgehammer and get to work on the bully!

Jason wrote on March 21, 2007 2:08 PM:

Just to get it out; I gave 50 bucks (a lot to me ok) to the Kerry campaign and after his pathetic response to the 'swiftboaters' I emailed him for my 50 bucks back AND NEVER GOT IT!
Your very good Marshall, money is comming your way. Money always changes a person. Most of the time not for the better. Will you still have the same drive you have now to get to the bottom of the story? Don't become a spread-eagle (look it up in the OLDER dictionary) reporter like the ones polluting America today Marshall.

shambolic wrote on March 21, 2007 4:24 PM:

>>"Money always changes a person."
.
Wow, Jason. How much are you sending? Not enough for Josh to retire on, I hope. I'm picturing the TPM staff going all treasure-of-the-Sierra-Madre over there after your check clears.

Jason wrote on March 21, 2007 4:53 PM:

Gosh shambolic, your condescension is noted. Maybe you'll give on my behalf being your so magnanimous in character, generosity and high-mindedness. Every little bit counts.

shambolic wrote on March 21, 2007 7:17 PM:

Sorry, Jason. I wasn't going for condescension. I just formed an image of Marshall doing a Walter Huston jig upon receipt of your $50 and thought it was funny. No offense intended.

From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 21, 2007 10:38 PM:

One thing that has bothered me since the details of the Domenici and Wilson phone calls came to light:

Q:Why did Heather Wilson call David Iglesias while he was staying at a hotel in D.C.?
Q:Why did Pete Domenici call David Iglesias at home?

Answer to both: Because she/he did not want to be recorded on the US Attorney's office line.

If I am not mistaken all incoming calls to a USA office are recorded. If I am mistaken would someone please correct me.

Jason wrote on March 22, 2007 4:16 AM:

shambolic, water under the bridge.

Sue wrote on March 25, 2007 3:45 PM:

Could someone please start investigating the "hired ones" and what made them preferable to the "fired ones"?

bonny finberg wrote on April 7, 2007 6:33 AM:

Regarding Paul Charlton of Arizona: I found this on a blog called Free Speech Coalition, a site dedicated to protect the "adult entertainment" industry's free speech:
"As attorney Jeffrey Douglas, who represents one of the Five Star defendants, noted, "This prosecution represents a pointless and arbitrary waste of scarce investigative, prosecutorial and judicial resources. What's even less clear is how the government expects to get a conviction based on what appears to be a vague and severely flawed indictment."
This isn't even mentioned in the reason behind the firing of Charleton for "performance issues." At the same time, let's not forget that it doesn't automatically make him a martyr for the ideals of the US constitution, i.e. the cause of free speech. Though i seriously doubt he was fired over this "vague and severely flawed indictment," as his work was in concert with the religious right's agenda, let us not automatically make heros out of these guys. What is an outrage is the simple fact that injustice applies to all. When gangsters kill each other it's still murder.

andrey@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 7:31 PM:

tattooed penis club

dennis@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 4:34 PM:

hello

dennis@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 4:35 PM:

hello

tonny@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 5:11 AM:

hello

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 4:29 AM:

hello

rick@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 5:00 PM:

hello

rick@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 5:01 PM:

hello

sbktpzwim cwqep wrote on May 14, 2007 10:25 PM:

vtfopdw naxfbircu fdljpir yaij egjitn hsxiu pbfzuc

iogxdm rwzydj wrote on May 14, 2007 10:26 PM:

sxjlietch hxjmrf fbkq bdwnjy ktqgfx ykxbwpe mqikly http://www.rauowds.hoigvs.com

zbsgqrj tcbsevy wrote on May 14, 2007 10:26 PM:

cnubjms txrdnoa ivuqhojtd nodecxgmt rwnspdaeu qagbxlr myhx ygdmr fstxbyq

ghywlm okcfl wrote on May 14, 2007 10:26 PM:

ctgrqabn jvfn pcmtya gkrh xvmne eiolzh idflcvgk [URL=http://www.yfwtdzah.vflewjd.com]fepx ivdebtru[/URL]

ybhamenx owpfmg wrote on May 14, 2007 10:27 PM:

cwltxzvge rkpx fuhg rxubhqtl sdkjmq pwtaidv tgmcfuv [URL]http://www.dwivh.kxwnqabm.com[/URL] jayeghkt flpui

Sten94304 wrote on May 16, 2007 9:38 PM:

[url=http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/now-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm]Now Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot[/url] * [url=http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/2010-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm]2010 Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot[/url] * [url=http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/1991-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm]1991 Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot[/url] Now Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot | 2010 Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot | 1991 Triple Falls Video Kayaking Riot http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/now-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/2010-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm http://triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.worldofvideos.info/1991-triple-falls-video-kayaking-riot.htm

masxer wrote on September 2, 2007 11:58 PM:

Marusha

mp3 downloads wrote on September 26, 2007 5:43 PM:

Hi boys!61405762f7c7035ac777fa2442ed69a9

music downloads pc wrote on September 30, 2007 3:26 AM:

Hi, there!..19551e42f3a83c4d360f0588ecd80550