« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Fired USA: Here's Some Reading of "Interest"
Was U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden fired because he didn't prioritize voter fraud prosecutions? That's the latest theory at least.
Bogden's firing has elicited a number of strained rationales from the Justice Department, but we've heard precious little from Bogden himself.
For his part, Bogden says he doesn't know why he was fired, but since we're engaging in a guessing game, he ought to get a shot too.
There have been a number of "theories" for his dismissal, he wrote (pdf) in answers given to Congress. And "one of the noteworthy articles of interest pertaining to my situation," he wrote, "was an article that recently appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal...."
The article, by Erin Neff, a columnist from the Review-Journal, names three cases Bogden's office handled in 2006 -- during the heart of the election cycle -- that "likely landed on Karl Rove's desk in the White House as the administration closely followed any potential swing in congressional races."
I won't give a rundown of all three here -- for that, give the piece a read.
But a couple things jump out about Neff's list.
First, the investigation of Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R), the most frequently mentioned politically sensitive case Bogden handled, isn't one of them.
Second, the first and most persuasive of the three cases is that of Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV), who was facing one of the closest races of his career in 2006, when a federal investigation threatened to derail his campaign:
In late October, just days before the general election, Nevada Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins wrote to Bogden, asking him to open an investigation into Porter's alleged use of office phones to make campaign fundraising calls.Bogden could have sat on it until after the election. Instead, the Bush appointee promptly forwarded the letter to the FBI to investigate the claims. Local media focused on the case as voters were already casting early ballots. It wasn't until after the election that the FBI decided not to proceed with the investigation.
Was Bogden's decision to forward the complaint a fatal one? Who knows? Add it to the growing number of theories for his firing that are far more plausible than the ones offered by the Justice Department.
Comments (8)
Sholom wrote on May 14, 2007 4:31 PM:OK, so we have his investigation of Gibbons, and his forwarding of information on Porter.
So why does everyone keep saying that voter fraud was the issue that sunk Bogden?
libra wrote on May 14, 2007 4:38 PM:Bogden could have sat on it until after the election. Instead, the Bush appointee promptly forwarded the letter to the FBI to investigate the claims.
Isn't it one of DoJ's unspoken rules that you don't investigate such cases until after the elections, so as not to influence th outcome? IOW, Bogden not only "could have" but *should* have sat on it until later? This seems, eerily, like the same sort of thing that happened to Dems, only a rebous: an FBI investigation started when it can harm one of the candidates and dropped as soon as the elections are over. I must say I don't like it any better when such a trick is pulled against Reps than when it's pulled against Dems...
JEP wrote on May 14, 2007 4:47 PM:"So why does everyone keep saying that voter fraud was the issue that sunk Bogden?"
Unless I am mistaken, "election fraud" can also include generally breaking the FEC's rules, which is the crime Porter committed if he used federal property (his office) to make political phone calls.
So while it wasn't "voter fraud" per se, it WAS "election fraud" and everyone seems to be lumping all of it under the "voter fraud" umbrella. I may be way off here, but that seems to be the case from my "IANAL" perspective...
br wrote on May 14, 2007 5:07 PM:To me, the article isn't clear about whether Bogden's handling of the Porter case violated DOJ guidelines. Suppose Porter sent the letter over to the FBI with a cover note that said "please look at this and, if you think it's worth investigating, don't begin until after the election." Or suppose he sent it over so close to the election that it was taken for granted that nothing could happen until after election day.
We need more detail on that. At the worst, it doesn't sound like anything here happened that's comparable to the pre-election indictments in Kansas City.
Anonymous wrote on May 14, 2007 5:20 PM:If Bogden sent a confidential letter to the FBI, that was not necessarily improper. The leaking of his action to the press most certainly was. The guilty party is the one responible for the leak.
Dan wrote on May 14, 2007 5:28 PM:Forwarding a claim to the FBI is not the same as publicizing said claim. The source of the allegations was the Nevada State chairman of the Democratic party. In hindsight, I'm certain he feels now, that he should have sat on the allegations until after the election. As it now appears, the Nevada Democratic party may have manipulated a DOJ official in efforts to game an election as well.
I seriously doubt Bogden leaked the allegations to the press.
Code word "Same"..as in, they're all the same to me, corruption stinks be it blue or red.
Herb wrote on May 14, 2007 7:01 PM:CONSPIRACY to defraud...
ELECTION fraud...
VOTER fraud...
Election THEFT?
Which one is Ann Coulter guilty of?
Which one does Diebold commit for their R-friends?
And, which one did the Supreme Court (and that lady in FL) commit in 2000?
Yeah, I know, "Kathy H.," Herb.
irina wrote on May 15, 2007 10:01 AM:have a question...
I may have missed class when this was covered - can someone tell me where Harriet Miers is?
Harriet Miers is a sender/receiver of many of these emails, she's tight with Bush, Rove and Gonzales...sooooooooo
where the hell is she? Has she been questioned by the HJC or the SJC? Will she be questioned? CAN she be questioned?
Are they circling wagons to protect Miers?
She does, after all, know where most of the bodies are buried...
OK, so I had a FEW questions...
Does anyone know what's up with Harriet?