The US Attorney Firings

Some have asked why I haven't had much to say about it, I dismissed it as BS in a short post and still feel the same way as regards any alleged substantive issues around the whole mess.

I've heard Bush has an announcement on it at 5:45 PM. That sounds like Gonzales is leaving. If so, it's nothing but a sign of the dysfunctional nature in which this administration handles PR. Throwing more blood in the water isn't going to solve anything. It will only increase the blood lust on the part of detestable Dems like Schumer, Leahy and Emmanuel.

The next Republican President better be genuinely conservative and know how to play hardball, not just own a club.

I'll leave it to Patterico's blog for a more substantive response.

Comments

[Zifnab]

"The next Republican President better be genuinely conservative and know how to play hardball, not just own a club."

He should also be more masculine and more white. And he should be rich, unlike Bush who has proven himself to be nothing but a sissy, San Fransisco, homeless liberal.

Where are the real Republicans?! *sob*

[yyy]

Or maybe the next president should refrain from trying to use the US attorney's office as a tool in partisan, election politics. Ya know, NOT firing perfectly competent people for indicting Republicans with ties to Cheny or firing them for failing to bring frivolous and unsuportable charges against Democrats. Just sayin...

Whatever happens, the next president isn't going to get away with appointing these guys without Congressional aproval.

[Hard Right]

YYY, you can't read, can you?

[yyy]

You know I can read.

I read very clearly today that the Senate voted almost unanimously to eliminate the clause in The Patriot Act that allowed these interum appointments without congressional input.

I've also read the White House and DOJ many changing stories on why these attorneys were fired.

I've also read the statements from these attorneys about the work they were doing and calls and emails they received from Senators and other Republicans indicating displeasure with what they were doing as far as not indicting Democrats and indicting Republicans.

What I'm wondering is if YOU can read?

[djangone]

Leave it to Patterico? You mean the guy who largely disagrees with you on this subject?

[Andrew]

Haha, no mention of things like Alberto getting the boot or Scooter facing prison. Keep reporting the 'good news'. The flock appreciates your efforts.

[LOL]

It's a rough time being a conservative Dan. All that corruption is bubbling over the pot. Stay strong, your dittoheads need you.

[Legalize]

Man, if idiots like Riehl are already whining after Congress has exercised only a scintila of its constituional oversight duties, imagine the barking we'll hear after Congress looks into the unalwful activities of the FBI vis a vis its abuse of national security letters and other warrantless spying on Americans. I only hope I have enough popcorn.

Remember, kids, if it's one thing that the morons to the right of you abslotely HATE with all of the violence of a thousand zombie Reagans, its being told that they can't break the law or abuse the system merely to further their own political agendas.

[djangone]

Oh, how can I resist...

Dan, for better or worse, you're writer. I can't imagine the laziness of a self-proclaimed writer leaving unedited a sentence like this:

"If so, it's nothing but a sign of the dysfunctional nature in which this administration handles PR."

Can't you be bothered to learn even the simplest elements of this thing for which you're most widely known? It actually seems like the mockery entertains you, as if you've convinced yourself that you're floating above the 'clown Dan' who posts illegible swill several times a day and watching with a silly grin as a circling crowd laughs and and pelts the stumbling fool with over-ripe fruit.

[Zifnab]

"I've also read the statements from these attorneys about the work they were doing and calls and emails they received from Senators and other Republicans indicating displeasure with what they were doing as far as not indicting Democrats and indicting Republicans."

And they were prosecuting Republicans for corruption, which is a fireable offense under this administration as they were not pleasuring the President.

... I seem to recall another government employee that once served at the pleasure of the President. She got him impeached.

[Hard Right]

Apparently you can't read YYY.

No stories have changed YYY. They have been clarified. Lam's employment option was NOT RENEWED after 8 months apparently for the reasons WLS pointed out. NOT right away before Duke was prosecuted-8 MONTHS LATER.
Not to mention the claims of Reps calling to pressure the attorneys/complain they weren't prosecuting "enough" dims are BS. Unlike you I can read AND THINK.

[yyy]

You can keep on saying it until you are blue in the face but it isn't going to change the facts.

[Hard Right]

You can keep on saying it until you are blue in the face but it isn't going to change the facts.

Actully that applies to you lefties. Keep saying it's a scandal-it doesn't change facts.

[yyy]

Hundreds of email documents released by the US Department of Justice [official website] late Monday show that, contrary to its earlier claims, the White House was deeply involved in discussions to fire eight US Attorneys last year, according to ABC News.

White House advisor Karl Rove [official profile] originally suggested firing all 93 US Attorneys [JURIST report] in January 2005, according to an email conversation [text] released by the US Department of Justice Thursday. The e-mails appear to contradict the White House's assertion
Most of the attorneys were fired in December, ostensibly for poor performance.

But members of Congress soon learned that all eight had received good performance reviews, a discovery that fueled allegations the dismissals were politically motivated.

Gonzales has admitted that "mistakes were made," and he held a conference call with all remaining US attorneys on Friday in a bid to reassure them.

Iglesias has said that he received phone calls from Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, asking the status of a corruption probe involving a prominent former New Mexico state senator.

Iglesias told a congressional panel that the calls came before last November’s election and that Domenici asked whether the corruption probe would be complete prior to November. When Iglesias said no, Domenici hung up on him, according to his testimony.

Lam, one of eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Justice Department, spearheaded the case against Cunningham, the former Republican congressman from Rancho Santa Fe who pleaded guilty to bribery and income tax evasion. He was sentenced in March 2006 to more then eight years in prison.

As a result, Lam also investigated two of Cunningham's associates: Brent Wilkes, a Poway-based defense contractor, and Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, a top CIA official who resigned May 8.

Wilkes was accused of bribing Cunningham and Foggo to get contracts for his companies. Wilkes and Foggo were indicted last month on several charges, including conspiracy and fraud.

Appearing on CBS' “Face The Nation,” Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that on May 10, Lam “sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants sent in the case of Dusty Foggo and a defense contractor. The next day, an e-mail went from the Justice Department to the White House,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

The e-mail, from D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said: “The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires,” The Times reported.

Lam was notified of her firing Dec. 7; she stepped down in February. Two days before leaving office, she announced the indictments of Wilkes and Foggo.

[ET]

Here are the fact Y: USA's are appointed by, and serve at the sole discretion of, the president. Said President doesn't have to justify his decision to fire any of them if he chooses. Bill Clinton didn't explain or apologize when firing ALL of them. Surely, some of them were "perfectly competent people." It didn't matter then, and it doesn't matter now. It is a political appointment. The next democratic president will make his or her own changes, but you won't complain then because anything goes when you have the bid 'D' or your chest. That makes you a partisan Tool.

[Zifnab]

"Lam's employment option was NOT RENEWED after 8 months apparently for the reasons WLS pointed out. NOT right away before Duke was prosecuted-8 MONTHS LATER."

He was let go literally the day after he announced he was going CIA offical Kyle Foggo, the guy who set up Cunningham with the "Duke-Stir".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam#Anti-corruption_activity

[Zifnab]

"USA's are appointed by, and serve at the sole discretion of, the president. Said President doesn't have to justify his decision to fire any of them if he chooses."

*rolls eyes*
Yeah, that's all well and good, unless the President is firing them to tamper with or obstruct an ongoing investigation.
Nixon tried this shit too. It didn't work then either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[yyy]

Look, that rationale doesn't work.

Everyone knows that new presidents put in their own US attorneys. It is a politcal appointment.

It is NOT a poltical job, and it is NOT supposed to be a position open to political pressure, it is NOT supposed to be used to either falsely indict innocent people for political purposes or to fail to indict guilty people for political purposes.

Saying Clinton fired all the US attorney's when he took office as NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS SITUATION. Nothing.

[Legalize]

Patterico doesn't offer a substantive response; it merely offers the conclusions of a sympathetic soul who determined that even if the AG's office did interfere in on-going investigations, the timeline is different than it appears because decisions were made NOT PRECISELY at or near the times decisions were made by, Lam's office (for example), all while utterly ignoring the email chatter that occured at the time of her dismissal, to the effect that her pursual of Duke, was a problem for the administration, and all while ignoring the fact that USAs are supposed to be independent of overtly partisan control from above - this is the most fundamental aspect of the scandal. USAs are not supposed to be political officers of the White House, and if they are used as such, all credibility, transparency, and reliability of the rule of law goes out the window.

That and the administration keeps lying and changing its story the whole way; and Gonzales and McNulty likely purgured themselves before Congress. It's more deplorable behavior from these skunks and it's not considered a big deal by the administration's cultish supporters.

[yyy]

Gonzales is gone. Didn't Bush call him last night? That is prety close to the kiss of death, if only we knew whether or not he told him he was doing a 'heck of a job' we would know for sure he was gone.

I love that the White House offerd up Rove to Congress for a private Q&A with no transcripts, which would mean anything he said couldn't be construed as lying to Congress.

Bring on the subpoenas Chuck.

[ET]

Again the double standard ...clinton firing all USA's has EVERYTHING to do with this situation. It proves that this is a manufactured scabdal that you would be opposing vigorously if the parties were reversed. USA'a arre indeed political appointees. If you want to change that, do your best. In the meantime, give this administration it's legal right to fire any of these USA's for whatever reason they choose.

Just like the Libby trial -- there was no crime (no one was found guilty of outing a protected agent) but we winged one in the ensuing investigation! Yeah democrat witch hunter!

Now the AG -- The Admin acted within its legal rights to fire USA's without giving its reasons, but we don't like the reasons we've uncovered in our witchhunt, so we demand the AG resign!

Say it till it's true in your simple little mind.

[templar knight]

And you libs need to thank Dan for posting on the US Attorney firings. You have been whining, moaning and groaning on all the other threads about Dan not posting on the firings, and then rather than discuss(except for yyy) it, all you do when you come to the thread you wanted is whine some more. You boys are the whiniest bunch of men? I've ever come in contact with.

OK, now, ready....set....whine on!

[Hard Right]

I don't recall the WH saying they had nothing to do with the firings.

"But members of Congress soon learned that all eight had received good performance reviews, a discovery that fueled allegations the dismissals were politically motivated."

As stated, a good performance review MEANS NOTHING in fed govt. It is NOT an indicator of competancy or even performance. Such is the nature of the beast. WLS further proves this point.

"Iglesias has said that he received phone calls from Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Senator Pete Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, asking the status of a corruption probe involving a prominent former New Mexico state senator.

Iglesias told a congressional panel that the calls came before last November’s election and that Domenici asked whether the corruption probe would be complete prior to November. When Iglesias said no, Domenici hung up on him, according to his testimony."

So what?

"The e-mail, from D. Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, said: “The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires,” The Times reported."

Again, so what? She was not doing her job and had an attitude problem as was shown by WLS.
Like I said, you lefties are desperate for dirt in hopes it will make people forget your massive congressional bumbling.

[Hard Right]

"I love that the White House offerd up Rove to Congress for a private Q&A with no transcripts, which would mean anything he said couldn't be construed as lying to Congress.

Bring on the subpoenas Chuck."

Hey genius, the Dim congressmen said they would subpoena him if he didn't come voluntarily. So an offer to do so is made and that's proof of sinister motives in your mind? You really need to seek mental help.

[yyy]

The White House doesn't want him to TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

Do you understand the difference?

Soone or later the Republicans are going to have to repudiate George Bush and his group of Mayberry Machiavellis.

Why anyone would defend the idea that it is okay for the White House to have a U.S. attorney fired for failing to bring a frivlous indictment before the November elections is mind boggling.

I really don't know if you people are too dumb to understand what is being alleged or too stubborn to admit you understand it.

[Hard Right]

You mean YOU think an attorney was fired for that reason. The facts say otherwise.
Ooooo, they wanted to him to cooperate without being under oath. Big deal.

[Legalize]

yyy, it's painfully clear that Limpy doesn't understand ANY distinction in ANY situation. To morons like him, "at the pleasure of the president" means, "pursue the partisan interests of the president," and that it's ok to abuse the USAs office to further those ends. To him, a USA NOT abusing her office is equals "having an attitude problem." They simply do not care if something rotten occured here, whether or not anything unlawful occured. There is no changing the way they think - abuse of power, trust, and public office are FINE as long as their side is perpetrating it.

[Hard Right]

Here's some info you couldn't read.

"Re the timing of Sampson’s email complaining about Lam being a “real problem” and its relationship to her notice to DOJ of the search warrants on Foggo, et.al., DOJ has released new emails today — now being reported upon by the NYT and posted on the House Judiciary Comm website — that show longstanding DOJ extreme unhappiness with Lam. Of particular note is one from Bill Mercer, who served both as Acting Dep.AG before
McNulty was named, while at the same time serving as US Attorney for Montana since the earliest days of the Bush Admin (in other words, a guy who has been around since the beginning and knows the entire history of Lam). He comments on her inability to meet deadlines, her disregard for DOJ and Admin. priorities, and a sarcastic reference to the possibility that maybe she would just admit that “I’ve ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized.’”

[yyy]

No, there aren't any facts that say otherwise.

When DOJ was called on their statements about firing these attorneys due to poor performance evaluations they had to back track, in beltway speak that is, they got caught lying and had to change their story.

It appears that everyone but the Republicans in New Mexico who wanted indictments for voter fraud though Iglesies was doing a great job.

The fact that the WH wanted to fire these attorneys allegedly for failing to prosecute voter fraud, in and of itself, raises some questions, since why would their own guys, who they appointed, fail to prosecute legitimate cases that would benefit Bush? The only answer is the cases werent' legitimate.

We aren't talking about Clinton's guys, but Bush's own guys, and what about that email where they are talking 'loyal Bushies' I mean, I'm sorry, that is disgusting.

[Hard Right]

Legalize, take your zyprexa and be quiet. You simply aren't smart enough to debate me, as has been proven repeatedly.

[Legalize]

"Ooooo, they wanted to him to cooperate without being under oath. Big deal."

Idiot. You really DON'T see the difference between being under oath and not being under oath? Seriously?

[ET]

--Why anyone would defend the idea that it is okay for the White House to have a U.S. attorney fired for failing to bring a frivlous indictment before the November elections is mind boggling.

It was LEGAL. You deciding if it is OK or not is a) after the fact and b)slanted by your rabid hatred of bush and anyone associated with him.

You make my very point...you keep repeating that the motives were corrupt when a) you would defend the very same behavior from a democrat and b)the motives are MOOT anyway. Change the law or procedure that allows the White House full discretion in this area, but don't lynch sitting politicians for obeying current law, just because you hate them.

[Hard Right]

They didn't back track either.

They said for job performance. As WLS has shown that was exactly the case. Just because you aren't capable of seeing that doesn't mean others aren't.

[yyy]

longstanding DOJ extreme unhappiness with Lam.
------------------------------------------

I wonder how closely their longstanding extreme unhappiness correlates with her opening the Cunningham investigation and then sending him to prison for 8 years?

[Legalize]

"You simply aren't smart enough to debate me, as has been proven repeatedly."

Yes, as you amply prove with every encounter when I smack you in the mouth over and over. Your piercing analysis of the Walter Reed / Plame facts almost rises to the level of your assertion that being under oath is no "big deal" in this case. Limpy, you can't "debate," if you don't understand the facts, or repeatedly lie and obfuscate in order to present your version of reality.

[yyy]

So, I guess if Bush wanted to fire all the jewish or black or catholic us attorneys that would be legal too?

If he said he had a dream last night that all the us attorneys from states beginning with "A" should be fired, that would be okay too.

You guys really are morons.

It is unethical to attempt to interfer with a USA doing his or her job to achieve partisan political ends.

[Hard Right]

Legalize, what's wrong? Is your diaper full? That would explain why your head is so empty.

[Hard Right]

YYY

1) Yes he could do that.

2) Yes.

3) You are mentally ill.

[yyy]

The Bush administration has done a terrible job of explaining its decision to fire eight United States attorneys. Story after story has proved to be untrue: that the prosecutors who were fired were poor performers; that the White House was not involved in the purge. But the administration has been strangely successful in pushing its message that the scandal is at worst a political misdeed, not a criminal matter.

It is true, as the White House keeps saying, that United States attorneys serve “at the pleasure of the president,” which means he can dismiss them whenever he wants. But if the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid prosecution, or to punish them for not misusing their offices, that may well have been illegal.

In law schools, it is common to give an exam called the “issue spotter,” in which students are given a set of facts and asked to identify all the legal issues and possible crimes. The facts about the purge are still emerging. But based on what is known — and with some help from Congressional staff members and Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University — it was not hard to spot that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute.

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress. The relevant provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, is very broad. It is illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty indicated to Congress that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal, something that Justice Department e-mail messages suggest to be untrue.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made his own dubious assertion to Congress: “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”

The administration appears to be trying to place all of the blame on Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who resigned after reportedly failing to inform top Justice Department officials about the White House’s role in the firings. If Mr. Sampson withheld the information from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505.

But Mr. Sampson’s lawyer now says other top Justice Department officials knew of the White House’s role. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said last week that “Kyle Sampson will not be the next Scooter Libby, the next fall guy.” Congress will be looking for evidence that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. McNulty knew that what they told Congress was false or misleading.

Convictions of this kind are not common, but they happen. Just ask former White House aide David Safavian, who was convicted last year of making false statements to a Senate committee.

2. Calling the Prosecutors. As part of the Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, Congress passed an extremely broad obstruction of justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

David Iglesias, the New Mexico United States attorney, says Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, called him and asked whether he intended to bring indictments in a corruption case against Democrats before last November’s election. Mr. Iglesias said he “felt pressured” by the call. If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses. Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested, according to Mr. Cummins, that if he kept speaking out, there would be retaliation. Mr. Cummins took the call as a threat, and sent an e-mail message to other fired prosecutors warning them of it. Several of them told Congress that if Mr. Elston had placed a similar call to one of their witnesses in a criminal case, they would have opened an investigation of it.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.

Much more needs to be learned, and Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee, has been admirably firm about insisting that he will get sworn testimony from Karl Rove and other key players. It is far too soon to say that anyone committed a crime, and it may well be that no one has. But if this were a law school issue spotter, any student who could not identify any laws that may have been broken would get an “F.”

[Dan Riehl]

"Dan, for better or worse, you're writer."

Next time try English, DJ. Or are your parents illegals, too? ; )

[Legalize]

"Legalize, what's wrong? Is your diaper full? That would explain why your head is so empty."

You're a joke, little boy.

Go on; tell us more about how Plame sent Wilson to Africa, and how it's Clinton's fault that Walter Reed is the way it is; and how it's ok to fire prosecutors for not pursing partisan interests at the expense of the rule of law.

[brad]

Ok.
Hard Right, ET?
Politics are not sports. Politics are how we decide how to organize ourselves and focus our resources.
It's not about having your team win. All you seem to care about is justifying your team's actions. You're like a Raiders fan who refuses to acknowledge they play dirty, tho you know it and love it about them.
Every president, when they take office, completely replaces these lawyers. All 93 or so of them. After that, the prez is supposed to leave these men and women be to do their jobs without political pressure. Replacing them in mid-term is largely unprecedented, and a mass firing like this has never happened before.
You're ignoring basic facts to be a cheerleader. Maybe it allows you to root for your team without guilt, but it leaves you an obvious partisan. Patting yourselves on the back might be fun for you, but don't expect it to impact anyone else.

[Buzzy]

It's so much fun watching one loony lefty post under so many screen names. Exactly matches how Democrats vote.

[charles]

it's fitzmas again in lefty land - what are you guys going to do when this one fizzles out just like the last one - and the next one, and the next one

till the average person in the street figures out it's nothing but political stunts and throws the dems back into the minority - so keep up the good work

gonzales will still be ag until the next election - no matter how much poo gets flung at the wall because it's just circus show trial time

how's that frst hundred hours going?

[templar knight]

Damn, I'm going to hate myself for bringing this up, but Legalize, would you please tell me who sent Joe Wilson to Niger? I'm just curious. I hate myself.

[Legalize]

Goodie, Buzzy and Chuckles are here to ... do ... something. When what fizzles out? You mean like the '06 election; the Libby trial, the Walter Reed scandal, the FBI / patriot act scandal, the tremendous ground-swell of support for the war in Iraq, wtc. etc. Do you detectives really beleive the GOP in general and the White House specifically has looked GOOD to the public in the past year and a half? Do you get ALL of your information from the echo chambers you ihabit, or what?

Is asking about the first 100 hours really all you morons have? Are you too dense to realize that the GOP is going down in flames after only 8 weeks of Dem. control? Are you really that obtuse?

I hope so.

[Legalize]

The CIA sent Wilson to Niger, tk. You know that. You also know that Plame didn't have the authority to do so. What is your point?

[BobInStamford]

Oh my, rednecks. Another scandal for the heros! I would suggest that you convene prayer circles and hope for the best. Wait until Rove and Witchiepoo have to go under oath. It's only March, the fun is only beginning. Again, happy anniversary on your little Iraq adventure. Surge on!

[yyy]

I don't think Rove will testify under oath. They will claim executive privilege and stonewall until the cows come home.

I wonder, isn't it time for a CODE ORANGE terror alert, some nice ambigous allegations about suspects suspected of associating with suspects suspected of having had a latte with someone suspected of once running into someone suspected of being a terrorist.

[templar knight]

Legalize, I knew I would hate myself for this, but....never mind. Mayhap Dan will run another Plame-Wilson thread pretty soon, and we can rehash it. I'm not going to hijack your US Attorney thread. Now, surge on!