Why Haven't We Written About the US Attorneys' Story?:
In an unrelated comment thread, anonymous commenter "CrazyTrain" writes:
On a more serious note, I haven't written about the U.S. Attorney's story because I'm having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. More broadly, I have longrunning objections to the extent to which DOJ is under White House control, objections that this story helps bring to the fore (although my objections are based on my views of sound policy, not on law).
At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting. Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they're getting a bad rap.
So in the end I don't quite know where I come out based on what we know. Without knowing where I come out, I don't feel I have much helpful to add. I realize that this may mean I am missing a big story. Perhaps this will prove to be a simply huge scandal, and in time it will seem odd that we weren't all blogging about it. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I read a story and I'm not sure what to make of it.
In any event, readers such as CrazyTrain who are sure are about this story are welcome to explain why (politely, of course) in the comment thread.
I'd like to see a study on why the most read legal blog on the internet has not once mentioned the US Attorneys' scandal. This blog even includes ex AUSA's. Amazing. I used to think you guys were somewhat nonpartisan but now you guys just look like hacks. No one here is "obligated" to write about any topic of course, but the failure to write about a topic is fair game to judge one's views, and the fact that not one post here has been devoted to this very important issue in the legal community evidences the hackery of the writers here.First, I would like to clear up something: Of course we are all political hacks! Our secret trick is that we alternate which side to spin: sometimes we are political hacks for the right, and sometimes we are political hacks for the left. Naive readers occassionally mistake this for principle, but I trust the more sophisticated see it as the randomized hackery it truly is. In any event, a great rule of thumb is that our silence means that we are secretly conspiring with your enemies to keep stories out of the public eye. Remember, if a legal event isn't being blogged about at the Volokh Conspiracy, it just didn't happen.
On a more serious note, I haven't written about the U.S. Attorney's story because I'm having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. More broadly, I have longrunning objections to the extent to which DOJ is under White House control, objections that this story helps bring to the fore (although my objections are based on my views of sound policy, not on law).
At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting. Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they're getting a bad rap.
So in the end I don't quite know where I come out based on what we know. Without knowing where I come out, I don't feel I have much helpful to add. I realize that this may mean I am missing a big story. Perhaps this will prove to be a simply huge scandal, and in time it will seem odd that we weren't all blogging about it. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do when I read a story and I'm not sure what to make of it.
In any event, readers such as CrazyTrain who are sure are about this story are welcome to explain why (politely, of course) in the comment thread.
You and Alberto, too, apparently.
So far this 'crisis' is much more selective, which raises two possibilities: either the firings were targeted and vindictive or they were targeted and appropriate. Only the latter is cause for concern but thus far very little evidence has been presented and can be objectively relied upon. In effect, all we know for sure is that the dismissals too place.
But in that regard, these are political offices and some deference is deserved to political considerations--of course there are limits.
I'm sort of happy this subject hasn't gotten much attention on this blog. For one, there isn't much substance to talk about. For two, people who have already gotten angry and overtly disturbed by these events appear to me to be overreacting.
Indeed, I would say I'm feel a little weary of this being yet another 'the boy who cried wolf'. People have developed many _excessive_ claims to dig into the present administration. This gets quite tiring to hear when time after time the facts do not support the strength or fervor of the charge.
Please stick to the many factual failings of the administration: incompetent war planning and credulous acceptance of poor intelligence... but then we all know about those too, so please don't waste any ink on them either.
As I was saying over at James Joyner's place, the discretion to fire isn't the issue. I see two issues:
(1) The Senate cleverly gave up the confirmation check on the President's power to hire &fire these attorneys. The present inquiry is warranted as relevant to whether or not that was such a great idea.
(2) Regardless of anything else, if Gonzales et al. lied under oath on very material issues, which it seems he may have, then there's a problem.
Here's a story -- it's about lying to congress under oath. He said that the decisions were not political, yet in fact they were, with Rove and Bush and Miers intimately involved in the process.
I understand that it is no longer fashionable to be worked up about lying to congress or a grand jury under oath (at least not as long as you are a Republican). Obviously, if Alberto had lied to congress about having sex in his office, then there would undoubtedly be a brou-haha, but as an American, I do think that charges of perjury are serious enough to warrant further investigation.
Yes, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but I think that misses the point (i.e, the reaon why this truly is a big story). Here's what makes it interesting to me: the President's right to remove a USA for any reason (or, in theory, no reason) does not give him either (A) political cover, in the event his reasons turn out to be less than laudable, or (B) a defense to a claim that he participated in a scheme to remove those USAs who refused to cooperate with Republican lawmakers' desires to gin up "voter fraud" investigations in the absence of any evidence. By comparison, an employee at-will can, nevetheless, bring a Title VII discrimination case -- he or she can be fired for any reason or no reason, but not for an illegal reason.
At this point, "story A" is all but admitted; indeed, after several days of offering inconsistent and mutally exclusive explanations of how and why this happened, DOJ seems to have settled on the defense that this was mere politics. But the evidence is mounting that "story B" is closer to the truth. I am certaily not calling anyone here a hack, but I will say that when the AG's chief of staff suddenly resigns, something fairly big is going on and your readership is interested to know what you all think.
King
JHA
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it! No point in reading on...
Criminal? Unlikely. But while not contrary to law, it does add credence to the oft-heard criticism that this Administration has taken advantage of the War on Terrorism (in this case, the Patriot Act) to further its own political agenda.
JHA
I'm most definitely w/Crazy Train. I was waiting to see this story on this site since it broke a while ago. After all, it's a legal blog. Or at least a blog w/a lot of lawyers and law professors with stories about complex legal issues. There're also threads that have nothing to do w/any of these. But that only makes this story's omission all the stranger. I point no fingers, but it definitely seems bizarre to me as well.
From what I gather, specific Congresspeople attempted to pressure specific AUSAs to prosecute their political enemies. The AUSAs refused, and they were fired. When this story broke, those accused claimed that the attorneys were canned b/c of poor performance. Yet, it was quickly revealed that their latest evaluations were Outstanding. If this were a Title VII case, summary judgment denied: time to go to a jury. Now, one may disagree w/some of the specifics I listed or my conclusion. But this is the gist of the story, and as such, it's surely worthy of a mention on this site.
A quick glance at the scope of the VC's archives might have helped you stop before writing that.
But regardless, that misses the point. In 1993, firing every USA would've meant having to get Senate confirmation of every replacement, in a process where the Senators from each state played a role in selecting the USA.
Yes, this is a political issue because voter fraud is intensely political. And, yes, Justice may be pursuing Democrat party voter fraud more vigorously than Republican voter fraud. But just as the Administration may be suspect for pushing voter fraud investigations, Congress and the MSM may be equally suspect for trying to derail it by investigating these firings.
Also, you are OBVIOUSLY (Duh!) flaks for the Houston Astros, since you haven't addressed the question: Why didn't the Cubs seek to acquire speed at the top of the lineup during the off-season.
I guess if I want objectivity and intelliegnce (of both sorts) I have to go back to DailyKos.
The AG has distanced himself from the process. Whoever had a problem with the performance of the fired USAs, it wasn't Alberto Gonzales.
If they've turned to actually rating performance and loyalty to the administration, that's actually a step up from the usual standard, which was more like "do we owe him any favors, and is there someone we do owe favors to who's suited for the job?"
Ahh, truth in advertising. This blog is called the Volokh Conspiracy after all.
Which doesn't explain the other 5.
As I understand it, the complaints -- at least in one case -- did not originate with the AG, but with local R members of Congress. Those members clearly wanted alleged voter fraud pursued for partisan purposes. When the Attorney resisted, complaints were made to Rove and only then was Gonzales told what to do. In short, the decision was political from top to bottom, and in a particularly offensive way. Lying about it afterwards just made it look worse.
I think standard practice had been to allow the sitting U.S. Attorney's complete their 4 year terms.
Depends. By, "Bush did the exact same thing", do you mean that Bush with unprecidented haste demanded the resignation of all but one US attorney, accepted those resignations in the case of a few who were investigating things he'd done previous to being elected, and kept on the rest until they could be replaced on a more normal schedule? Because that's the specific allegation as to Clinton's mass firing, whether or not it's true.
I don't think Bush did, but I could be wrong.
I don't think it's an issue of the press overlooking the president's constitutional authority. The story has simply snowballed from allegations of individual legislators leaning on USAs for political purposes into some level of WH complicity.
This makes the story as newsworthy for its political fallout as it does for any question of legal impropriety. My guess is that some commenters are screaming about Clinton's treatment of USAs because they learned about it from (egad!) the "Mainstream Media"
Lawyers specialize. No matter how good they are, there are vast swathes of the law they know little about. It is perfectly reasonable (and responsible) for the Conspiracy bloggers to avoid this issue if they don't feel they can do it well.
Marston Affair
Every once in a while, one of the conspirators will start an open thread - not on a topic, but just an open thread. I think that's kind of cool, and it's my suggestion that one be established each and every day.
Although, that may make it more difficult to manage the conspiracy...
Why does speed at the top of the lineup matter when everyone knows the problem with the cubs is that wood and prior are destined to injure themselves making ham sandwiches.
Look, if you didn't think that torturing, lying about the reasons for going to war, or leaking a covert agent's identity in order to discredit a war critic (not to mention the complete cluster**** that was the federal response to Katrina), then this is hardly going to raise an eyebrow.
Contrary to Bruce Hayden's somewhat deceptive spin, the allegation appears to be that:
1) US Attorneys were encouraged to go after Democrats (specifically, not as sort of a general "go after politicians"), particularly in states where the political impact would help in elections. US Attorneys did so, to the degree that 90% of their investigations were into Democrats (there of course lies the implausible, but not impossible, scenario where such a percentage was due to random chance or that Democrats are just genetically more likely to be corrupt or whatnot, but there does seem to be some res ipsa loquitor value there).
2) Some US Attorneys were fired for failure to support, or to obtain the full political benefit of, corruption inquiries into Democrats.
3) One US Attorney (Carol Lam) was fired for pursuing a corruption inquiry into California Republicans and possible connections to people in the Bush administration. This seems to be the most serious, but hardly the most reported upon, allegation.
4) Several US Attorneys may have been fired in order to reward loyal (in all sorts of legal and perhaps illegal-quid-pro-quo ways) Republicans. This seems to be the least serious charge.
you're ignoring the fact that this is a mid-term appointment.
it's my understanding from people close to the admin that Lam had it coming for awhile because of failing to prosecute immigration cases in san diego, of all places.
on the other hand, the idea that "these are just political appointments" has become a little over-used. yes, they are "political" in the sense that these people are expected to pursue the presidents law enforcement objectives, but they are not "political" in the sense that they are to aid or slow prosecutions of investigations involving political candidates.
Other than full-dress Satanism, I'm not sure what *would* hit that, any more.
it's my understanding from people close to the admin that Lam had it coming for awhile because of failing to prosecute immigration cases in san diego, of all places."
Kovarsky,
Your understanding is true to the degree that this is the defense provided by the Department of Justice. There has been some dispute about that (notably, a letter from the Department of Justice a few months before to Senator Feingold touting Lam's prosecution of illegal immigrants). However, the allegation is clearly not Lam's failure to prosecute immigration cases, but Lam's continued investigation into the Cunningham affair.
I don't think there's as much evidence in either direction for the Lam case, as there is for, say, the Washington or New Mexico US Attorneys.
No, I'm not saying that this is the official defense from the DOJ, I'm saying that people I trust very much are saying that off the record as well.
Actually, I think it's rather stunning that they (at least claim to) have fired someone for poor performance. Certainly, that's a first!
Let me correct that. Standard practice appeared to be orderily appointing and confirming new attorney's to replace the outgoing attorney's.
"If the U. S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, then they can be dismissed for any reason or no reason at all. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in dismissing the eight. It is a political appointment. "
Michael Dorf wrote in a post on the subject:
What Tobias overlooks--and what I overlooked in my earlier post--is that the Constitution, not just politics, constrains the President's ability to fire government officials. For example, if Gonzales had fired one of the Eight because the U.S. Attorney had converted to Islam, that would have violated one or more of the Religious Tests Clause, the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. (Justiciability might present a problem for separation-of-powers reasons but that doesn't go to legality.) Whether firing a U.S. Attorney for his failure to bring partisan-politically motivated cases, or failure to dismiss other cases based on partisan political pressure, is another forbidden ground set against the background presumption of employment at will, is not entirely clear. It's possible that the Justice Department Eight were not entitled to keep their jobs, but that firing them as part of a plot to use the government's prosecutorial power for partisan ends--if that is what happened--violates criminal laws and/or constitutes an impeachable offense. If, for example, the President told the Attorney General to fire all U.S. Attorneys who were not disproportionately prosecuting corruption cases against Democrats rather than Republicans, that would seem a fairly clear violation of the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed."
I'm not sure how much I agree with either Dorf or calmom. In my view, impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one - what's impeachable is what 51% of Representatives and 75% of Senators so decide.
Calmom continues,
"Why is Congress so surprised that Republican appointees would be investigating Democrats? Isn't the newly Democratic Congress gearing up to issue subpoenas to investigate Republicans now that they have that power? The U. S. Attorneys are bound by the ethical obligations of all lawyers, but to expect a political appointee to not act in a political manner or to be dismissed for reasons of politics is naive."
This is where I think Calmom might lose the support of most people. While Congressmen are inherently political, and they are political *appointees*, what calmom describes would be a travesty of the law, even if not outright criminal. It would also run into major constitutional concerns that would clearly jeopardize any of their indictments.
Certainly, the prosecutor following what calmom condones would be in violation of professional standards and subject to disbarment. Whether such behavior is also in breach of applicable criminal law is an interesting question that I would need to do some research on, but would gladly welcome assistance.
Right -- that was the first clue they were lying.
i'm not talking about any of the other prosecutors, just lam.
Actually I think the difference is that a lot of americans didn't get worked up over lying under oath about a blow job, as opposed, to say, a war.
It was possible to be very upset that the President lied under oath without feeling that impeachment was the correct response. I dare say I remember most Republicans being upset about Clinton's perjury, even if they weren't out for blood. Ah, those were simpler times were they not?
I am absolutely positive that John McKay was fired in Seattle because he did not do a investigation of the 2004 Governers race in Washington, and I've got no problem with his being fired for sitting on his hands. It was in the public interest for a thorough investigation of the facts in order to determine if there was any crimes or voting fraud. If there was pressure to indict where no evidence of a crime was committed, then heads should roll. But as the Plame case showed, political pressure to investigate suspicious activity is par for the course in our system of justice.
So my bottom line is that killing investigations for political reasons is bad, and should be punished. Investigating people for political reasons when there is no evidence of a crime is bad and should be punished.
Political pressure to investigate situations where there are important public interests involved to make sure everything is on the up and up, and filing charges when warranted is good and how the system was designed to work.
1. Appearances can be more important than realities; and
2. It's not what you did that gets you in trouble; it's what you did trying to cover up.
DOJ's actions created an appearance of impropriety, and their attempts to explain themselves just seem to be reinforcing the belief that they wouldn't be trying so hard if there wasn't something to hide.
It sometimes seems like this administration has ridden the elevator of the Tower of Turd to the lowest subbasement, and still has its thumb on the down button.
And, yeah, I'm aware that lots of charges were made about Clinton, some of them absolute dreck, some of them proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and most of them in the grey middle. You know, I *did* say that was the charge, "whether or not it was true". I don't know whether it was, but I do know that what Clinton was accused of isn't the exact same thing Bush did.
Did you read today's story from the Seattle Times?
And you're still "absolutely positive"?
How is the questioning going to go? "Did you, Mr. USA, not consider this to be sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution for voter fraud (waving some document showing Daffy Duck to be a registered voter)? What about this? What about this? The Republicans on the committee could make out a case for the uninvestigated voter fraud that would only make the Democrats look bad, since the allegations are that Democratic voter fraud wasn't prosecuted.
P.S. Anybody who's trotting out the "Clinton fired all the attorneys" meme gets an F for not doing their homework.
Are those serious questions coming from someone who, in two prior posts, dismissed this incident as business as usual.
A commentator on National Review and a WSJ editorial have complained about Bush Administration incomptence in handling the firings. Another National Review commentator and some of the comments in this thread have pointed out that the Democrats can't yet prove corruption, but that only shows why further investigation is needed.
We need to see emails, phone logs, and documents, and then hear sworn testimony from the players. I hope the Democrats in Congress start that ball rolling soon.
Are there going to be hearings on this? Are the fired U. S. Attorneys going to be testifying?
The hearings were last week. Some of the fired attorneys testified. Yesterday the WH released a document dump to try to explain their way out of it, but that only raised more questions than it answered. Today's presser was another attempt to talk their way out of it, but it didn't work. Expect to see more. Whether this one boils over or simmers down is anyone's guess at this point.
I am absolutely sure that McKay was fired because Dino Rossi thought he was the victim of voter fraud, and the US Attorney stood by and watched as he was electorally mugged. As a matter of fact it was proven that the number of illegal votes from overwhelmingly Democratic precincts exeeded the margin of victory.
Here is an account that documents the illegal votes that gave the 2004 election to Gregiore. Was it criminal, I don't know, and if McKay did a thorough job, then I would know. It was unfair to Rossi, and it was unfair to Gregiore, and it was unfair to the voters. We deserved to know, and if McKay did his job we would. And I am not accusing McKay of being unethical, or biased, he saw his job differently than those that appointed him did, and he serves at their pleasure, their pleasure ended.
Um, no, you wouldn't, because since when does a U.S. attorney give a detailed report on an investigation that failed to turn up evidence of a crime?
Kazinski says, "if McKay did a thorough job, then I would know." If McKay did a thorough job and concluded that no prosecutable federal crime occurred, how exactly is it you'd know? One suspects that in Kazinski-speak, "thorough job" = "criminal charges brought regardless of merit."
Full dress Satanism, as you put it, is done without dress.
FYI
Wouldn't it be good to have facts? Like full disclosure of personel records - before deciding the merits of the case.
You know that sticky stuff. Evidence.
And I dare say I remember most Republicans being upset because Oliver North was convicted of lying to congress, but were quite relieved to see that his conviction was overturned on what they usually regard is a 'legal technicality.'
As The General notes, any good republican will follow the line that there is nothing to see here, just move along. Just like tobacco CEOs who lie to congress, or a secretary of state who lies about WMDs, it's all okay.
Look, the Republicans would actually have a little more credibility on this issue if they zealously persecuted those who lie to congress regardless of their political affiliation.
No.
"And, to what extent there have been violations in these states?"
De minimis or none.
Let me be clear here, I do not think that Democratic officials purposely stole the 2004 Washington State Governors election. I think through incompetence and sloth they let several hundred illegal votes through into the ballot boxes, then they covered up the fact. McKay did not see any overt criminal activity and let it go. That is what cost McKay his job and rightly so. I linked above the research that proves both the illegal votes and the cover up. The research was done by Stefan Sharkansky at Soundpolitics.com on his own time and meticulously documented. Sharkansky had to do it because McKay wouldn't.
Well, shoot, if it wasn't good enough for Rossi and Hastings, then there must have been a coverup because, clearly, Rossi and Hastings wouldn't be biased in any way, would they? So they took their complaints to the AG and the WH and, boom! they get the type of USA who'll find what Rossi and Hastings want them to find. Sounds like justice to me.
I have reviewed the cite you provided. As crushed as I am that certain people who were eligible to vote but did a poor job of filling out paperwork were nonetheless allowed to vote, I'm not sure how this article is relevant.
It doesn't document voter fraud or an intent to steal elections, only that a single county allowed votes to count without any attempt to ascertain what the vote itself would be. Thus, even if assumed to be 100% true (and there is no clear support), it says nothing about the political affiliation of those voters, or what happened in other districts.
How does that show an imperfect investigation into voter fraud?
Interesting word choice.
i'm not completely clear what you're saying - are you saying that agnostic blogging is appropriate or inappropriate?
The county where the illegal voting occurred is and was overwhelmingly Democratic, there is no absolute proof, because there was not a thorough investigation by the US Attorney, but anyone that looks at the evidence objectively would conclude the election was swung by illegal votes. The public officials who's responsibility it was to conduct a clean and fair election lied about the facts to the public in terms of statements made to the press, and officially in affidavits that they were required to certify the election.
Now in McKay's defense I think he did all he was required to do if he was a non-partisan holder of a non-partisan office. If US Attorneys are selected and confirmed and hold tenure the way Federal judges do, then I would think McKay adequately performed his duties. However the US Attorney is a partison office staffed by partison appointees, and they better damn well know on which side their bread is buttered on. I expect the highest ethical behavior from them, don't let anybody off, don't put anybody on the hook for political reasons. McKay found himself out of step with adminstration that puts a very high priority on voter fraud cases, and wants answers whether or not they result in prosecutions. And I wouldn't expect Democrats and independents to think McKay did anything wrong, but he didn't work for them, maybe his next job.
OK, if collectively VC bloggers do "alternate" between right and left, then it is not truly "randomized" hackery. And I don't think any individual VC blogger regularly or irregularly, with or without any discernible periodicity or pattern, switches between right and left. And whether for better or worse, I do think better, you are all pretty consistent/predictable.
And the constitutional amendment you propose to take the Attorney General out from the Executive Branch is ... ?
Hast thou learnt nothing from the life and justified death of the Independent Counsel statute?
So let me get this straight, a REPUBLICAN attorney appointed by a REPUBLICAN president couldn't find anyone evidence of voter fraud in a DEMOCRATIC district that voted a DEMOCRAT into office by a slim margin? and your arguing that he was legitmately fired because he couldn't make up enough evidence to have the vote overturned and the election given to a republican. You do concede that he did his job well in a non-partisan fashion. I see now that you stand on princple...
"anyone that looks at the evidence objectively"
I find it funny that you think you are capable of such a thing.
"I expect the highest ethical behavior from them"
no, actually you don't. you are arguing that he should have pushed for an indictment of someone, who could not have been proven to have done anything wrong for lack of evidence, on a strictly partisan basis. That is at the very least a corruption of the legal system.
"McKay found himself out of step with adminstration that puts a very high priority on democratic voter fraud cases, and wants answers whether or not they result in prosecutions"
now this sentence makes much more sense. no one can reasonably argue that this administration is non-partisan or does things in a non-partisan fashion. Also they did an answer, just not the "right" answer. There were tons of voting regularities across the country. almost none resulted in criminal proceedings and none of the other AUSAs were fired. Why? Because all the other instances would have either resulted in no change to the election outcome or resulted in the election going to the democratic candidate. The administration only pays lip service to vote fraud and firing someone for not paying that same lip service is not a legitimate reason.
What would your reaction be if the tables were reversed and it was a democrat doing an "evil" deed? Somehow i doubt it would be nearly as favorable as you are now.
Well of course you would say that. :-)
Kazinski's comments about McKay reflect a shocking belief that professional prosecutors are supposed to bend with the political winds. They are not. That is why the Senate is supposed to confirm the US Attorneys.
As for the other US Attorneys, Iglesias seems to have gotten a raw deal and Lam's firing has a bad appearance but we don't know enough to say that it was motivated by her prosecutions of Cunningham et al. Kevin Ryan, the US Attorney in SF, had morale problems in his office that were well-publicized in the local legal press and legal community.
I think AG Gonzales has some back-pedaling to do on his prior remarks to the effect that these were all performance related. This incident makes me glad, by the way, that Alito and Roberts were appointed to the US Supreme Court instead of Miers and Gonzales.
And that the media continually prostitutes itself to bash Bush, heedless of historical context like Clinton's 93 firings, when AGs were too "unloyal" for a Democratic president - and the MSM proved largely silent or unsympathetic.
I agree that we don't yet know the full story on Lam, but look at this post from Josh Marshall today -- the timeline is extremely damning. As Marshall points out, Samson's May 11 email discussing "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam" came the very same day that Rep. Jerry Lewis was reported to be a target of her investigation; it also came right in the midst of the follwing events:
April 28th, 2006 -- Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo "Hookergate" scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney's Office's Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.
April 29th, 2006 -- Washington Post reports that Hookergate's Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.
May 2nd, 2006 -- Kyle "Dusty" Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.
May 4th, 2006 -- Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.
May 5th, 2006 -- WSJ reports that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.
May 5th, 2006 -- Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.
May 6th, 2006 -- WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the 'hookergate' Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.
May 7th, 2006 -- House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate's Shirlington Limo.
May 8th, 2006 -- Lyle "Dusty" Foggo resigns at CIA.
May 11th, 2006 -- LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.
May 12th, 2006 -- Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and CIA office of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.
I also agree with another Marshall point: that Lam should have been radioactive during such a period of uncovering mutlifaceted Republican corruption, much of which was so clear as to be undeniable (have we all forgotten the "Duke-Stir" yacht Cunningham received as part of his bribe?). Not that Lam should have been given a pass on anything truly serious, but the idea that you fire a prosecutor for some nebulous failure to pursue administration priorities in the midst of her dogged investigation of your political party should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
And I frankly don't give a rip about the "historical context" -- although orson23's failure to distinguish between Clinton's patronage politics and a purge of prosecutors who have harmed Republican party interests through (a)proseuting corrupt Republicans, or (b) not prosecuting Democrats without evidence in the months before elections, is interesting. But that aside, didn't "Clinton did it too" used be a criticism coming from Republicans, not a defense?
King
Then, are Cabinet members not supposed to bend to the political winds? I doubt that you mean that.
Let me be clear. I think that US Attorneys should be more independent than Cabinet members. However, US Attorneys should not be as independent as judges. US Attorneys should be accountable to the voters via their accountability to elected officials (i.e., politicians).
Carol Lam is the big one, as Josh Marshall continues to point out. If you think DOJ's "real problem" with Lam was that she wasn't pursuing immigration cases, as opposed to the fact that she had blown open an corruption ring involving top-ranking Republican congressmen and political appointees in Executive branch agencies, you are kidding yourself. Expect her situation to get a full airing; Arlen Specter's speech yesterday, reported by today's NYT, seems to confirm this.
David Iglesias is the second biggest story, mainly because both Domenici and Wilson are in deep doo-doo. Once again, if you think he was pushed out because of nonfeasance relating to immigration or voter fraud, rather than because he refused to capitulate to pressure from two Republican members of the NM congressional delegation to bring an indictment down on a Democrat prior to election day, you're kidding yourself. As the email dump shows, Domenici was ready to replace Iglesias before his body was even cold.
The Arkansas situation is the third biggest story, mainly because it was the source of numerous false statements by administration officials to Congress. First, Gonzales lied about whether DOJ intended to use the new provision in the Patriot Act to circumvent the appointment process. Second, DOJ lied (in a letter to Congress) about Karl Rove's political involvement in the replacement. Third, Gonzales lied about whether politics played a role in the decision at all. I think this case provides the smoking gun that takes down the AG.
The McKay situation is the fourth biggest one, for two reasons. First, it is preposterous for DOJ -- and Kazinsky, in this thread -- to assert that he was fired for not pursuing the investigation of the 2004 governor's race alleged voting fraud more vigorously, when the Election Crimes chief of DOJ itself, in Washington, concurs that no crimes were committed. Second, McKay is not going down without a fight, and he knows he was part of a wrongful political purge. As he put it, "My question is, if [Gonzales] fired the guy who fired us, why is he standing by the dismissals?" (Via TPM.)
Good question.
Out of all eight U.S. Attorneys, there is one instance where there may be a political issue. The article reveals that Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) “phoned [U.S. Attorney David C.] Iglesias to inquire about a seemingly stalled corruption investigation against Democrats in New Mexico.” But even here, the article cites no real evidence from the e-mails showing that Domenici had any effect on the Administration’s decision to oust Iglesias. The article mentions e-mails sent after the firing, noting that Domenici was happy and was quickly submitting names as possible replacements. These e-mails show an (amused) awareness that Domenici had been unhappy with Yglesias — but the e-mails are not evidence that Domenici’s unhappiness had any effect.
Unmentioned by The Times is the fact that Iglesias, the fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney, had passed on more than a hundred allegations of voter fraud in New Mexico. After calling a press conference and saying: “It appears that mischief is afoot, and questions are lurking in the shadows,” he let his office drop most of the complaints, claiming that he lacked the resources to investigate them, and that the FBI had declined to investigate.
I think this is inexcusable. If you are the U.S. Attorney, you can play a role in setting priorities for the FBI — especially in the critically important area of voter fraud.
It strikes me that, rather than being directly or indirectly accountable to elected officials (or even "serving at the pleasure of the President"), a US Attorney, once in office, is obligated to uphold his oath of office -- period.
And I'm fairly sure that the oath, whatever it is, is non-partisan.
Which begs the question: What IS the oath that U.S. Attorneys take? My googling skills have failed me: I can only find statutes requiring an oath, but can't seem to locate the text of the oath.
Anyone know?
That would lead to a multiplication of Nifongery. IMO
Wow. Just "wow."
2) What Clinton did was fire every attorney in order to cover up the fact that he desperately needed to get rid of -one-... that one happened to be an arkansas lawyer (named George Banks, I believe?) investigating certain land deals. That one was then replaced by one of Clinton's own former law students, who then promptly buried the investigation. Amazing that the coverage ignores THAT. Tell me, if Bush had fired all 93 attorneys in order to cover up these 8, wouldn't you be even more shocked? Imagine if he'd fired 93 to cover up just one? Sadly, it looks like it -worked-.
3) I think Zazinski's defense (that it -should- be a thoroughly partisan office) is ridiculous. For the record. I submit that I -don't- think McKay did all he was required to do as a non-partisan holder of a non-partisan office.
4) I do stand by a President's ability to fire any USA he wishes to. That's his constitutional right. There -should- be political fallout though - just as there should have been a crapload of fallout for Clinton dismissing (as one of the 93) someone investigating Whitewater land deals and replacing him with a former law student... but hey, let's not worry about that, after all, we all know that ALL cases of overt, glaring democrat voter fraud are always pursued diligently... just look at Philadelphia for the last 30 years or so, with almost as many registered voters as eligible voters election after election...
Is this a suggestion that the relevant Senators were not consultant here? Especially in New Mexico?
Here is the gist of the story:
Clinton fires every US attorney for politcal purposes = ok
Bush fires 8 for political purposes = scandal.
This is a "story" because the liberal media(for them history starts in 2000) insists on asking about it endlessly.
Qwinn
Link
Qwinn
It's one of those talking points that immediately outs the person using it as being either completely uninformed or a partisan hack who uses arguments he knows are bogus.
If so, that's a pretty LAME response to what Clinton did. I'm not saying "Clinton fired all the attorneys so that makes it okay", I'm saying "Clinton fired an attorney investigating Whitewater and replaced him with a former law student, the other 92 firings were just political cover so no one would notice". If you can't tell the difference, just damn.
Qwinn
It's a very serious matter to fire the prosecutor to stop a GOP-centric corruption investigation. It's not 100% clear that was the motivation, but the timing of those emails sure smells funny. (Remember too that elections were going in the background).
These people are not independent actors, they serve the President. If the President is unhappy with them, for whatever reason, then if he wants to fire them, ok with me. The same was true in 1993 as it is now.
If Congress thinks the firings are an abuse, then impeach and remove the AG or the President from office. That is the remedy.
These current hearings will create headlines and blog posts but nothing else. (Well, I guess they will change the appointment law back to the way it was, big woop, that will only hamstring the next president.) Neither Rove or the AG will resign. No perjury indictments.
My bottom line is that it does not matter whether it is President Bush or President Clinton doing the firing, it is still ok even if for "political reasons". If there is political fall-out, then that hurts the President, as it should. Yet it is still his decision under our system. Do you want US attorneys answerable to no one? That is the Nifong danger, not what happened here.
Democrats: "Bush may have fired US attorneys that he felt didn't aggressively pursue investigations against Democrats enough. This is vile! The lowest of the low!"
Republicans: "Uh, your Savior Clinton fired all 93 attorneys to cover up his firing of the one investigating Whitewater, replacing him with a law student who promptly buried the entire investigation, and yet Whitewater is now viewed as evidence of the "Republican smear machine that couldn't turn up any evidence of a crime". You've gotta be kidding us with this, right?"
Democrats: "Bah, anyone who even brings up Clinton or anything he did is OBVIOUSLY just a partisan hack."
Be.
Yond.
Parody.
Qwinn
Josh Marshall, Chuck Schumer and the MSM have ginned up a faux controversy over nothing. Big shock there.
Josh was interesting and thoughtful for a while, but has been drifting toward hackery for some time. I think he's arrived.
Comical.
Guess what is not "the difference"?
They serve at the pleasure of the President.
Are you seriously contentending the President somehow must keep all US attorney's he's put in place while he is in office?
I'll say it again: anybody who trots out the "Clinton fired all the attorneys" defense gets an F for not doing their homework.
Actually, what this means is you can't offer a real rebuttal as the resident liberal.
No. They serve the people and the law. Read the Berger quote above.
Please do your homework. Every time there's a change in administrations the incoming president replaces nearly all the US Attorneys. Bush (43) replaced 91 of the 93 in 2001. Don't believe me? Read this:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
Are you seriously contentending the President somehow must keep all US attorney's he's put in place while he is in office?
I'm saying that if the Prez chooses to fire someone, it shouldn't be because the USA is prosecuting too many Republicans and not enough Democrats.
But let me ask you....
Are you seriously contending that the President can openly and directly "order" all US attorneys never to prosecute a Republican?
This is not what Bush did, but if the beginning and end of your analysis is "they serve at the pleasure of the President", then, hypothetically speaking, a President can do exactly what I have suggested.
Sorry, Ace. Once in office, U.S. attorneys take an oath is to uphold the law and the Constitution, not the whims of the resident of the White House. The President can appoint whoever he likes, and fire whomever he likes, but if he fires an attorney because of disloyalty to the President or party, there SHOULD be political fallout. And that's what we're seeing.
Did anyone say that? Would you quote, please?
The point is this: the President is free to be as corrupt as he likes in firing the U.S. attorneys, but the Senate is free to investigate that corrupt behavior. In particular, the Senate may wish to rethink its ceding the power of confirmation of new appointees. And, as a more clear-thinking Bush supporter upthread said, there's always impeachment of Gonzales.
...
So let me get this straight. You take the starting point of "93". You then subtract two... "Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals". Somehow, you conclude that there must be a USA out there named "Mr. United State Attorneys" and another one named "Mr. United State Marshals", and conclude that 91 were fired.
Would that be correct?
If you were a teacher, what would you grade a student who came to that conclusion in their homework?
And how does this address the fact that Clinton fired a USA who buried the Whitewater investigation? Do you not realize the implication of this is that there should be immediate subpoenas issued and the Whitewater investigation reopened? Or should we all realize that justice in that case was successfully obstructed and just "move on"?
Qwinn
This is just like the amazing reversal the press coverage of filibusters undergoes every the control of Congress changes. When Dems are in the minority, it's the cornerstone of democracy; if Repubs are using it, it's an anti-democratic obstructionist anachronism.
Or consider the Valerie Plame "scandal." Left-wingers openly expose CIA operatives and vital national security initiatives in the NYT, and they're called heroes. Richard Armitrage leaks a CIA desk jockey's name because her husband on TV lying about a trip she sent him on, and it sparks a political witch hunt that ends in Cheney's aide being indicted despite the fact there was no damage at all to national security, no political agenda to the leak -- and in the end, the executive has the power to declassify what it wants anyway, unlike the NYT.
Sigh.
Liberal reaction at the time?
Silence.