Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
I'm actually kind of shocked that there has not been a single word on this story in the past couple of months on RM. It's too complicated to summarize briefly, and every time I read something new and startling about it, I don't have time to write about it, especially since there's so much background, and I've yet to find a good story that summarizes all of the scandal to date.
Essentially, in the past few months, 7 or 8 US Attorneys have been fired without cause all over the country. At least 4 of them were involved in investigations of corruption at the federal level, including most notably the US Attorney who prosecuted Duke Cunningham and is still digging deeper in that investigation which has already exposed the number 3 guy at the CIA.
There's much more to this, but the other most interesting wrinkle is that this is being done under an authority granted to the President in the last renewal of the Patriot Act, which allows the executive to appoint interim US Attorneys, without congressional oversight, on a nearly indefinite basis. Previously, if an interim appointment was not confirmed by the Senate within a certain time period (90 days, 120 days?), the permanent appointment was made by a Federal Judge, not the Attorney General. Just another example of the executive usurping the power of the judiciary under this administration.
If you know of any good summaries, or if you just want to start talking about this story, whcih hopefully will be exploding onto the front pages with congressional hearings next week, please do so.
I'll try to find some good background stories as well.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
Quote:
Just another example of the executive usurping the power of the judiciary under this administration.
At least karma will likely bite back when the Dems get comtrol of the executive branch. Sucks for the people, though.
So are/were US attorneys subject to the same appointment rules as judges? About how many US attorneys are there?
Not, they don't need to be impeached like a Federal Judge or anything like that. There is nothing technically illegal about the firings, and in fact, almost all of them were Bush appointees. It is just EXTREMELY suspicious because they were all fired without cause, and most of them had exceptionally high marks on their reviews.
There's a lot of speculation that this might ALL be about the San Diego Attorney (her name is Lam, I think) and the Duke Cunningham investigation. The other firings may just be intended to distract from the one that really mattered.
There's a new story today about the one in New Mexico (the one that ironically was investigating a corrupt Democrat in state government), and how Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Representaive Heather Wilson (R-NM) made calls to the US Attorney's office in Albuquerque to pressure him to back off his investigation.
I hope people start paying attention to this story, because it is VERY important to the long-term future of our democracy, but it's too complex for the average newsreader to fully digest.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
punkdavid wrote:
I hope people start paying attention to this story, because it is VERY important to the long-term future of our democracy, but it's too complex for the average newsreader to fully digest.
It doesn't seem complex to me at all. I know we're not "average newsreaders" here but you explained it in a way that the average newsreader should understand.
If a strong case can be made, is there any redress the attorneys could seek?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
I hope people start paying attention to this story, because it is VERY important to the long-term future of our democracy, but it's too complex for the average newsreader to fully digest.
It doesn't seem complex to me at all. I know we're not "average newsreaders" here but you explained it in a way that the average newsreader should understand.
If a strong case can be made, is there any redress the attorneys could seek?
It's not really about the individual attorneys. They're pretty much out and looking for new jobs. The redress, if any, will come from Congress (and hopefully the press) digging into the story further to find out WHY they were fired. There's talk of repealing the language of the Patriot Act that authorized these appointments (one of the new appointees was an aide to Karl Rove, but I think he has resigned already over this).
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
*EDIT* Apparently the story is that Domenici and Wilson put pressure on the US Attorney to SPEED UP indictments of the Democratic lawmakers ahead of the November election, and then the US Attorney was sacked later.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
(March 01, 2007 -- 10:16 PM EDT)
Iglesias not the only one with a story to tell?
Remember Bud Cummins. He was the US Attorney from the Eastern District of Arkansas who got canned so Karl Rove's opposition research chief could take over the job. Look closely at what he just told the Associated Press ...
Quote:
Cummins, U.S. attorney for Arkansas' Eastern District from 2001-2006, said Thursday that he and other fired attorneys had "politely declined" previous requests from the committee. He said he "didn't have any desire to stir up the controversy any further."
"If given the choice, I'd elect to stay home and mind my own business," Cummins told The Associated Press. "Now that I'm under subpoena, I'll go and give cooperative, truthful answers."
When asked if officials in the Justice Department or White House had asked him to decline the earlier requests, Cummins said he had no comment.
Again, one of those 'no comments' that says plenty.
While this story has been unfolding, has the White House been leaning on these fired US attorneys not to come before Congress?
And what might they have said?
Consider what Sen. Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday on the floor of the senate. He said pretty clearly that his staff has talked to other fired US attorneys, beside Mr. Iglesias, and that they believe nefarious motives prompted their suspicions too ...
And before going further, let's be clear about one thing. I suspect many of the press lords haven't awoken yet to the potential magnitude of this story. The Iglesias story could drag down a member of Congress. On its own though it's a small matter. What makes it a big deal is that it's the tell about what happened in San Diego.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
The first round of subpoenas concern the recent controversial firings by the Bush administration of seven U.S. attorneys, some of whom were pursuing public corruption cases against Republican members of Congress.
The House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law, chaired by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), approved subpoenas requiring four former U.S. attorneys to appear at a subcommittee hearing next Tuesday. The former U.S. attorneys include Carol Lam of California, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. Cummins III of Arkansas, and John McKay of Washington state. The subcommittee approved the subpoenas by voice vote; no Republican lawmakers were present.
Tuesday’s hearing will consider a bill by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) that would reverse a new Patriot Act provision allowing the attorney general to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation through the duration of the Bush administration.
Democrats have come to the defense of several dismissed prosecutors, in particular Lam and Cummins of Arkansas. They have noted that Lam was leading the probe of ex-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), while Cummins was removed to make room for a former aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Other U.S. attorneys, including those in Nevada and Arizona, were acting on corruption charges against GOP lawmakers before their resignations were requested.
Iglesias, a New Mexico U.S. attorney, asserted at a press conference yesterday that he was fired for purely political reasons. He also charged that prior to the November elections, two federal elected officials asked him to speed up the probes of local politicians.
Democrats, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), have expressed outrage over the firings. She and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have demanded to see the attorneys’ performance evaluations.
The White House has denied that the attorneys were fired for anything other than performance-related issues. And Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), have argued that Democrats are making up a controversy where none exists.
After the vote on the subpoenas, Sanchez took exception to the White House’s assertions that they can fire the attorneys because they are "at will" employees.
There are several exceptions when an "at-will" employee cannot be fired, Sanchez asserted, such as sex or race discrimination.
"There are several public policy reasons why we don’t fire people," she said. "Are these people being [fired] because they’re doing their jobs and they’re doing them to well? Is this an ideological purge?"
She went on to stress the importance of a judiciary branch that is separate and independent from the executive branch.
"When the executive branch is interfering in the justice system—in other countries we call that corruption," she said. "It’s very troubling to me that there seems to be this undercurrent."
February 26, 2007
Editorial Observer
Why Have So Many U.S. Attorneys Been Fired? It Looks a Lot Like Politics By ADAM COHEN
Carol Lam, the former United States attorney for San Diego, is smart and tireless and was very good at her job. Her investigation of Representative Randy Cunningham resulted in a guilty plea for taking more than $2 million in bribes from defense contractors and a sentence of more than eight years. Two weeks ago, she indicted Kyle Dustin Foggo, the former No. 3 official in the C.I.A. The defense-contracting scandal she pursued so vigorously could yet drag in other politicians.
In many Justice Departments, her record would have won her awards, and perhaps a promotion to a top post in Washington. In the Bush Justice Department, it got her fired.
Ms. Lam is one of at least seven United States attorneys fired recently under questionable circumstances. The Justice Department is claiming that Ms. Lam and other well-regarded prosecutors like John McKay of Seattle, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — who all received strong job evaluations — performed inadequately.
It is hard to call what’s happening anything other than a political purge. And it’s another shameful example of how in the Bush administration, everything — from rebuilding a hurricane-ravaged city to allocating homeland security dollars to invading Iraq — is sacrificed to partisan politics and winning elections.
U.S. attorneys have enormous power. Their decision to investigate or indict can bankrupt a business or destroy a life. They must be, and long have been, insulated from political pressures. Although appointed by the president, once in office they are almost never asked to leave until a new president is elected. The Congressional Research Service has confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways — three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months.
It is not just the large numbers. The firing of H. E. Cummins III is raising as many questions as Ms. Lam’s. Mr. Cummins, one of the most distinguished lawyers in Arkansas, is respected by Republicans and Democrats alike. But he was forced out to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a former Karl Rove deputy with thin legal experience who did opposition research for the Republican National Committee. (Mr. Griffin recently bowed to the inevitable and said he will not try for a permanent appointment. But he remains in office indefinitely.)
The Bush administration cleared the way for these personnel changes by slipping a little-noticed provision into the Patriot Act last year that allows the president to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation.
Three theories are emerging for why these well-qualified U.S. attorney were fired — all political, and all disturbing.
2. Candidate recruitment. U.S. attorney is a position that can make headlines and launch political careers. Congressional Democrats suspect that the Bush administration has been pushing out long-serving U.S. attorneys to replace them with promising Republican lawyers who can then be run for Congress and top state offices.
3. Presidential politics. The Justice Department concedes that Mr. Cummins was doing a good job in Little Rock. An obvious question is whether the administration was more interested in his successor’s skills in opposition political research — let’s not forget that Arkansas has been lucrative fodder for Republicans in the past — in time for the 2008 elections.
The charge of politics certainly feels right. This administration has made partisanship its lodestar. The Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran revealed in his book, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,†that even applicants to help administer post-invasion Iraq were asked whom they voted for in 2000 and what they thought of Roe v. Wade.
Congress has been admirably aggressive about investigating. Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, held a tough hearing. And he is now talking about calling on the fired U.S. attorneys to testify and subpoenaing their performance evaluations — both good ideas.
The politicization of government over the last six years has had tragic consequences — in New Orleans, Iraq and elsewhere. But allowing politics to infect U.S. attorney offices takes it to a whole new level. Congress should continue to pursue the case of the fired U.S. attorneys vigorously, both to find out what really happened and to make sure that it does not happen again.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. This maxim has never been more apt than today, as I find myself in agreement with Democratic Sens. Diane Feinstein, Patrick Leahy and John Conyers, as well as Republican (in name, at least) Arlen Specter. The reason? The Bush administration is playing politics with federal prosecutors.
As a public-interest lawyer for a Christian ministry, I have in the past found myself pitted against United States Attorneys and the Justice Department. Particularly under the Clinton administration, I was deeply disturbed by the politicizing of prosecutors and law enforcement, from the Justice Department to the FBI. I did not accept it from Mr. Clinton, and I will not accept it from the Bush administration, either.
The last thing this administration ought to do is fire United States Attorneys – who are on the front lines of protecting against another terrorist attack – and replace them with political hacks. After all, this president rode to popularity by responding swiftly and decisively to the World Trade Center tragedy, and has defended his embattled Iraq policy on grounds of necessity in the "War on Terror." And yet making politically motivated replacements is precisely what the administration has admitted doing.
The White House has candidly conceded it forced the resignation of Arkansas U.S. Attorney Ed Cummins to make room for J. Timothy Griffin, a political operative close to Karl Rove.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has also demanded and received resignations from six other United States Attorneys. As has been the custom for years, these men and women assumed their positions only after having been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
Now, thanks to a little-known provision tucked away in the bowels of the Patriot Act – passed into law on the president's promise that it was needed to combat terrorism – Senate confirmation is no longer necessary. Vacancies in the U.S. Attorney's office can now be filled by Gonzales directly, without Senate input.
Fortunately, this shameless shirking of the confirmation process has not gone unnoticed. The Senate Judiciary Committee has commenced hearings, and many have expressed their outrage over the politicization of the Justice Department. I concur with Sen. Charles Schumer that these firings "reek of politics."
Congress has also introduced legislation to repeal this provision giving carte blanche to Gonzales and return the rule to the way things were. Under previous statutes, the attorney general had the power to appoint an interim prosecutor for 120 days in the case of a vacancy, but then it was up to the local federal district court to make an appointment until the Senate approved a final pick.
Under increasing pressure, the administration has resorted to smearing the reputations of these public servants, claiming that the latest round of firings was "performance related." Coincidentally, one of those fired prosecutors, Carol S. Lam of San Diego, just happened to have presided over the ongoing corruption investigation that has already toppled former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif. Performance related indeed.
It appears that the administration has stooped to impugning the integrity of its appointed attorneys to cover up its own lack of integrity. Is this what we have come to?
To make matters even worse, Republicans have been slow to acknowledge the problem. The Wall Street Journal has pooh-poohed Sen. Feinstein's concerns, dismissing them as "undercutting the war on terror." Party loyalty is one thing; shameless politics and backstabbing is quite another.
One of the many ironies here is that Gonzales complains that the old system, under which the federal court appointed the rare interim U.S. Attorney, constituted an intrusion on the separation of powers. However, under the new carte blanche approach, Gonzales and his pals have obliterated the check and balance on the executive branch's authority by means of the Senate confirmation process. Apparently, the separation of powers doctrine only operates in favor of the administration.
Perhaps this all seems too arcane for the average American. And I confess that until recently, it seemed distant and unimportant to me, too. But when I discovered that my former classmate and friend, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, was among the casualties of this Pearl Harbor Day sneak attack, my assessment changed. I will personally vouch for Mr. Iglesias' integrity and the care with which he approached his duties.
Although Iglesias would not bad-mouth his superiors, even to me, based upon the admissions of the administration in the case of Ed Cummins, the evidence in the case of Carol Lam and the integrity of Mr. Iglesias, I can reasonably conclude that this mess has all the markings of a political massacre.
Friendly fire is customarily considered accidental. There was nothing accidental about these terminations. In fact, the list of casualties has a decidedly southwestern flavor: In addition to Iglesias in New Mexico, prosecutors in Nevada, Arizona and California have also received their walking papers. Surely our president would not fire dedicated public servants just to feather the nest for the North American Union ... or would he?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
All this crap is sooo 3rd world beyond belief. You guys need to take some serious attitude up there.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Human Bass wrote:
All this crap is sooo 3rd world beyond belief. You guys need to take some serious attitude up there.
What really baffles me is that people (and not just the left blogosphere) are actually paying attention to the Bush Administration's shenanigans now, and they STILL think we're too stupid to notice when they pull some shady shit.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
WORST administration since Hoover. And sadly I can imagine Bush fucking up the Great Depression much, much worse had he been in charge.
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Fun developments already today...
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint against Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) for his pressure call to David Iglesias last October. Domenici has admitted to making the call.
A view from an anonymous TPM Reader in the trenches ...
Quote:
I'm an Assistant United States Attorney in [*******], and am, of course, outraged by the U.S. Attorney purge, as most AUSAs are. I appreciate all the work you've been doing on this story. My own sense is that this purge has to be viewed as part a much larger story on the devastating impact of this administration's policies on the institution of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
From a fiscal perspective, the administration has essentially abandoned the U.S. Attorney's Offices. That has led to a precipitous drop in the numbers of federal prosecutions, particularly in larger districts like Los Angeles. The effects of the budget crisis at U.S. Attorney's Offices across the nation are well documented.
Likewise, from a policy perspective, the administration's War on Terror (TM) policies and practices have undermined the sacred foundations of the work we do as federal prosecutors. I strive every day to make sure that the Fourth Amendment rights of evn the worst criminals are scrupulously observed, only to learn that the folks I work for view those rights as disposable, inconvenient anachronisms. I operate in a criminal justice system properly designed to maximize due process for even the worst criminals, only to watch the administration kick and scream when forced to provide even the most basic due process rights to suspected terrorists.
And now the purges. So they've slashed U.S. Attorney's budgets, trashed rights we have sworn to uphold, and now, tried to toady-up the ranks of our leadership by firing some of our best and brightest, apparently to make room for wingnut-annointed political hacks. Folks who do stuff like this deserve to get caught.
One final note: U.S. Attorneys are referred to as the top law enforcement officers in their districts -- even the FBI answers to the U.S. Attorney because the FBI can't bring cases without the U.S. Attorney. Can you imagine if the administration had treated the FBI the way they've treated the U.S. Attorney's Offices? Of course not -- they wouldn't dare. Because the public understands all too well what happens when the FBI's integrity is undermined or its leadership politicized (see J. Edgar Hoover's tenure).
The very same dangers lurk here. Thanks for helping to bring them to light.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
A view from an anonymous TPM Reader in the trenches ...
Quote:
One final note: U.S. Attorneys are referred to as the top law enforcement officers in their districts -- even the FBI answers to the U.S. Attorney because the FBI can't bring cases without the U.S. Attorney. Can you imagine if the administration had treated the FBI the way they've treated the U.S. Attorney's Offices? Of course not -- they wouldn't dare. Because the public understands all too well what happens when the FBI's integrity is undermined or its leadership politicized (see J. Edgar Hoover's tenure).
Actually, a friend of mine has been delayed getting into the FBI for two years because their budgets for training new agents have been 'tweaked'. She just started this quarter after completing the requirements and being accepted two years ago.
Michael Battle the executive director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys has resigned.
He's the one who made the firing calls on December 7th of last year.
Apparently Battle was only the trigger man doing the dirty work. Maybe his resignation was more out of disappointment with what his job had become than about hiding from his actions...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
