|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Bronks Breasts |
‘Loyalty’ to Bush and Gonzales Was Factor in Prosecutors’ Firings, E-Mail Shows
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON
Published: March 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 13 — Late in the afternoon on Dec. 4, a deputy to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel and one of President Bush’s most trusted aides, sent a two-line e-mail message to a top Justice Department aide. “We’re a go,” it said, approving a long-brewing plan to remove seven federal prosecutors considered weak or not team players.
The message, from William K. Kelley of the White House counsel’s office to D. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, put in motion a plan to fire United States attorneys that had been hatched 22 months earlier by Ms. Miers. Three days later, the seven prosecutors were summarily dismissed. An eighth had been forced out in the summer.
The documents provided by the Justice Department add some new details to the chronicle of the fired prosecutors but leave many critical questions unanswered, including the nature of discussions inside the White House and the level of knowledge and involvement by the president and his closest political aide, Karl Rove.
The White House said Monday that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove had raised concerns about lax voter fraud prosecutions with the Justice Department. And several of the fired attorneys told Congress last week that some lawmakers had questioned them about corruption investigations, inquiries the prosecutors considered inappropriate. The documents do not specifically mention either topic.
While the target list of prosecutors was shaped and shifted, officials at the Justice Department and the White House, members of Congress and even an important Republican lawyer and lobbyist in New Mexico were raising various concerns.
In rating the prosecutors, Mr. Sampson factored in whether they “exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” according to documents released by the Justice Department. In one e-mail message, Mr. Sampson questioned a colleague about the record of the federal prosecutor in San Diego, Carol C. Lam. Referring to the office of the deputy attorney general, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” Ms. Lam was one of the seven fired prosecutors.
Two others, Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel K. Bogden in Nevada, were faulted as being “unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them,” according to another e-mail message to Mr. Sampson, referring to pornography prosecutions.
Another United States attorney, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, was added to the hit list in the fall of 2006 after criticism from his home state, including a demand by Senator Pete V. Domenici, a Republican, to meet with the attorney general to discuss the performance of Mr. Iglesias’s office.
The fallout from the firings came swiftly, according to the documents. Within a day, messages were flying between the White House and the Justice Department about reaction to the dismissals. Administration officials were aware that the decisions were likely to be controversial, and the plan for carrying them out included a warning to “prepare to withstand political upheaval.”
An aide to Senator Domenici was said to be “happy as a clam” over the dismissal of Mr. Iglesias. But Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was said to be “very unhappy” about the decision to dismiss Mr. Bogden, who Mr. Ensign said “has done a great job for Nevada.”
Mr. Sampson, an ambitious young Republican lawyer who was the Justice Department’s point man for the plan, resigned Monday. Mr. Gonzales, who approved the idea of the group firing, has been under fierce criticism from lawmakers of both parties over the dismissals, which have provoked charges that they were politically motivated.
Shortly after Mr. Bush’s second term began in January 2005, Ms. Miers proposed dismissing all 93 serving federal prosecutors, part of a broad review of political appointees. The Justice Department and Mr. Rove rejected that plan as impractical. But her proposal set in motion the series of events that led to December’s smaller-scale housecleaning and a major black eye for the White House.
The extensive consultations between the Justice Department and White House over which United States attorneys should be ousted started as early as March 2005, the e-mail messages show.
That is when Mr. Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s aide, sent a document to Ms. Miers ranking the nation’s federal prosecutors.
“Bold=Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” the e-mail message from Mr. Sampson said. “Strikeout=Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who had been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.”
From the start, the “strikeout” list included Ms. Lam, Margaret M. Chiara of Michigan and H. E. Cummins of Arkansas, all of whom ultimately lost their jobs. But the “bold” list of stellar performers included Mr. Iglesias and Kevin V. Ryan of San Francisco, who would also be removed.
As the months passed and the list was refined, a broad range of parties provided comment, either by directly naming prosecutors or raising an issue that touched on them.
J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, then speaker of the House, for example, appeared in one exchange among Bush administration officials inquiring why the United States attorney’s office in Arizona was apparently not prosecuting marijuana possession cases involving less than 500 pounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/w...r=1&oref=slogin
John M. Broder contributed reporting. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| Continue to use Constitution and rule of law to wipe their collective asses ... |
|
|
| mb33139 |
| Surely our resident Bushbots can spin this and blame the fired prosecutors for their own dismissal. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
I sure hope that co-president Rove is able to sufficiently cover up his involvement, otherwise, there might be a perception that there is something unscrupulous going on at the white house.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA!!!! |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
Surely our resident Bushbots can spin this and blame the fired prosecutors for their own dismissal. |
From what I have read, a few of them definitely deserved to be dismissed. John McKay from Washington State for example:
"In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do."
There is no more important thing for him to do than guarantee the voters was carried out, regardless of whether he and the new governor are both Democrats.
There are a couple other dismissed attorneys who appear equally as bad. |
|
|
| otherone4life |
Further debunking the yes, but "clinton did it" ..the below is from a washingtonpost.com chat with the Acting AG when Clinton came in (who was a carryover from Bush I's administration) and served as acting AG for a week or so until Reno was confirmed:
The "Democratic" response to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is that these actions were political. The "Republican" response is that the Clinton Administration fired all but one U.S. Attorney at the beginning of the Clinton Administration -- so of course, it is all political. What is the difference between these mid-Presidency firings and cleaning house at the beginning of a Presidency, if any?
Stuart M. Gerson: There is a difference, but I do not find it to be an important or material one. It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term. However, all of the incumbents had served more than the four years presumed in their original commission and, I suggest, replacing them is entirely the prerogative of the executive, as each deposed U.S. Attorney has agreed. The personel practices employed, giving inaccurate reasons for terminating them and not giving them the courtesy of notice, are, as the AG now concedes, unacceptable. |
|
|
| patcracker |
What is the crux of this problem is there is a provision in the renewed Patriot act that allows the White House to fire attorneys and appoint anyone they want without a Senate confrimation. Again this Administration has circumvented the Constitution or just plain broke the law. Again this is yet another case for Impreachment under the grounds that the Constitution was not upheld. Will anything happen? Fuck no, the Democrats dont have the balls to even start preceedings.
:bs: |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by patcracker
What is the crux of this problem is there is a provision in the renewed Patriot act that allows the White House to fire attorneys and appoint anyone they want without a Senate confrimation. Again this Administration has circumvented the Constitution or just plain broke the law. Again this is yet another case for Impreachment under the grounds that the Constitution was not upheld. Will anything happen? Fuck no, the Democrats dont have the balls to even start preceedings.
:bs: |
The senate judiciary commitee is about to start firing off subpeonas.
This will be fun. :D |
|
|
| patcracker |
The senate judiciary commitee is about to start firing off subpeonas.
They can do it till the cows come home. Until the Congress starts Impeachment hearings or the Justice Department starts an Investigation (like thats going to happen) this means nothing. The Democrats pledged accountability as part of their election promise. That means people go to jail or are removed from office for thier past offenses.
:jackoff: |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by patcracker
The senate judiciary commitee is about to start firing off subpeonas.
They can do it till the cows come home. Until the Congress starts Impeachment hearings or the Justice Department starts an Investigation (like thats going to happen) this means nothing. The Democrats pledged accountability as part of their election promise. That means people go to jail or are removed from office for thier past offenses.
:jackoff: |
You're preaching to the choir. :D |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Call Fitzgerald, I'm sure someone can't remember exactly everything and we can get another memory investigation.
It'll sure satisfy everyone...We know that.
:) |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by patcracker
What is the crux of this problem is there is a provision in the renewed Patriot act that allows the White House to fire attorneys and appoint anyone they want without a Senate confrimation. Again this Administration has circumvented the Constitution or just plain broke the law. Again this is yet another case for Impreachment under the grounds that the Constitution was not upheld. Will anything happen? Fuck no, the Democrats dont have the balls to even start preceedings.
:bs: |
:yes:
p.s: I have a hunch Carol Lam was fired, not just for putting Duke Cunningham behind bars, but because rumor has it she started sniffing around (R) Jerry Lewis of California. |
|
|
|
|
|
