Monday, August 27, 2007
Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead
Well, it took a ridiculously long time, but "Fredo" finally packs it in. The "Perils of Pauline" tenure of AGAG comes to a close -- U.S. attorneys firings fiasco, the John Ashcroft hospital arm-twisting, the latest charges perjury, etc.
Given that just about every other high-ranking official under him had also left, there was hardly anyone else left to help him turn out the lights.
CNN is reporting that Michael Chertoff is the White House pick as a replacement. Appropriately enough, this occurs on the 2nd anniversary of Katrina.
UPDATE: It looks like Paul Bedard of U.S. News' "Washington Whispers" column was the first to break the news of Gonzales' impending departure. Oh, and one would be remiss not to overlook Josh Marshall's universe of web-sites for the breaking of the U.S. attorney's story 18 months back, which first brought scrutiny on AGAG.
UPDATE II: Madscribe and I were thinking on the same lines this morning, thus resulting in two AGAG posts. MS graciously took down his contribution, but there's more than enough room for AGAG bashing around here, thus, here is the Madman of Ohio's view:
|
Given that just about every other high-ranking official under him had also left, there was hardly anyone else left to help him turn out the lights.
CNN is reporting that Michael Chertoff is the White House pick as a replacement. Appropriately enough, this occurs on the 2nd anniversary of Katrina.
UPDATE: It looks like Paul Bedard of U.S. News' "Washington Whispers" column was the first to break the news of Gonzales' impending departure. Oh, and one would be remiss not to overlook Josh Marshall's universe of web-sites for the breaking of the U.S. attorney's story 18 months back, which first brought scrutiny on AGAG.
UPDATE II: Madscribe and I were thinking on the same lines this morning, thus resulting in two AGAG posts. MS graciously took down his contribution, but there's more than enough room for AGAG bashing around here, thus, here is the Madman of Ohio's view:
UPDATE III: For a supposed "non-scandal", there's quite a roster of DOJ employees who've been jumped ship.The prayers of some RT regulars have been answered. Another rat, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has jumped off the deck of the sinking ship Bush II. Start placing your bets on who will be nominated and how the Democrats will talk a good game and then give Bush whatever he wants, anyway ...
--Posted By Madscribe to RAGGED THOTS at 8/27/2007, 08:32:00 AM
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department, U.S. Attorneys
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
A Job To Kill For...
I speak, of course of -- being George W. Bush's best friend!
Forget about the fact that AGAG gets increased power in death penalty cases: Here's the interesting point in this story:
Wonder how much longer we'll be finding fascinating things squirrelled away in that BRAND NEW & IMPROVED PATRIOT ACT!?!?
|
Forget about the fact that AGAG gets increased power in death penalty cases: Here's the interesting point in this story:
The rules would give Gonzales the authority to approve "fast-track" procedures by states in death penalty cases, enabling them to carry out sentences more speedily and with fewer opportunities for appeal if those states provide adequate representation for capital defendants.Ah, that lovely Patriot Act reauthorization! Students paying attention might remember that that bill was also responsible for giving the attorney general the power to expedite replacements of U.S. attorneys (until that provision was overwhelmingly repealed earlier this year).
Such powers were previously held by federal judges, but a provision of the USA Patriot Act reauthorization bill approved by Congress last year hands the authority to the attorney general.
Wonder how much longer we'll be finding fascinating things squirrelled away in that BRAND NEW & IMPROVED PATRIOT ACT!?!?
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Patriot Act, U.S. Attorneys
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
AGAG Survives...
...but the DAG walks the plank.
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announces his resignation using the ever-popular "family considerations" trope (This one being the "I need to make more money to send the kids to college" version).
Whether McNulty stepping down has anything to do with DOJ staffer Monica Goodling negotiating an immunity agreement on the fired prosecutors issue is another question. Keep in mind that McNulty is the one who ended up getting Congress ticked because he testified that the prosecutors were dumped because of "performance-related" issues and the White House had no role in the firings -- claims proven demonstrably false later.
|
Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announces his resignation using the ever-popular "family considerations" trope (This one being the "I need to make more money to send the kids to college" version).
Whether McNulty stepping down has anything to do with DOJ staffer Monica Goodling negotiating an immunity agreement on the fired prosecutors issue is another question. Keep in mind that McNulty is the one who ended up getting Congress ticked because he testified that the prosecutors were dumped because of "performance-related" issues and the White House had no role in the firings -- claims proven demonstrably false later.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Paul McNulty, U.S. Attorneys
Thursday, April 19, 2007
AGAG On Parade
For those so inclined, summaries and video clips of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Senate testimony over the U.S. attorneys' firings can be found here.
Things got off to a rough start with a sharp exchange between Gonzales and Arlen Specter.
UPDATE: The Corner's Byron York calls Gonzales' testimony "disastrous." CNN quotes administration official that Gonzales was "going down in flames."
UPDATE II: York's full analysis.
|
Things got off to a rough start with a sharp exchange between Gonzales and Arlen Specter.
UPDATE: The Corner's Byron York calls Gonzales' testimony "disastrous." CNN quotes administration official that Gonzales was "going down in flames."
UPDATE II: York's full analysis.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
Monday, April 16, 2007
I Will Be Surprised...
...if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales ever testifies before Congress.
His scheduled Tuesday appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was postponed, ostensibly because of the Virgina Tech shooting, until Thursday. However, ABC News has identified a teensy-weensy problem:
|
His scheduled Tuesday appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was postponed, ostensibly because of the Virgina Tech shooting, until Thursday. However, ABC News has identified a teensy-weensy problem:
It all comes down to the definitions of "make" and "decision" and "should or should not."Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' assertion that he was not involved in identifying the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign last year is at odds with a recently released internal Department of Justice e-mail, ABC News has learned.
That e-mail said that Gonzales supported firing one federal prosecutor six months before she was asked to leave.
Gonzales was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, but his testimony was postponed until Thursday because of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University.
When Gonzales appears before the committee, a central focus will be the extent of his involvement in the firings.
Gonzales has insisted he left those decisions to his staff, but ABC News has learned he was so concerned about U.S. attorney Carol Lam's lackluster record on immigration enforcement in San Diego that he supported firing her months before she was dismissed, according to a newly released e-mail from his former chief of staff.
The e-mail, which came from Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, appeared to contradict the prepared written testimony Gonzales submitted to Congress over the weekend in advance of his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.In his prepared testimony, Gonzales said that during the months that his senior staff was evaluating U.S. attorneys, including Lam, "I did not make the decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, corruption, incompetence, U.S. Attorneys
Friday, April 13, 2007
Privileged Notions
The U.S. attorney firing controversy may be the biggest political scandal in Western civilization as some liberal blogs think. On the other hand, it might be the biggest non-story since Don Imus was revealed to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby (or something like that).
Either way, this question of missing RNC e-mails certainly violates my personal smell test.
Now, being aware that certain issues are not supposed to be discussed in official White House e-mail, is not evidence of a cover-up: Political conversations, by law, shouldn't be made on "official" resources.
That said, this story gets "curiouser and curiouser" as Alice said:
These sort of assertions -- plus the fact that many of these e-mails in question have gone a-missing -- just raise too many red flags.
|
Either way, this question of missing RNC e-mails certainly violates my personal smell test.
Now, being aware that certain issues are not supposed to be discussed in official White House e-mail, is not evidence of a cover-up: Political conversations, by law, shouldn't be made on "official" resources.
That said, this story gets "curiouser and curiouser" as Alice said:
Fielding also wrote that it "remains our intention to collect e-mails and documents" from the RNC and other outside accounts used by White House officials. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved, but did not issue, new subpoenas for the Justice Department yesterday.Sorry, the WH can't have it both ways: Sure, Rove and others should use the RNC account for their "political" work. But, don't then assert some form of executive privelege that precludes that work (separate from "official" duties) from congressional oversight. The RNC -- like the DNC, or the two congressional and senatorial campaign committees -- is a private non-governmental entity. It is not an arm of the executive branch.
Gonzales, meanwhile, has been preparing for a pivotal appearance on Tuesday before the committee, including mock testimony sessions lasting up to five hours a day, officials said.
E-mails from Rove and other White House officials potentially figure in a number of congressional investigations. Democrats are seeking the RNC e-mails as part of an effort to determine the extent of Rove's role in firing the U.S. attorneys and the alleged politicization at the General Services Administration.
The RNC yesterday turned over to the White House a copy of e-mail records for administration officials still on the RNC server to determine whether any of them are privileged or whether they can be provided to congressional investigators. Officials indicated that they would include post-2005 e-mails from Rove. (Emphasis added).
GOP officials said they are also trying to determine whether they can recover other e-mail that may have been deleted through regular purges of e-mails or by deliberate deletion by White House staff. Waxman said the RNC indicated that it had destroyed all e-mail records from White House officials in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
These sort of assertions -- plus the fact that many of these e-mails in question have gone a-missing -- just raise too many red flags.
Labels: corruption, Karl Rove, U.S. Attorneys
Friday, March 30, 2007
RAG Obsession Watch Two-fer
1) Former DOJ aide Kyle Sampson testifies on AGAG's assertion that he wasn't involved in the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys: "I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate."
2a.) Rudy Giuliani on Bernie Kerik -- and when he learned when his his now-controversial former police chief had some rather shady associations.
2b.) Rudy Giuliani on his plans for the active involvement of his wife in his administration. (Of course, it will be good to find out if a President Hillary Clinton would have her spouse sit in on Cabinet meetings -- though he would have slightly more experience than Judi Nathan).
|
2a.) Rudy Giuliani on Bernie Kerik -- and when he learned when his his now-controversial former police chief had some rather shady associations.
2b.) Rudy Giuliani on his plans for the active involvement of his wife in his administration. (Of course, it will be good to find out if a President Hillary Clinton would have her spouse sit in on Cabinet meetings -- though he would have slightly more experience than Judi Nathan).
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, GOP 2008 President, Rudy Giuliani, U.S. Attorneys
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Lam & The Lame
In the interest of keeping an open mind on the U.S. attorneys controversy, here is National Review's Byron York on the case of San Diego's Carol Lam. He makes a good case that the Justice Department was right to replace Lam -- while noting that DOJ nonetheless managed to do everything wrong in its execution.
The latter conclusion may be one reason why NRO editors say of AG Alberto Gonzales, "Time To Go".
|
The latter conclusion may be one reason why NRO editors say of AG Alberto Gonzales, "Time To Go".
Labels: Carol Lam, U.S. Attorneys
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A Big Deal
The U.S. attorneys story has been a puzzling one for some time. I will admit that I'm not sure what is going on. The regulars in the comments section (at least those identifiably on the starboard side of the political equation) think I've been giving it too much attention.
Well, no one's given it as much attention as Josh Marshall. He addressed why he thinks this is a "big deal":
This isn't the same as Bill Clinton firing the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term; while an extreme, it's about par for the course for a new administration to get rid of the attorneys from the previous one -- especially if they are of a different party. On the other hand, it IS unusual for prosecutors to be canned in the middle of a term.
But, putting all of that aside is the behavior of the attorney general. Alberto Gonzales has forced the president's supporters to accept the fact that the attorney general is either duplicitous or incompetent -- neither choice being a happy one:
Finally, an aide to the AG decides that she will not testify in order to preserve her Fifth Amendment rights -- though in such an odd way as to invite even more questions.
Somehow, after slowly developing over several weeks, this story went zero-to-sixty very suddenly -- a discussion of transcript-less "interviews" between members of Congress and White House aides metastasized into a Fifth Amendment declaration in just days.
Yes, this is now a very big deal.
|
Well, no one's given it as much attention as Josh Marshall. He addressed why he thinks this is a "big deal":
What we seem to see are repeated cases in which US Attorneys were fired for not pursuing bogus prosecutions of persons of the opposite party. Or vice versa. There's little doubt that that is why McKay and Iglesias were fired and there's mounting evidence that this was the case in other firings as well. The idea that a senator calls a US Attorney at home just weeks before a federal elections and tries to jawbone him into indicting someone to help a friend get reelected is shocking. Think about it for a second. It's genuinely shocking. At a minimum one would imagine such bad acts take place with more indirection and deniability. And yet the Domenici-Iglesias call has now been relegated to the status of a footnote in the expanding scandal, notwithstanding the fact that there's now documentary evidence showing that Domenici's substantial calls to the White House and Justice Department played a direct role in getting Iglesias fired.Josh is a liberal and what he is saying is obviously through his particular prism. However, I think the points he is raising are legitimate.
So what you have here is this basic line being breached. But not only that. What is equally threatening is the systematic nature of the offense. This isn't one US Attorney out to get Democrats or one rogue senator trying to monkey around with the justice system. The same thing happened in Washington state and New Mexico -- with the same sort of complaints being received and acted upon at the White House and the Department of Justice. Indeed, there appears to have been a whole process in place to root out prosecutors who wouldn't prostitute their offices for partisan goals.
This isn't the same as Bill Clinton firing the U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his term; while an extreme, it's about par for the course for a new administration to get rid of the attorneys from the previous one -- especially if they are of a different party. On the other hand, it IS unusual for prosecutors to be canned in the middle of a term.
But, putting all of that aside is the behavior of the attorney general. Alberto Gonzales has forced the president's supporters to accept the fact that the attorney general is either duplicitous or incompetent -- neither choice being a happy one:
- The Corner's Jonah Goldberg: "Some readers are cross with me for using the word "lied" in reference to Gonzales. Okay, he may simply have been deeply, deeply, confused, out of touch and unprepared to give a press conference which was supposed to put an end to the "scandal" and instead poured gasoline on it. ... Maybe, just maybe, a good "CEO" would have asked his staff, "Hey, before I unequivocally tell the world I was out of the loop, let's double check and make sure I wasn't in the loop. Okay?" ... Doesn't Gonzales need to spend more time with his family?
- Captain's Quarters: "Even if Gonzales didn't intend to deceive -- that is to say that he honestly didn't recall sitting in on that meeting -- wouldn't a competent CEO (as he described himself) do some research before making categorical statements? ... Gonzales and others who have presented misleading versions of the project are either incompetent or deceptive. We should not accept either in the office of the highest-ranking law enforcement officer of the United States, regardless of whether he is a Republican or Democrat.
- Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: ".... politics aside, Gonzales should not continue to serve if he lacks the president's confidence. I have no idea where Bush is on this, but my confidence in Gonzales, already shaky, would diminish if it turns out that Gonzales misrepresented his involvement in the firings to the press. As noted, though, it's not clear that Gonzales did this.
Finally, an aide to the AG decides that she will not testify in order to preserve her Fifth Amendment rights -- though in such an odd way as to invite even more questions.
Somehow, after slowly developing over several weeks, this story went zero-to-sixty very suddenly -- a discussion of transcript-less "interviews" between members of Congress and White House aides metastasized into a Fifth Amendment declaration in just days.
Yes, this is now a very big deal.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Friday, March 23, 2007
Another Request For Al to Be-Gonzo
Regular administration supporter Captain Ed (not to be confused with regular RT supporter "Ed, My Ed") links approvingly to Charles Krauthammer's column calling for the sacking of Gonzales.
To paraphrase an old political cliche: It's not the crime, it's the stupidity (or "incompetence", take your pick).
|
To paraphrase an old political cliche: It's not the crime, it's the stupidity (or "incompetence", take your pick).
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Race Replaces Patriotism...
...in the "last-refuge-of-the-scoundrel" category (except those days when itis the first refuge).
I should have realized this before! AGAG (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) is being attacked by Democrats because he's, of course, Latino:
Put aside whether there are legitimate merits to the U.S. attorneys' controversy. For the sake of argument, let's just say it's all political BS. Even then, the bias at play has NOTHING to do with Gonzales' ethnicity. It's because he's, um, how do I say this politely -- a Republican working for a Republican president and Congress is now filled with Democrats who are "biased" against Republicans!
Did Republicans go after Janet Reno because she was a woman -- or Mike Espy because he was black? No, it was because those two were Democrats -- and Congress was made up of Republicans (it may also have something to do with the fact that Reno was incompetent and Espy was corrupt)!
This is what OPPOSITION parties (especially those with subpoena power) do -- go after the other guy's guy.
Why would Gonzales be afraid of handing information over to "a political hack like Rove"? Gonzales is himself a "political hack" -- and a pretty poor one at that. White liberals (or white conservatives, for that matter) aren't out to "lynch" Gonzales because "they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments." Of course not, only George W. Bush can make that claim.
AGAG got his job the old-fashioned way-- his pal became president. And he's subject to criticism now for an old-fashioned way -- because his pal is the president.
And, yeah, he's an abominable manager whose agency screwed up -- at best -- the dismissal of federal prosecutors.
But it is nice to see a conservative columnist getting almost as good at playing the race-victim card as liberals!
Viva progress!
|
I should have realized this before! AGAG (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) is being attacked by Democrats because he's, of course, Latino:
The nation's first Hispanic attorney general is being pressured to resign by -- pick 'em -- Democrats trying to make hay, an elite media that long opposed him, civil libertarians who condemn administration policy on detainees and wiretaps, conservatives who think Gonzales is too liberal, and liberals who think he's too conservative.Riiiight! Envy over Gonzales' role as an independent Hispanic is driving the calls for Gonzales' head!
The list even includes a pair of immigrant-baiting members of Congress -- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado -- who fell out with Gonzales over the prosecution of two ex-border patrol agents.
Leading this lynch mob are white liberals who resent Gonzales because they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments and because they can't get him to curtsy. Why should he? Gonzales doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Put aside whether there are legitimate merits to the U.S. attorneys' controversy. For the sake of argument, let's just say it's all political BS. Even then, the bias at play has NOTHING to do with Gonzales' ethnicity. It's because he's, um, how do I say this politely -- a Republican working for a Republican president and Congress is now filled with Democrats who are "biased" against Republicans!
Did Republicans go after Janet Reno because she was a woman -- or Mike Espy because he was black? No, it was because those two were Democrats -- and Congress was made up of Republicans (it may also have something to do with the fact that Reno was incompetent and Espy was corrupt)!
This is what OPPOSITION parties (especially those with subpoena power) do -- go after the other guy's guy.
It may be that he made a whopper here in trusting his No. 2 not to hand over the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys to a political hack like Rove. But then, Gonzales' critics aren't after the truth. They're after him.Oh, please.
Why would Gonzales be afraid of handing information over to "a political hack like Rove"? Gonzales is himself a "political hack" -- and a pretty poor one at that. White liberals (or white conservatives, for that matter) aren't out to "lynch" Gonzales because "they can't claim the credit for his life's accomplishments." Of course not, only George W. Bush can make that claim.
AGAG got his job the old-fashioned way-- his pal became president. And he's subject to criticism now for an old-fashioned way -- because his pal is the president.
And, yeah, he's an abominable manager whose agency screwed up -- at best -- the dismissal of federal prosecutors.
But it is nice to see a conservative columnist getting almost as good at playing the race-victim card as liberals!
Viva progress!
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorneys
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
A Critical Question...
...on the USA attorney firings is asked by Larry Kudlow:
Kudlow also observes the strategic box that the failure to answer this question places the White House:
|
Of course, the President has the political and constitutional authority to hire and fire these prosecutors. But why were these eight dumped? Why not the other eighty-five?In other words, what's the criteria being used to dismiss these folks. Notably, that has yet to be found in the all the material tucked away in the DOJ data dump.
Kudlow also observes the strategic box that the failure to answer this question places the White House:
It seems to me if you use a press conference event to go over the heads of the mainstream media, and broadcast to the American public, you have to deliver a clear rationale for your actions.Larry Kudlow is no enemy of this administration. That he remains so troubled by the WH's response shows just how deep a hole has been dug.
Regrettably, I don’t think Mr. Bush did this.
Labels: George W. Bush, U.S. Attorneys
Monday, March 19, 2007
Gonzo Daddy Gone
Stick a fork in AGAG, who is apparently dead to hill Republicans, says The Politico:
UPDATE (Tuesday 3/20) : The president announced his "strong backing" of Gonzales. Is it real? Or is it the equivalent of the baseball team owner giving his manager a strong "vote of confidence" -- before canning him a week later? We shall see.
What is fascinating about this story is how, sadly, it raises the "competence" issue with this administration -- an issue that has arisen on both the Iraq and Katrina stories. This has been the overarching problem, whether from a perspective of ideology or "politics." An administration is perfectly entitled to fire individuals for "political" reasons -- yet they haven't even been able to do that correctly. Let's take the argument at face value that say that initial plans to fire the USAs were hatched in late 2004 -- apparently confirmed by released DOJ e-mails. Fine: Go ahead and do it!
No one would have raised an eyebrow if Bush decided to do a mini-housecleaning right after he was re-elected (or re-inaugurated). Instead, for whatever reason, they waited until a time when it looked not just "political" in the good sense (i.e., getting rid of people who weren't executing admin policies), but "political" in the bad sense (getting rid of people investigating activities that could embarrass the administration -- or people who didn't want to use their office to go on political witch-hunts).
This is reminiscent of the botched handling of the Rumsfeld situation. My former boss, Newt Gingrich, has said that if Rummy had been canned in fall '06, Republicans could have held the Senate and reduced House losses by 10 (i.e. Democrats would have still taken the House, but only gained about 20 or seats). Instead, Bush waits until the day AFTER the election to do what nearly everyone in Washington -- and beyond -- (pro- and anti-war) knew was the right thing to do months beforehand.
As the latest issue of NR says, can't anyone here play this game?
|
In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales' departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.Clearly, I was an optimist on my view this morning on Gonzales' fate (though "less than 30 percent" is hardly any sort of endorsement). Given what my NCAA pool looks like, I shouldn't be surprised.
"Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales') resignation won't stop them," said a well-connected Republican Senate aide. "And on our side, no one's going to defend him. All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching."
A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity. In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.
Complaints range from his handling of immigration cases to his alleged ceding of power in the department to career officials instead of movement conservatives.
UPDATE (Tuesday 3/20) : The president announced his "strong backing" of Gonzales. Is it real? Or is it the equivalent of the baseball team owner giving his manager a strong "vote of confidence" -- before canning him a week later? We shall see.
What is fascinating about this story is how, sadly, it raises the "competence" issue with this administration -- an issue that has arisen on both the Iraq and Katrina stories. This has been the overarching problem, whether from a perspective of ideology or "politics." An administration is perfectly entitled to fire individuals for "political" reasons -- yet they haven't even been able to do that correctly. Let's take the argument at face value that say that initial plans to fire the USAs were hatched in late 2004 -- apparently confirmed by released DOJ e-mails. Fine: Go ahead and do it!
No one would have raised an eyebrow if Bush decided to do a mini-housecleaning right after he was re-elected (or re-inaugurated). Instead, for whatever reason, they waited until a time when it looked not just "political" in the good sense (i.e., getting rid of people who weren't executing admin policies), but "political" in the bad sense (getting rid of people investigating activities that could embarrass the administration -- or people who didn't want to use their office to go on political witch-hunts).
This is reminiscent of the botched handling of the Rumsfeld situation. My former boss, Newt Gingrich, has said that if Rummy had been canned in fall '06, Republicans could have held the Senate and reduced House losses by 10 (i.e. Democrats would have still taken the House, but only gained about 20 or seats). Instead, Bush waits until the day AFTER the election to do what nearly everyone in Washington -- and beyond -- (pro- and anti-war) knew was the right thing to do months beforehand.
As the latest issue of NR says, can't anyone here play this game?
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Burned By The USA?
As the fired prosecutor case continues to unfold, these details help support GOP criticisms of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David (don't call me Julio) Iglesias:
Meanwhile, kudos to Josh Marshall and the "TPMpire" for being the part of the blogosphere that hammered at this story from the start and pushed it into the broader mainstream media -- something that has just now been noticed by that media. On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Time magazine's Jay Carney credited Marshall and made a point to say that he (Carney) thought the story was much-ado-about-nothing initially, but now admits that he was wrong.
|
The first whiff of something suspicious came when a 15-year-old boy received a voter registration card in the mail. Soon a second one arrived. Then his 13-year-old neighbor got one, too.Conversely, Democratic accusations that the firings were orchestrated to cover Republican corruption appears bolstered by the treatment of Carol Lam (who indicted former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham):
Neither boy had applied for the cards, and it looked as if their signatures and birthdates had been forged. It was August 2004, and the local authorities quickly traced the problems to a canvasser for a liberal group that had signed up tens of thousands of voters for the presidential election in this swing state.
State Republican leaders demanded a criminal investigation. And with the television cameras rolling, the United States attorney, David C. Iglesias, a boyish-looking Republican, promised a thorough one. “It appears that mischief is afoot,” Mr. Iglesias said, “and questions are lurking in the shadows.”
The inquiry he began, however, never resulted in charges, so frustrating Republican officials here that they began an extraordinary campaign to get rid of him that reached all the way to President Bush.
Mr. Iglesias was the target of fierce criticism by lawmakers and political operatives, more so than any of the other seven prosecutors whose dismissals have set off a furor in Washington, interviews and a review of Justice Department documents show.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.As subpoenas start getting sent out this week, the odds that Rove ends up testifying are slim and none (and slim just left town). On the other hand, the odds that Attorney Generaly Alberto Gonzales (AGAG?) is around one month from now are less than 30 percent. Not even Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), perhaps the administration's strongest congressional defender, was willing to say that he still had confidence in Gonzales. Of course, one of the biggest problems that DOJ has is the bipartisan view that Justice officials -- particularly Deputy AG Paul McNulty -- were, ahem, "less than candid" when he testified before Congress that the USAs were sacked because of "performance-related" issues.The next day, on May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.
"Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following," Sampson wrote, referring to "[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
Meanwhile, kudos to Josh Marshall and the "TPMpire" for being the part of the blogosphere that hammered at this story from the start and pushed it into the broader mainstream media -- something that has just now been noticed by that media. On ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Time magazine's Jay Carney credited Marshall and made a point to say that he (Carney) thought the story was much-ado-about-nothing initially, but now admits that he was wrong.
Labels: corruption, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Gonzales Watch
Possible growing tension between the White House and DOJ:
By, you know, someone.
UPDATE: Sen. John Sununu becomes first GOP-er to call for Gonzales' head.
UPDATE II: And Rep. James Sensenbrenner, veteran GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee, doesn't sound enthusiastic either.
|
[Two] Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.And it is always nice to see the re-emergence of the passive voice in regard to White House controversies: "Mistakes were made..."
“I really think there’s a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now,” one of the Republicans said.
By, you know, someone.
UPDATE: Sen. John Sununu becomes first GOP-er to call for Gonzales' head.
UPDATE II: And Rep. James Sensenbrenner, veteran GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee, doesn't sound enthusiastic either.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, George W. Bush, U.S. Attorneys
Friday, March 09, 2007
Prosecutorial Misconduct
And, no, I'm not talking about Patrick Fitzgerald.
Paul Krugman (Yikes!), via Andrew Sullivan has the gory details. We're talking about the other side of the fired U.S. attorneys coin. And, no, this doesn't strike me as (typical) Krugmanian hyperbole.
To justify the numbers here, one would have to accept that Democratic local officials are seven times more corrupt than Republican ones. The behavior of Republicans over the last couple of years demonstrates how unlikely that is -- as much as I'm willing to believe the worst of Democrats (particularly in New York).
|
Paul Krugman (Yikes!), via Andrew Sullivan has the gory details. We're talking about the other side of the fired U.S. attorneys coin. And, no, this doesn't strike me as (typical) Krugmanian hyperbole.
To justify the numbers here, one would have to accept that Democratic local officials are seven times more corrupt than Republican ones. The behavior of Republicans over the last couple of years demonstrates how unlikely that is -- as much as I'm willing to believe the worst of Democrats (particularly in New York).
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, corruption, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Alberto In A Can?
Andrew Sullivan prints an e-mail from a lawyer following the fired-attorneys hearings.
|
The writer's conclusion: This administration attempted to politicize the U.S. attorney position to a level unprecedented in history.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall's TPMuckraker has been following this story from Day One and his site has great stuff from today's hearings. Bud Cummins' testimony is gripping; he's clearly a man conflicted between seemingly betraying members of his own administration -- yet is angered at the betrayal he and his fellow prosecutors have suffered. The accompanying e-mail to his fellow USAs is troubling.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall's TPMuckraker has been following this story from Day One and his site has great stuff from today's hearings. Bud Cummins' testimony is gripping; he's clearly a man conflicted between seemingly betraying members of his own administration -- yet is angered at the betrayal he and his fellow prosecutors have suffered. The accompanying e-mail to his fellow USAs is troubling.
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, corruption, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Friday, March 02, 2007
Prosecutorial "Abuse"
A few weeks back, we discussed the firings of various U.S. attorneys around the country. At the time, the blatant politics of the issue seemed to be around the fact that the administration wanted to push aside the professional prosecutors in favor of padding the resumes of some political flunkies.
Well, of course, it turns out that it's worse than that:
With subpoenas sent out to four of the dismissed attorneys, next week's congressional hearings could be rather intersting.
UPDATE: Slate's Dahlia Litwick assesses the major points in the controversy:
|
Well, of course, it turns out that it's worse than that:
Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico pressured the U.S. attorney in their state to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator, according to two people familiar with the contacts.Meanwhile, job evaluations of the other canned prosecutors were all seemingly positive.
The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.
The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.
David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.
According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.
Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.
Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.
With subpoenas sent out to four of the dismissed attorneys, next week's congressional hearings could be rather intersting.
UPDATE: Slate's Dahlia Litwick assesses the major points in the controversy:
But there's one other theory worth putting out there—one I have heard from folks on the Hill who are following this battle quite closely. This was merely a monumental screw-up. The DOJ never expected these firings to turn into a scandal. Indeed, many folks there still can't quite figure out what they have done wrong.Still, the key strategic decision that led to this was not made by the "C team." It was by, at the least, the "B team" -- the premeditated plan to use the Patriot Act to inhibit the power of both the legislative and judicial branches in the U.S. attorney selection/replacement process. A tool supposedly used to enhance the power of the president in fighting terror has, shockingly, been used for narrow bureaucratic power games. And, inevitably, you reap what you sow.
A few data points:
1) The DOJ is currently staffed by its C team, all of its best members having left long ago for better-paid jobs in the private sector. And C teams, particularly C teams with little political
experience, make mistakes.
2) This scandal may not have gone anywhere had McNulty not testified that the U.S. attorneys were canned—with the exception of Cummins—for subpar "performance." This misstep forced Lam, Iglesias, and other very loyal Republicans to come forward and defend themselves. Had McNulty not publicly questioned their effectiveness, most would probably have packed up and
left without a word.
3) The White House is unaccustomed to real oversight. It's been virtually bulletproof for so long that it has almost forgotten how to account for its blatant ideological acts of jiggery-pokery. It wasn't until control of Congress changed over in November that anyone even began to look
askance at executive overreaching. As a result, this administration simply misjudged the amount of likely blowback from these firings.
The U.S. attorney purge probably exploded into a scandal as a result of a perfect storm that the
White House never anticipated: Players at the highest levels were making strategic, ideological decisions to consolidate executive power and reward party loyalists while folks on the ground at the Justice Department bungled the firings with inflammatory comments and false ("performance-related") statements.
Incumbent U.S. attorneys surprised the White House by punching back, just as a Congress under new Democratic control decided to exercise meaningful oversight.
Perhaps the most important lesson to be drawn from the purge isn't that the Bush administration puts ideology above the rule of law. That isn't exactly news. The real point may be that between inexperienced fumblers at Justice, energized Democrats in Congress, and a public that seems finally to have awoken from its slumber, it's just become harder for the administration to
get away with it.
Labels: corruption, Republicans, U.S. Attorneys
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Misplaced Priorities
It's disconcerting that, even though the Democrats are now running Congress -- and passing some fairly horrid legislation, the antics of this Republican administration is still managing to turn my stomach.
Here's a nice question for you: After an election that partly turned on a belief that Republicans were more interested in their own self-aggrandizement rather than the general welfare of the country, wouldn't you think that the administration would go out of its way to prove the opposite? Wouldn't you think that Republicans would want to show their general integrity and reassure the public that they understand the big picture?
Yes, you might think that.
Alas, you would be wrong: Over the last few weeks, the administration has cashiered several U.S. attorneys. Not for any sort of malfeasance, mind you -- just so they can pad the resumes of other GOP apparatchiks.
And, yes, I'm fully aware that the Clinton White House pulled this kind of stuff before. But, I happened to be part of a team that slammed that White House for that behavior.
And, yes, you did read the above passage correctly: Giving further ammunition to those who think that the Patriot Act was one of the most insidious bits of legislation ever passed (either in its original form, or its 2005 revamped version), the law passed to help a president fight terrorism turns out to have a provision making it easier to fire U.S. Attorneys -- and replace them without consulting the Senate.
Yep, one man's "Patriot-ism" is another man's way of helping his political buddies enhance their future career options!
|
Here's a nice question for you: After an election that partly turned on a belief that Republicans were more interested in their own self-aggrandizement rather than the general welfare of the country, wouldn't you think that the administration would go out of its way to prove the opposite? Wouldn't you think that Republicans would want to show their general integrity and reassure the public that they understand the big picture?
Yes, you might think that.
Alas, you would be wrong: Over the last few weeks, the administration has cashiered several U.S. attorneys. Not for any sort of malfeasance, mind you -- just so they can pad the resumes of other GOP apparatchiks.
So, whether the previous U.S. attorneys were doing a good job was irrelevant (one got quite a scalp: She successfully prosecuted ex.-Rep. Duke Cunningham). Nope, they had to be pushed aside because, well, the days of the Bush administration are drawing to a close and a number of people need new jewels on their C.V.s. Josh Marshall's muckraking site sees even darker motives -- getting partisans in place (particularly in Arkansas) to start digging up dirt against Hillary Clinton. So far, there is no evidence of that. But, that doesn't matter. If the information given Sen. Ensign is true, that's bad enough as it is. One of Josh's readers also points out that even if the Senate objects to one of the appointments, placing a pure political appointee in the prosecutor's role can still damage the office's integrity.U.S. Sen. John Ensign, who nominated Bogden, learned about a month ago that Bogden's services no longer were needed by this administration. The senator asked for reconsideration, arguing to no avail against removing someone doing a good job. Bogden became one of at least seven federal prosecutors getting the boot for no stated reason.
The most vocal critics of the forced resignations have been California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, both Democrats, who object that the Patriot Act is being used to remove the U.S. attorneys and replace them with interim appointees without Senate confirmation. They're not defending the current Bush appointees as much as they are defending the process of checks and balances.
From what I know, there was no misconduct on the part of this career prosecutor who took charge on Sept. 10, 2001, one day before terrorism became law enforcement's priority. There was no suggestion that he was playing politics with the office.
A GOP source said Ensign was told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to "give somebody else that experience" to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.
And, yes, I'm fully aware that the Clinton White House pulled this kind of stuff before. But, I happened to be part of a team that slammed that White House for that behavior.
And, yes, you did read the above passage correctly: Giving further ammunition to those who think that the Patriot Act was one of the most insidious bits of legislation ever passed (either in its original form, or its 2005 revamped version), the law passed to help a president fight terrorism turns out to have a provision making it easier to fire U.S. Attorneys -- and replace them without consulting the Senate.
Yep, one man's "Patriot-ism" is another man's way of helping his political buddies enhance their future career options!
Labels: Dianne Feinstein, George W. Bush, Patriot Act, U.S. Attorneys
