Captain's Quarters -

Captain Ed:

I don't understand your point here. Why does it surprise you that a Democrat gets replaced when her term is over? Are you now arguing that Democrats can't be replaced by a Republican President?

Since Cunningham is in jail I don't see any undue interference by the Justice Department or the Whitehouse in her investigation. So where is the impropriety?

If you don' believe that US Attorneys should be political appointees then advocate converting them to permanent civil service. As long as they remain part of spoils system then Schedule C jobs will be filled on the basis of political criteria.

jerry - Lam was appointed by President GW Bush.

As the subpoenas, searches, and indictments went forward without a hitch, and her ouster was not hastened by one day, and this "real problem" was tolerated for seven months after this supposed urgent email, I think it harder to swallow the idea of a Saturday Night Massacre.

Rob:

And your point is?

jerry - you claim she was a Democrat. Is that correct? If so, why would Bush appoint a Dem?

Schumer's amnesia
Clarice Feldman
Macsmind notes the utter hypocrisy of Schumer's criticism of Republicans for making inquiries of US Attorneys about ongoing investigations

First to the microphone, Senator (never been to Walter Reed but if you hum a few bars I'll fake it) Schumer is ranting about the firing of US prosecutors, and especially expressing shock about Republican Senators contacting prosecutors to inquire about prosecutions.

You mean like this Chucky?

January 22, 2004
The Honorable James Comey
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Deputy Attorney General Comey:

I write to request an update on the investigation into allegations that senior administration officials committed a federal felony by leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative.

The investigation has been underway for four months now and we have received no meaningful reports regarding the progress you are making. I realize there are limitations on information that can be disclosed regarding an ongoing criminal investigation, but, as we have discussed, a prosecutor has the responsibility to assure public confidence in criminal investigations, especially those of such a serious nature.

In the wake of recent calls by former intelligence operatives for a Congressional investigation, I write to ask that you publicly answer several questions regarding the progress you are making:

Has a grand jury been empaneled in this case? Have members of the White House staff signed waivers, permitting journalists to discuss confidential communications? If so, what percent of the White House staff has signed such waivers? Has anyone who has been asked to sign such a waiver refused to do so?

Have journalists been interviewed as part of the investigation? Has any journalist who has been released from confidentiality (assuming any has), refused to answer questions regarding previously confidential communications?

Were White House staffers ordered as a condition of employment to submit to interviews? Has anyone asked for or been offered immunity? If so, how many individuals fit in each category and what types of immunity have been asked for and offered to each?

What other information can you provide us regarding the progress you are making with this investigation?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Was she one of the Clinton holdovers? All of this is very fuzzy in the details.

I am having problems getting all worked up over this whole issue, however, it is really hard to defend the Bush administration when it looks like the keystone cops. Sigh.

Fighting fire with fire....

Here is Schumer interfering with Comey, wondering where the hell the investigation is on this Plame leak -- and it's Chuck Schumer who's out there making the same charges against the existing eight US attorneys! He's claiming that they were interfered with; that there were people making political demands, people making pressure and power demands on them. Chuck Schumer conveniently forgets his own harassment of the justice department, demanding practically every detail of their investigation leading up to the appointment of an independent counsel! “What other information can you provide us regarding the progress you are making with this investigation? I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Charles Schumer, United States Senator.” This is worse than hypocrisy. Schumer's out there criticizing Republicans for making inquiries of US attorneys about ongoing investigations. He is saying that it is unconscionable this would happen: You can't do that! That's pressuring law enforcement! Chuck Schumer was pressuring James Comey!

IF Bush fires Gonzales, no Bush appointee will be "safe" during the next 2 years. The witch-hunt will be in unrelenting full fury.

All the White House has to do to shut this down is take a firm stand - THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, THEY ARE GONE. No matter how badly the explanation and the decisions were handled, the authority to fire the attornies is solely the prerogative of the President.

The Democrats/media can huff & puff, but legally the adminstration has a brick house.

Keemo, if you're going to have an objective sense of ethics, then these partisan witchhunts won't even get off the ground. And then how can we expect any bigmouth pompous fatcats to serve our country in the Senate?

The Yell,

Good point....

It just amazes me how these politicians assume we are all incapable of recognizing their dishonesty; assume we will take them on their word; assume we don't mind witch hunts taking up the hours of the day while our soldiers are fighting overseas; while our nation is in need of political reform...

Simply amazing how stupid these politicians assume we Americans are. "Go do your jobs citizens, pay your taxes; we'll tell you when and how to think"....

More administration excuses for firing those U.S. attorneys are going up in smoke now:

Ousted USA Lauded by DoJ

Justice Department official William Moschella told Congress that U.S. Attorney John McKay of Seattle was fired because of he'd been too aggressively pushing his office's regional law enforcement information-sharing program. But McKay pointed out during the hearing that the DoJ had actually made his system the DoJ's pilot project and chosen McKay to lead the U.S. attorneys' work on the issue.

Similarly, San Diego's Carol Lam was supposedly fired because of her office's failure to prosecute immigration cases. But it turns out that the Justice Department vouched for Lam's handling of such cases just three months before she was fired, citing, for instance, the fact that half of her staff was devoted to prosecuting such crimes.

One of the more remarkable aspects of this story, indeed, is that the fact that the Justice Department chose a small group of the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country and then tried to portray them as incompetent. As you can see, it's been a losing effort. And in every case where the cover story has been blown, it's revealed political motivations for the firing.

Note: The whole voter fraud thing is actually the second line floated as the reason for Iglesias' firing. The first (what might be called the cover story's cover story) was that there had been a failure of leadership in his office. Iglesias, Moschella announced to the Congress, had often "delegated to his first assistant the running of the office." What Moschella did not mention is that Iglesias is a Navy Reserve officer, which means that he's required to serve 40 days during the year -- something, of course, that the Justice Department knew full well when they gave him the job.

Loopy Pat Leahy went on television yesterday and announced his decision to make this a test of the separation of powers:

“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Mr. Leahy said on “This Week” on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.”

Lawmakers in both parties agree that the fate of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales may rest on what happens this week, as the White House and Congress come to blows — or find a compromise — over the testimony lawmakers are demanding. With Mr. Bush at Camp David, the White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, spent the weekend in Washington weighing whether to allow Mr. Rove and the others to talk and, if so, under what conditions.

The White House should reject Leahy's demand and do so quickly. To allow Rove to be compelled to testify over this matter would shred executive privilege as the predicate is simply non-existence, a pure bit of political posturing. If Rove can be made to testify here, any White House official could be compelled to testify over any matter at any time in the future. The same is true of Harriet Miers. She was the president's lawyer, and lawyers cannot be compelled to disclose their advice in most circumstances, and certainly cannot be obliged to do so when the client is the president. (I hope we hear from the ABA shortly on the inanity of Leahy's demand that the White House Counsel testify.)

There is much more at stake here than Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, and White House Counsel Fred Fielding will certainly advise the president of that. Time to let the Democrats rush over the cliff and issue subpoenas which can then be contested in federal court. The opinion in the Watergate tapes case, U.S. v. Nixon, reaffirmed the existence of executive privilege but upheld the demands of the criminal justice system against it, but there are no such demands here, just the political demands of one branch against the other, a dispute the high court may refuse to even hear much less decide in favor of the Congress.

If executive privilege is to be narrowed, it ought only to be done via an opinion of the Supreme Court, not out of fear of the fevered speculations of Patrick Leahy and the political agendas of Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. George Bush has done much to establish the president's authority in time of war. He ought not to abandon those precedents for fear of a few days more of absurd headlines from constitutionally illiterate MSMers.

Rob:

Like Karen, I found that the story seems to imply that she was a Democrat. But no matter, her term ended and she was replaced...non story here.

Karen: I agree that the Administration has been acting like a bunch of keystone cops as well. Instead of pretending to comply with partisan political request by Congress they should have been vigorously defending Presidential prerogative to hire and fire Schedule C employees as per Myers vs The United States (1926)

SFdude

The Administration has no "excuses". Only explanations.

"Incompetent" is a misquote. The Administration doesn't say they were incompetent. It says it wasn't satisfied with their performance.

There is no contradiction in having one level of a bureaucracy issue glowing peer review reports, while the highest level of the Administration finds the overall performance unsatisfactory. Most of the readers on this blog, for example, are very angry this President is NOT more willing to ignore peer consensus at the State Department and CIA.

I have posted elsewhere in response to you, that the Administration is exempt from the usual requirements regarding employees doing Reserve service. Nor is it at all unprecedented to insist that a Reservist forgo a federal office in wartime.

SF Dude:

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. McKay refused to investigate allegations of vote fraud in the Washington Gubernatorial race recount even after it was clearly demonstrated that many of the extra ballots that counted as Democratic votes came from residents of the county's cemeteries or were registered at address that didn't exist.

He was removed because, as a Democrat, he refused to investigate probable Democratic vote fraud in the recount. I know the NYT editorialized today dismissing Republican claims about vote fraud as a tactic to suppress “minority” votes. The editors might want to ask the Federal Prosecutor who got the convictions against 16 St Louis Democrats who believed that the minority group known as the Dead had a right to vote if such claims were false or not.

jerry, McKay was a Republican as this excerpt from a Seattle Times reports shows:

Former Washington state Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance acknowledged Tuesday that he contacted then-U.S. Attorney John McKay to inquire about the status of federal investigations into the 2004 governor's race while the outcome was still in dispute. ...

"Republican activists were furious because they felt that you had a Republican secretary of state [Sam Reed], a Republican county prosecutor in Norm Maleng and a Republican U.S. attorney, but still they saw the governorship slipping away, and they were just angry," Vance said.

The dhimmies want it all ways:
Their guy can fire US Attorneys at will for blatant political reasons. Their guy can use the NSA to spy on anyone he wants. Their guy can obstruct justice all day long.
They can vote for a war and then betray their vote.
Now they want to claim that a very normal and proper move - the firing of an appointed Executive Branch official with political over tones is somehow criminal or even questionable?
And of course I see the unfortunate pattern of our Captain - cooperate in the eveisceration of Republicans if the lefties demand it.
What is it about conservatives that motivates us to cooperate in their venal attacks on us?
It is not principal. At least no principal based on anything good. Is it a ploy to get lefties to have sympathy for us? History proves that to be a false hope. Is it justice? No. Just like with the Dubai Ports deal, there was nothing in the charges by Schumer then, as now, except falseness.
No, I think it is simply an inability to actually use critical thinking skills.
Captain, when are you and far too many other conservatives going to stop being played for fools?

SF Dude:

Once again you are quoting selectively in attempt to divert attention from the real issue here.. It newspaper story merely asserts that McKay is a Repbulican. It is not clear that he really was.

The relevant fact is that McKay refused to investigate Democratic Party vote fraud that changed the election day outcome. There was clear evidence that there was something illegal going on in King County and he failed to in his duty to prevent ongoing vote fraud.
He failed in his duty and should be fired.

Twice in this thread, Jerry has mistakenly pinned a Dem label on fired Republican US attorneys (Lam and McKay). Is this bad information picked up elsewhere, or misdirection?

This is not a Republican-Democrat battle. It is actually 2 issues - the independence of the Department of Justice, and the incompetence of the White House and the political appointees at Justice.

jerry, McKay was a Republican as this excerpt from a Seattle Times reports shows:
Posted by starfleet_dude at March 19, 2007 09:39 AM

Like I said; some people just have the need to be told how to think... Seattle Times; now there's an example of a "fair and balanced" news source... The Seattle Times was very much involved in the crimes that took place in that election...

Rob:

First of all go back on to original stories and you will see that the implication is that these US Attorneys were all Democrats being replaced by Republican hacks.

Your assertion that the Justice Department is independent is false. The Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch and falls under the control of President. The President is free to "interfere" in the operation of the Justice Department as long as he isn't violating the law or the Constitution. Show me where he has done this. His right to remove the eight US Attorneys is affirmed by Myers vs the United States. No one has asserted that any of these US Attorneys were removed because they were investigating wrong doing by the Administration. This new charge of impropriety revolves around the failure to reappoint someone whose term has expired so there appears to be wrong doing there either. Congress passed the Special Prosecutor statue in the wake of Watergate because they recognized that the Constitution empowers the President to run the Justice Department and this made it difficult to for the Justice Department to investigate its boss. Back then the Democrats had yet to assert that national legitimacy can only be dispensed by the Democratic Party.

If you don’t like this arrangement write your congressman and ask him to amend to the Constitution so that they either create a fourth branch of government called the Justice Department or place it under the control of the judiciary.

jerry & Keemo, say what you will about the Seattle Times but a direct quote from the Washington State Republican Party Chairman himself saying that McKay was also a Republican settles the matter, no matter what the "implication" you refer to may be.

Yell, when the Bush administration says the "performance" of the fired U.S. attorneys was an issue and it turns out that Iglesias and Lam were performing their jobs well, it's clear that something is afoot that has nothing to do with the issue of their objective "performance". Combine this with the change that was sneaked into the Patriot Act that allowed for new attorneys to be named without any Senate approval whatsoever, and you have the makings of a scandal. You can bet that Karl Rove is at the bottom of it too, not Sampson, Miers or even AG Gonzales himself.

Some simple questions for Rod D and SF Dude:

The issue here is whether the President has violated any stature or the Constitution. So here are simple questions for you that require a simple yes or no answer.

Is the Justice Department and its Prosecutors subject to Presidential control by the Constitution?

Can the President replace for any reason a political appointee as per Myers vs the United States?

Can you point to prosecutor that was replaced for investigating a Republican official? Lam doesn't count because her term expired and was not reappointed.

Please don’t bring in any extraneous partially quoted articles. Just answer the questions. Extended answers are merely evasions.

Do the math. Clinton fired every US attorney his first day in office. USAs serve 4 year terms. All of his appointees expired when he left office. US attorney is a political appointment, as in the "spoils" system. There are no "holdovers", ever.

All of the fired attorneys were Ashcroft appointees. Gonzales, malignant little robot that he is, has different preferences for those that work to insure that liberty and justice for all of us is maintained. Tote that warrantless wiretap. Lift that signing statement. Get a little graft and it lands in a Grand Cayman bank.

jerry, the issue at the heart of this matter is whether or not the White House tried to get U.S. attorneys to do its bidding in cases it wanted pushed for partisan political purposes. U.S. attorneys are supposed to be independent and free of such political influence, as they do have great power to bring charges and with that power comes the responsibility to use it justly. If their motives come into question, it corrodes the justice system and the trust the people put in it. One of the reasons why Senate confirmation used to be necessary for the appointment of U.S. attorneys was that it checked the potential for that power of the President to be abused. It's very hard not to conclude that there was an intent on the part of the White House - in particular Karl Rove - to punish those U.S. attorneys who weren't sufficiently "loyal" to President Bush. What's even more worrisome is whether other U.S. attorneys were "loyal" and pushed cases, such as the charges against Robert Menendez in New Jersey that were brought up but the U.S. attorney there right before last fall's election.

There's a loose cannon all right, but Ed is aiming far too low in making Sampson the fall guy for all this.

reddog:

Now that is new take on Ashcroft by the lefties. Now he is the man of integrity holding back that evil forces of the Bush adminstration and protecting are liberties. Now I have heard everything.

Now for something serious...Bush did not fire all the sitting US Attorneys like Clinton did. LIke Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41 before him he let their terms come to an end before he replaced them.

SF Dude:

Your evasion speaks for itself.

The answers are yes, yes and no.

The Democrats are as hostile to Bush as the radical Republicans were to Andrew Johnson. They are holding hearing on variety of subjects to catch the President and Vice President in some procedural "crime" so they can levy impeachment charges against them. They have no intention of even holding a trail because they cannot convict. But the Constitution requires that the Impeached official step down until after a trial. That would make the Speaker of the House acting President. Can you say coup d'etat?

jerry, your attempt to make this matter about something other than what it is about is duly noted... :-)

FYI, the new and improved timeline of events is up at Talking Points Memo:

TPM Canned U.S. Attorney Timeline

SF Dude:

This is all about Presidential prerogatives, separation of powers and politics.

It would be to your benefit to go back and read about the fight between the Radical Republicans and Andrew Johnson. Here is the final word on what the conflict is and who has Constitution on their side.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/38-power-and-duty-of-president.html

"Yell, when the Bush administration says the "performance" of the fired U.S. attorneys was an issue and it turns out that Iglesias and Lam were performing their jobs well, "

"Turns out" according to whom?
It turns out that Maddy Albright did a great service to the world by paying the Norks to build nukes more slowly, just ask her friends.
It turns out that George Schulz meant for the USSR to collapse by 1992, just ask his staff.

It's a free country, go ahead and disagree with the President about how his Administration should be run--but don't bother trying to hold down a job under him.

"Combine this with the change that was sneaked into the Patriot Act that allowed for new attorneys to be named without any Senate approval whatsoever, and you have the makings of a scandal."

We sure do--how dare those mega-salaried prima donnas sign laws they don't read?

It doesn't matter how many or who disagrees with the President, his Cabinet and appointed aides serve at his pleasure.

I suspect most people thrashing about this, certainly Schumer and the Donks, are guilty of the most grotesque bad faith. They certainly are NOT trying to hamstring a Hillary Admin from firing who it pleases...

This issue is not a legal issue so much as a moral one.

Yes, these attorneys are chosen by the president as the president sees fit. But these are not merely hack jobs - if a U.S. attorney finds Republican malfeasance, he or she should go after the perpetrator with the same gusto as he or she would go after Democratic malfeasance. A violation of the law is just that - it should have no (R) or (D) next to it.

The mistake was in the AG forgetting that. Just because someone serves at the pleasure of the president doesn't mean they should act as partisan hacks.

DU

Mechanical Eye:

Show me where a Republican was not prosecuted because of the firings. I don't think anybody has alleged that. The Lam case is about as close as it gets and she was not fired. Her term merely expired. The only two "political" cases that have been identified were the failure to investigate proven vote fraud in Washington State and failure to vigorously investigate alleged political corruption in New Mexico. These were charges against Democrats and not Republicans.

I would treat your protestations and those of others like SF Dude, as serious if I heard a clear statement denouncing the Clinton Administration’s dismissal of all 93 US Attorneys including the one investigating Whitewater in Little Rock.

Josh Marshall takes the current line from the White House on Carol Lam's firing, looks at the dots, and connects them differently:

March 19, 2007 -- 02:57 PM EST

The money graf:

Now, this email can be read a few different ways. But look closely at what's being said. This is allegedly more than a year after the White House's and the DOJ's disgruntlement with Lam began. And the AG's Chief of Staff has to ask around to see whether anyone has ever even raised the issue with Lam. (Indeed, according to Lam's testimony, the DOJ never raised the immigration issue with her during her entire tenure.) I would submit that the most logical reading of this email is not to reference longstanding displeasure with Lam's immigration policy enforcement leading to her dismissal. A more logical reading is an effort to find a rationale for firing Lam and inquiring to see whether a paper trail or record exists to back that rationale. Firing Lam for an issue Washington had apparently never even brought up with her would be pretty iffy.

Read the post for the context that supports Marshall's assertion.

SF Dude:

Marshall's analysis is BS for the simple reason that Lam wasn't fired. Her appointment was not renewed.

Are you now asserting that all US Attorneys must be retained until fired by a Democrat?

Marshall's analysis is BS for the simple reason that Lam wasn't fired. Her appointment was not renewed.

Or for the fact, the one that starfleet and Josh Marshall are very insistent on ignoring, that the Constitution does not require the President to have a reason, whether she was fired, her contract wasn't renewed, or what.

jerry, given that the standard practice (up to now at least) has been to reappoint them, Lam was basically fired from her position as a U.S. attorney. That would be fine perhaps, except that the "performance" excuses given by the administration are just that - lame excuses that don't pan out.

jerry - Did all of the 85 or 86 US attorneys who are still on the job after 4 years (or more) actually have have their appointments renewed after 4 years? If so, was this done through Senate confirmation or under the new provision in the Patriot Act?

More of the administration's lame "performance" excuses shown to be bogus:

Salon: Document Dump Gives "Misleading Rationale" to U.S. Attorney Firings - by Paul Kiel

As I wrote before, every justification given for the Justice Department's firing of the U.S. attorneys is eventually proven not just to be bogus, but spectacularly bogus.

The cases of Nevada's Daniel Bogden and Arizona's Paul Charlton are no different. As Salon reports, among last week's trove of documents from the Justice Department was one email that showed officials fretting that Bogden and Chartlon were "unwilling to take good cases" presented to them by the obscenity task force.

Except, of course, not only were those cases not "good," but both Charlton and Bogden ended up taking them on, Salon's Mark Follman reports.

Nevertheless, the email appears to have been included in last week's release in order to "shore up [the Justice Departments'] explanation for the firings," as Salon puts it.

But as the piece makes clear, this email might in and of itself have been a conscious "shoring up" of the firing. Daniel Bogden and Paul Charlton, after all, didn't make an appearance on Kyle Sampson's hit list until September of 2006. Was it a coincidence that just one week after Sampson included Bogden and Charlton as among those "we should now consider pushing out" in a September 13th email, DoJ officials started complaining in writing about the two of them? Maybe, maybe not. But with this story, suspicion has become the rule.

Karl Rove's talking point lies exposed:

Rove's Talking Point

The House and Senate judiciary committees want to hear from Karl Rove, and it looks like there's going to be a fight before they do. But Rove has already spoken twice on the U.S. attorney firings, and on both occasions, he auditioned a talking point that provides an excellent case for firing Carol Lam -- the only problem with it being that it's not true.

On March 8th, Rove said that Lam had been fired because "[she] refused to file immigration cases… at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office."

One week later, he said that Lam had made a "principled decision... that she would not commit resources to prosecute immigration offenses. She made a decision that that was not going to be a priority of her office. The United States Department of Justice asked her to make it so, she did not."

Now, no one else, either from the Justice Department or the White House, has made a similar assertion. And that's because, as Lam testified repeatedly under oath before Congress, she was never asked (let alone "directed") to change her office's handling of immigration cases.

But that's not all. As recounted numerous times on this blog, the Justice Department wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) vouching for Lam's handling of immigration cases just three months before she was fired. The letter stated that Lam had committed "fully half of its Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute criminal immigration cases," and noted that the number of alien smuggling cases filed in her office had been "rising sharply." Three months later, she was fired.

In other words, Rove's assertion is not only a lie, but a damned lie. ...

starfleet:

Still shilling for that partisan hack Marshall? Oh yeah, he is objective. The truth is that Bush could fire these people for any reason. Any at all, including politics. And since when is it common practice to keep attornies on? For how long? Forever and ever and ever?

I see, the way it is Democrats fine fire attornies to protect their cronies, wives and shady business partners, but Republicans can't fire them at all, unless of course Josh Marshall oks it.

I agree with the following statement from another blogger AJ at Strata-Sphere :

The row being made over the 8 AGs and Gonzales is a classic PR move to establish a context to buffer future, pending bad news. We all know there have been ongoing investigations into the NSA leak and other near treasonous acts exposing our defenses during a time of war. And we all know many of those leaks will trace to Democrat Senators and staff. What better way to cry partisan witch hunt than for the dems to try and establish a ‘pattern’ of targetting Dems so that when the facts come out, the Dems can pretend it is not about national security but about the Partisan right. And like good little sheep to the slaughter impatient and myopic conservatives are playing right into the Dems hands. If the story becomes established that Gonzales had to leave because of partisan witch hunts, be ready to lose the entire PR effort on the actual sleeze and illegal activities poring out of the Democrats. Stand firm, stop whimpering and definitely do not give into the Dems on the eve of finally getting results on the investigation we have awaited for over a year now. If you cannot wait, then be quiet. There is NO upside to Gonzales leaving now - none. If our troops can work through bullets and bombs, the rest of us can should be able to weather some bad press with chins held high - you’d think.

Starfleet:

Sounds to me like Feinstein was doing the same thing the Democrats are accusing Deminici of doing. And it also sounds like Lam might be the one who is lying. We also know that Schumer has been bugging attornies as well. But they have a D behind their names. so it is different.

And it also sounds like a bunch of partisan hacks grasping at straws in an effort to attack a president they don't like.

Is that why people elected Democrats?

Do the Democrats say to themselves, We could spend our time and resources helping the American people, living up to our obligations as legislators to improve their lives and represent their wishes, OR we could say to hell with that and dedicate ourselves to coming up with a bunch of trumped up nonsense in the hopes that we can cripple a war time president and gain power for ourselves in the process.

We go with the second choice the Democrats say.

The Republicans got stupid over Clinton and look where that got them. I think the Democrats are even loonier about Bush.

You people are such tools. Really. This whole thing is so stupid.

SF Dude:

It is hopeless carrying on this monologue with you. You have never explicitly said that you disapprove of the wholesale firing of US Attorneys by Bill Clinton including the one that was investigating him. You have never acknowledged the President the right to run the executive branch or replace political appointees regardless of cause, a right that was affirmed by the SCOTUS in 1926 (link already posted).

So show me that you are nothing but a Bush-Derangement Syndrome driven drone. Answer the two questions. Your failure to do so to this point shows that you do not believe that Democratic Party is bound to the Constitution.

I don't know if Sampson was a loose cannon or not, but he has been fired and so it seems moot to me at this point.

However, when it comes to voter fraud in Seattle I saw this over at Betsy's :

ACORN is a leftist organization that seeks to register new voters but they always seem to be connected to some sort of questionable registrations. And the trend continues out in Seattle.

King County prosecutors are investigating apparent voter-registration fraud in the 2006 general election.

Dan Satterberg, chief deputy to King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, confirmed late Thursday that attorneys from his office will meet later this week to brief their federal counterparts regarding evidence that hundreds of voter-registration cards submitted in King County were forged.

Satterberg said "there are significant irregularities" among a batch of more than 1,800 voter-registration cards submitted to the county by canvassers for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a national group that represents the interests of low- and moderate-income citizens.

County prosecutors, aided by King County sheriff's investigators, have been looking into the allegations of forgery since election officials noticed that hundreds of the cards submitted by ACORN canvassers appeared to be in the same handwriting.

ACORN has come under scrutiny in several other states for alleged voter-registration irregularities. Four ACORN canvassers were indicted by a federal grand jury in Ohio late last year. On March 6, ACORN submitted a letter to Maleng's office identifying three workers as suspects after an internal investigation indicated the trio "collected a substantial number of applications from two homeless shelters in Seattle.

Starfeet dude:

You should read the letter that the Justice Department sent to Senator Feinstein. The only sense in which it "vouches for Lam's handling of immigration cases", is that it is basically an attempt to explain why the prosecutions for illegal immigrants had fallen so drastically during Carol Lam's tenure.

Immigration enforcement cases fell from 2,887 in 2004 to 1,641 in 2005, a decrease of 43%.

The letter presents Ms Lam's theory that it is better to go after the worst offenders -- the “alien smugglers” -- and attempt to get longer prison sentences -- as opposed to simply getting as many illegal immigration offenders as possible. That may or may not be a good idea, but it is not her call to unilaterally ignore the administration's orders.

The letter notes that prosecutions for these "alien smuggling" cases was climbing in 2006, expected to be up to 684 versus 484 in 2005. But as you can see, those numbers don't come close to the prior year numbers of total immigration cases.

So, there is nothing inherently inconsistent here in the administration’s actions. It is understandable that the justice department official who responded to Feinstein wouldn’t say, “Yes, we agree with you, but we can’t get Carol Lam on board, so we are looking at replacing her when her term expires.”

As usual in this manufactured scandal, people like Marshall are counting on people ignoring the details and simply swallowing their claims. But just as the e-mails do not support the claims being made by the Democrats, this letter and Lam’s results do not support Marshall’s claims.

Hey Guys - Wonder what was said back in 93? :

Washington Times, March 26, 1993

Senate and House Republicans yesterday blasted the White House and the Justice Department for giving pink slips to virtually all 93 U.S. attorneys, a move Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole called the "March massacre" . . . .

"Nearly 20 years ago, when Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Eliot Richardson were fired from their posts, the press railed about the so-called 'Saturday-night massacre,' " said Mr. Dole.

Texas Rep. Dick Armey, chairman of the House Republican Conference, and about a dozen freshmen colleagues accused Attorney General Janet Reno of bowing to White House political pressure.

"During her confirmation, Miss Reno assured senators that she would 'keep politics out of what I do,' " Mr. Armey said.

"Less than a month later, she fired all the U.S. attorneys in a very political fashion . . . one that reeks of politics, undermining the public's confidence in the Department of Justice."

UPI, March 26, 1993

Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys.

In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a "severe blow to the administration of justice in this country."

He said, "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently."

Associated Press -- March 31, 1993

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said President Clinton's "political - and, yes, impatient - desire to select his own U.S. attorneys will force much of the department's important work to come to a screeching halt. Justice will suffer."

Washington Times Editorial, March 28, 1993

All of the U.S. attorneys have important cases and investigations pending. . .

Now, as it happens, we know little of how the decision to ask for the immediate resignations of the U.S. attorneys was made. We do know it was a co-production of the White House and the Justice Department - including, presumably, a murky role for the murky Webster Hubbell, Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner, who occupies an office at the Justice Department in the hitherto unknown and constitutionally dubious capacity as "liaison" to the White House. . . .

Meanwhile, a House committee has taken up the reauthorization of the independent counsel law, which expired in December. Wouldn't it be delicious if the first use of a revitalized law were to look into the propriety of the Clinton administration's decision to fire the U.S. attorneys?

Associated Press on March 25, 1993:

President Clinton rejected Republican complaints Thursday about the demand that all presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys resign. He called it less political than replacing them one by one.

"All those people are routinely replaced, and I have not done anything differently," Clinton said during an Oval Office photo session. "... I think the blanket decision (for resignations) is less political than picking people out one by one.". .

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., issued a statement criticizing Attorney General Janet Reno for a "March Massacre" and comparing her actions to those of President Nixon during Watergate.

Rush Limbaugh, television show, March 25, 1993

LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) ...The New York Times had an editorial, Janet Reno Starts Badly.' And they go on to talk about all of the--the possible conflicts, or the appearances of impropriety that the--clearly exist here.

Now do you remember something, folks? Remember when Richard Nixon issued a sweeping order for a bunch of people to got--to be gotten rid of? They called that, back then, an obstruction of justice.' Remember that? Remember Watergate--that Saturday night massacre? Why, he can't do that. Why, that's an obstruction of justice.' And this may end up being the same thing. But what are they calling? Hey, it's just politics as usual. Hey, don't bother us about it. It's our right. We're the new administration.'

But it is suspicious; very suspicious looking. The appearance of impropriety;' remember, that's what a bunch of people said is all we needed to get rid of Ed Meese. Well, my friends, ever since that happened, when he was attorney general for Reagan; the appearance of impropriety--that's all you need. They always say, the attorney general; that's a s--that's a different standard than any other Cabinet post, because that's the administration of law and order. Number one law enforcement official. All we need,' they said back then, did the liberal Democrats, was the appearance of impropriety.' He's disqualified.

I think we have it here. I think we have a pretty huge appearance of impropriety, and I just want to call your attention to it, show you the double standard which exists. Nobody except me, and--well, what an alliance--the New York Times...

Paul Gigot in March, 1993:

All of which raises the deeper issue of who is really running Justice. Ms. Reno says dismissing the 93 [U.S.] attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House, which means the White House decided and she announced it. Her letter asked the U.S. attorneys to send their resignation letters "care of John Podesta, assistant to the president and staff secretary, with a copy to me." Independent justice?

Regarding that memo that referred to a "real problem we have with Carol Lam right now", it should be noted that the memo was talking about replacing her when her term expired, which was over six months later.

Now, if the concern over Lam was the search warrants that were about to be issued -- as the Washington Post wants us to believe -- what possible good would it do to prepare for replacing her in six months?

(Indeed, according to Lam's testimony, the DOJ never raised the immigration issue with her during her entire tenure.)

Anybody who believes that's true, or that she actually testified to anything so ridiculous, I have a bridge for sale. The USA for Orange County California never discussed immigration with the DOJ, even as the DOJ wrote letters to the senior Senator of CA regarding her handling of the matter? !

Was it a coincidence that just one week after Sampson included Bogden and Charlton as among those "we should now consider pushing out" in a September 13th email, DoJ officials started complaining in writing about the two of them? Maybe, maybe not. But with this story, suspicion has become the rule.

So, if there's no documentation of complaint on file, we know the firings were unethical skullduggery of some sort.
If there's documentation of complaint on file, we know they were forged, and the firings were unethical skullduggery of some sort.
If a lawyer loses their six-figure salary and has to pound the pavement looking for work, and they aren't totally happy about it, that is a complete and total refutation of any assertion that their termination was not some sort of unethical skullduggery.

When the Administration says Iglesias had "performance issues" that was a dastardly lie.
When Iglesias himself acknowledges he missed 40 days of work every year--including a national seminar in which he was one of two USAs called on to train the other 91--that is further support for the charge the Bush Administration was underhanded, because they knew he was a Naval Reservist when they took him on.

Baloney.

If, in back of this, was a firm honest belief that the President has a duty to leave his hirelings be, and not snap a whip, and not cease to renew their jobs so long as he's in that White House, your error would at least be respectable.

The only thing missing from this latest soon to be gooner in the Bush administration was the press conference and the slap on the back and the "your doing a heck of a job Gonzo" statement from the Good Ole Boy President.

bye bye Gonzo, we hardly knew ye.

Politico.com is reporting that REPUBLICANS are sending suggestions to the WH of possible successors to Gonzalez. Some names floated were Chertoff and Fran townsend. Looks like the handwriting could be on the wall. My guess......Gonzalez can start cleaning out his desk. And Keemo, Rove and the White House can fight Leahys supoena, but doesn't it make him look guilty? Just asking.

starfleet_dude,

I note that TPMMUCKRAKER fails to mention (as the San Diego Union-Tribune, which really broke the story, did) that Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) complained about Carol Lam's prosecutorial record to the Administration as well.

And the muckraker posting doesn't address the table contained in the Union Tribune detailing that Lam's record on immigration prosecutions did indeed fall short, as did her record on prosecuting white-collar crime.

So, no matter how many in her office were working these issues, it doesn't appear to have been enough.

The only excuse she would have were if her budget were cut. So the unanswered question was whether her budget was cut by nearly a fourth (the decrease in case load over her tenure) or not.

Interestingly, there was an article in the LA Times last week pointing out the leadership of TPMMUCKRAKER in breaking this story -- and no mention of the San Diego Union-Tribune which REALLY broke the story (and gave TPMMUCKRAKER the dog bone to chew on).

As I stated in my previous post to you (which you failed to address then and didn't address now), Feinstein is "shocked, shocked!" that Lam is gone, and is now rounding up the usual suspects. If she had any sense, she's corral herself as well, since a Senator is Pope in their own State.

I see BDS is alive and well here on this thread...

Bush and the rest of the Republicans need to grow a pair and slam these Liberal weenies with a good ol' fashioned Government 101 class... You trolls live and die with every possible scandal. You folks really need to get a life.

CD,

Leahy is a nothing of a human. This guy has craved attention and power so badly, but he doesn't even have the respect of his own party members. The guys an embarrassment of an American man; a woman stuck in a mans body. Leahy can stomp, jump up and down, yell and scream all he wants, truth is Rove is far more successful & powerful than Leahy will ever be. Rove pays no attention to the little wimp; Bush pays no attention to the little wimp... Cheney would take the she/man out back and beat the living crap out it, if given the green light.

UNCLESMRGOL: please provide a link to the story that says feinstein complained about Lam - I just googled the union tribune with Feinstein and Lam's names and couldn't find any articles that said that -

I am very interested in a link - thanks -

Keemo,
As in the other thread that we were discussing this in, how exactly is this a non-scandal? I believe I laid it out pretty clearly and never got a response back from you - I was assuming you had no response - It's nice that you guys believe everything the administration does that is wrong, is actually the fault of liberals and democrats, but when we get down to the facts of the matter you seem to disappear -
The facts of the matter being:
-Prosecutors were asked to resign selectively after the initial cleaning house when Bush became president -
-The selectivity of the prosecutors being asked to leave brought up questions as to why only them and what were they doing wrong
-The subsequent investigation into the matter showed that many of these prosecutors had indicted/prosecuted republicans and/or had not prosecuted enough democrats/did not take on enough cases that would make the administration and republicans as a whole look better -
-Further into the investigation emails were made public that showed people within the DOJ and WH rating the prosecutors as "loyal Bushies" or not -
-More emails were made public that showed a seeming correlation between the start of an investigation against a republican and/or political ally and the termination of the said prosecutor in the case -
-Another email directly contradicted statements made by the AG that the idea was not to appoint a US Attorney and then hold him in office indefinitely without senate confirmation - In fact, the email laid out a plan for keeping a Rove protege in office without ever going through senate confirmation - A tactic to stonewall senate confirmation was created and is effectively being used right now -
-In the same email a comment was made that the provision inserted into the patriot act that allowed a USA to take office without senate approval should be used because they should take advantage of it since they have it - (still no problems with this bs Patriot Act?)

Now to you - you don't think that's a scandal - to you this is all democrats going wild - But my friend, that is hardly what the facts say - snap out of it keemo - this administration is anything but truthful -

uncle - “It has come to my attention that despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. . . . It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases … I also want to stress the importance of vigorously prosecuting these types of cases so that California isn't viewed as an easy entry point for alien smugglers because there is no fear of prosecution if caught.”

That's the text I found for the Feinstein writing AG about Lam -
Obviously its a complaint - Yes - And that's obviously why the administration chose to use this 1 complaint against her (because a democrat used it too) - But its a rather lame complaint - tame if you will - Pretty much asking to get at it a bit better - But Lam did testify that she was never made aware of this and did receive good grades on her evaluation - So this really holds very very little water -

If you think this says something, but not the plethora of emails from the DOJ and the WH, then you are certifiably crazy -

Talking about emails now, here a bit from tonights document dump to Congress. The following is an excerpt from a newly released memo dated May 24, 2006, from Brian Roehrkasse to Rebecca Seidel and Kimberly A Smith, and illustrates how the stupid talking point excuse about Carol Lam being somehow lax in her job was originally ginned up:

SYNOPSIS: Yesterday, Congressman Darryl Issa criticized on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" SCDA's "refusal" to prosecute 100% of all alien smugglers. The USAO-SDCA has learned that the "Border Patrol Report" on which Rep. Issa relies in an unauthorized, altered version of an old report. The USAO-SDCA has issued a written statement to CNN with that information.

DISCUSSION: On Thursday, May 18th, 2006 the Associated Press ran a news story prompted by the release of a 2004 "Border Patrol Report" by Congressman Issa was actually an altered and unauthorized version of an acutal internal intelligence report issued by the El Cajon substation. The original report was labeled "Prosecution of Sumgglers" for Fiscal Year 2003; the altered report was labeled "Prosecution of Smugglers (1324) Fiscal Year 2004." The altered 2004 report contained editorial comments and conclusions that were never seen or authorized by Border Patrol management.

On Monday, May 22, 2006, this office was contacted by CNN and informed that Congressman Issa would be appearing on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" to discuss the "Border Patrol Report." CNN asked our office for a written statement to be shared during the interview. After checking with Border Patrol, San Diego Sector, we submitted the following written statement:

"Representative Issa has been misled. The document he calls a "Border Patrol Report" is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, related to a single substation, that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report. Many of the comments in the document to which Representative Issa refers are editorial comments inserted by an unidentified individual, and they were not approved by or ever seen by Border Patrol management.

Many inportant issues are rasied by the problem of illegal immigration. However, we believe that all dialogue and debate should be based on well-informed and accurate data."

We have also advised Representative Issa's office that we believe the Border Patrol report to be an unauthorized and altered version of an old internal report.

In light of previous media interest in the issue, there is a possibility that the disclosure that the report is not genuine could generate substantial media interest. Our statement was read to Representative Issa by Lou Dobbs during his interview which aired at 3:30 PST.

Issa later huffs and puffs in a letter to Lam about not getting information his office requested previously, but of course that doesn't detract from the fact that his criticism of Lam was based on a Border Patrol report that wasn't legit.

ck,

With all due respect; you staked much on the integrity of Joe Wilson. You were fooled, blinded by your desire to see this President in the light that you so choose. Wilson turned out to be nothing other than a lying free loader. Now, you stake much on yet another desire to see this President in the light that you so choose. Just another pipe dream driven by raw hatred. No my friend, it is you that has this all wrong once again. You talk of facts, but several members of this community laid down the facts for every one of you so inflicted with that damn BDS; facts are of no avail here ck.

-The subsequent investigation into the matter showed that many of these prosecutors had indicted/prosecuted republicans and/or had not prosecuted enough democrats/did not take on enough cases that would make the administration and republicans as a whole look better -

That's quite a shotgun attack--either they went after Republicans (and such prosecutions apparently went through as normal) or they did not pursue Democrats (and muckrakers in Seattle have quite a file suggesting somebody should) or they failed to further executive directives--which is legitimate cause for termination of employment in any business.

-Further into the investigation emails were made public that showed people within the DOJ and WH rating the prosecutors as "loyal Bushies" or not -

and these attorneys are neither apolitical civil service representatives nor military officers who are supposed to be out of the loop.

-More emails were made public that showed a seeming correlation between the start of an investigation against a republican and/or political ally and the termination of the said prosecutor in the case -

IF you ignore the fact that their employment was allowed to run its course, for months after these "smoking gun" emails came out, that these supposedly intolerable prosecutions went forward, and further ignore all the other reasons provided for letting them go.

-Another email directly contradicted statements made by the AG that the idea was not to appoint a US Attorney and then hold him in office indefinitely without senate confirmation - In fact, the email laid out a plan for keeping a Rove protege in office without ever going through senate confirmation - A tactic to stonewall senate confirmation was created and is effectively being used right now -

You're fudging this one. Gonzales promised to accept Senate input. The email talked about accepting Senate input for months and months and months. The AG did not promise to seek Senate confirmation.

-In the same email a comment was made that the provision inserted into the patriot act that allowed a USA to take office without senate approval should be used because they should take advantage of it since they have it - (still no problems with this bs Patriot Act?)

So you are upset that the DOJ is aware of the law and applies it as writtten?

I think it awful, stupid, and wrong of Congress to hike the minimum wage. I think the President is 100% wrong about 'family values' and what he calls "the migration'. I want people to get angry about that. I want different decisions made.

But those are POLICY issues and I have a POLITICAL beef, NOT an ETHICS complaint.

SFDude
If you think a government handout is the reason Southern Californians view our border as Swiss cheese---well, it's a very nice bridge, and I'll even offer financing if you can just make the down payment.

I can't help but wonder whether these people would have been terminated had Congress not changed the law to allow their replacements to be named without Senate confirmation. It seems highly like that Congress is now going to change the law back, which is fine with me - US Attorneys should be subject to Senate confirmation.

I'm surprised how many Bill Clinton fans there are around here. No matter what issue of the day is up for discussion, it seems like there are always people around here wanting to measure it against something that Bill Clinton did, apprently on the theory that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be OK, like he's some kind of benchmark for appropriate conduct.

it seems like there are always people around here wanting to measure it against something that Bill Clinton did, apprently on the theory that if Bill Clinton did it, it must be OK, like he's some kind of benchmark for appropriate conduct.

Wow. That's is a really professional disassembly of reality. Not surprising, really. Its really quite amazing how assiduously all of the lefty trolls here are intentionally ignoring the point, made at least six times (twenty if you count other threads) that the Constitution does not require Bush to have any reason whatsoever to fire the attorneys, as it interferes so irritatingly with the fact-free, BDS-addled jackassery that has been posted on this subject.

So if you want to redefine "pointing out gross hypocrisy of the left" as "being a fan of Bill Clinton" well, you go ahead and do that; its no less than you guys do to the Constitution.

starfleet and ck,

You recognize the irony of complaining about Republican talking points when you derive 99% of your arguments from a political hack who calls his blog "Talking Points Memo", don't you? Yeah, of course you do.

You want to blame Bush for appointees being political, when the law allows them to be political by their very nature . But what is your response? To lobby to change the law? To discuss about an example of what those changes will mean? (as I gave a detailed example in another thread to starfleet, which he pointedly ignored) Do you complain to Congress? Do you call your Congressman/woman?

No, you simply blame Bush and call for the head of Karl Rove. (rolls eyes)

Sorry guys, you clearly aren't ready to discuss anything in a serious manner. It is patently obvious that this is moonbattery, plain and simple. Nice to see that this is what you accomplish with your vaunted majority. Nice work. You don't even rise to the level of yawn anymore. Later.

""Wow. That's is a really professional disassembly of reality. Not surprising, really. Its really quite amazing how assiduously all of the lefty trolls here are intentionally ignoring the point, made at least six times (twenty if you count other threads) that the Constitution does not require Bush to have any reason whatsoever to fire the attorneys, as it interferes so irritatingly with the fact-free, BDS-addled jackassery that has been posted on this subject."

The Constitution says nothing about Bush's ability to fire US Attorneys, one way or the other. To the extent that he's able to fire US Attorneys at will, that's due to a statute that allows him to do so, not the Constitution. Before you accuse others of ignoring the Constitution, you might want to read it.

And has been repeatedly pointed out, the fact that the President is free to do something doesn't make it a good idea, or immune to criticism, see e.g. the nomination of Harriet Meiers, the signing of the Terry Schiavo law, to cite just two examples of many. Some commenters here seem to be under the impression that pointing out that the President can fire US Attorneys at will is a conclusive response, but it isn't.

''Before you accuse others of ignoring the Constitution, you might want to read it.''

Article 2, Section 2, 2nd paragraph: He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law:... [emphasis mine]

Can two or more persons be US Attorneys for the same district, or does one have to be fired, ''one way or the other,'' before the next one is appointed?

Keemo buddy - thanks for the lecture and dodging the questions once again - FYI - Wilson wasn't the one lying - I know Rush and Hewitt and them told you that he was, but I got a little newsflash for you - you were misled - sorry -

As for this, again, sorry buddy - Now that we have a real congress you will see answers start coming out - you will undoubtedly say it's all a political sham, and that's fine - I know people like you are here to stay, so I can't really do anything about that - But I'm glad the majority of Americans will get a chance to cut through the republican bs -

Johhnymozart is acting like he knows me or something - Again, and like many of the people you learn from, you have no idea what you are talking about - I have read talkingpointsmemo about 10 times total in my life - I bet you've read it more than me - good for you - have fun making crap up -

The Yell - Its a bit amusing the faux intellect that's trying to be portrayed - You say something about everything I said, but you don't really answer anything at all -

You mention republican indictments going through - That's nice - But then they fire them - That's not so nice - And the seattle thing has been testified to under oath, and it was stated there was no evidence to present a case - I know in your faux reality that that actually means there is evidence but the damn partisans are hiding it - But when we are talking about a republican who was appointed by a republican, well it seems a bit of a stretch -

You find no fault with "loyal Bushies" as USAs - lol - wowxors - It is a position that is politically appointed, not one that is supposed to act in a partisan way - big difference - maybe not to you because your viewpoint has been so skewered in the last few years -

Then you again bring a point up that they were not immediately fired, just took them a few months to get fired - Ok - what's your point again? They weren't fired fast enough?

Then you try to defend gonzales by saying he never promised to seek senate confirmation - LOLOLOLOL - you got to be kidding man - So your whole argument is that I misspoke - Gonzales never even intended on following the law and getting senate approval!!! lol - pathetic -

Then you ask if I'm upset the DOJ knows obscure provisions in the Patriot Act that allow circumventing due process - I'm glad they know it, I wish they wouldn't abuse it - pathetic -

Have fun living in a faux reality Yell, Keemo et al -

ck,

per your request:

LA Times:
Lam was criticized by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said the U.S. attorney was not keeping up with the high volume of border arrests.

San Diego Union-Tribune: Last June, Feinstein wrote to Gonzales regarding her concerns about immigration-related prosecutions in Southern California. On July 30, 2004, a group of 14 California representatives wrote to the Attorney General also to express their “concern” about immigration-related cases.

ck,

I just noticed you called me crazy. Perhaps a qualified crazy, but a crazy nonetheless. Let's keep this on a civilized level, shall we?

I see in a later post you found Feinstein's complaint. Note that Feinstein, in the basking glow of 100% Donkey Rearsight, has retracted her complaint against Carol Lam. But her complaint was about immigration, and that complaint appears to be quite justified when Lam's record is compared to those of the other border Attornies.

I have no problems with Attornies who don't meet Administration requirements being forced to resign (or, in the case of Carol Lam, not to have her commission renewed upon its expiration). The office is a political one, which is why Clinton was able to request and receive the resignations of all of the Attornies.

I'm trying to find where, in all that literature released by DOJ, there is anything about obstruction of justice -- preventing a Republican from being prosecuted for crimes he may have committed. I note that Cunningham is in prison where he deserves to be; Lam's departure didn't change that one iota.

My sense of fair play hopes that Lam was not right when she said she never saw the dismissal coming. My feelings are that when an employee is not performing to standards, they need to be made aware. The interesting piece of paper would be Lam's last performance review (or whatever the equivalent is in the federal political service). Lam must have known from Feinstein's letter to Gonzales that immigration was important to at least one Senator in her ROI and that she was judged an underperformer in that regard. But Feinstein wasn't Lam's boss -- Gonzales was. I'm interested in what Gonzales told Lam.