This may turn out to be as thin as toilet paper in the shower but I think something could develop from it. That something could be legal charges or just a partial repeal of the Patriot Act which could jump start taking it apart peice by peice.
Gonzales defends canning U.S attorneys, calls it "good management"
Friday, Jan 19, 2007
By Steve Tetreault and Aaron Sadler
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday declined to say how many U.S. attorneys are being removed from their jobs, but defended the practice to senators as "good management" to replace them with "the best possible people."
Gonzales insisted that politics did not come into play in forcing turnover among the chief federal prosecutors, who are appointed by the president. Although pressed by Democrats during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales said he would not discuss individual cases.
But when asked specifically about Arkansas, Gonzales said he had spoken twice to Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., about the appointment of former Republican political operative Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District based in Little Rock.
Griffin replaced Bud Cummins, who said he was forced to step down.
At least six U.S. attorneys have been asked to resign, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., including two in that state, one in Nevada and Cummins. Democrats have expressed concern that a provision in the revised USA Patriot Act that passed last year would allow the attorney general to name long term replacements while circumventing the Senate confirmation process.
Gonzales said 11 U.S. attorney vacancies have been created since the law was passed but he declined to say how many were forced resignations.
The Bush administration official who is the nation's chief law enforcement official acknowledged that some of the chief prosecutors were asked to leave.
"But that happens during every administration during different periods for different reasons," Gonzales said. "That fact that that happens quite frankly some people should view that as a sign of good management. What we do is make an evaluation about the performance of individuals and I have a responsibiity that we have the best possible people in that position.
"I would never ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or that in any way would jeopardize an ongoing investigation," Gonzales said. "I just would not do it."
Gonzales also said the administration plans to submit replacements to the Senate for confirmation although at least one - Griffin - has begun serving on an interim basis.
Pryor said he called Gonzales in mid-December when he heard rumors that Griffin, then a special assistant to Cummins, would be appointed as a replacement. The attorney general confirmed the rumor.
"He told me that the decision had been made and that's what he was going to do," Pryor said Thursday. "I didn't want to be a horse's you-know-what about it. I asked him what he meant. He said the intent was to send him through the normal confirmation process. He didn't tell me this was going to be one of those Patriot Act appointments."
Pryor said Gonzales told him in a telephone conversation Wednesday that the Bush administration would send Griffin's nomination to the Senate.
Pryor has not decided whether he would support Griffin.
Griffin, a Magnolia native worked under Karl Rove in the White House and was director of opposition research.
His legal credentials include a stint in the U.S. attorney's office in Little Rock in 2001-02, as a military prosecutor at Fort Campbell, Ky., and as a Judge Advocate General in Iraq.
"I've expressed reservations about Tim Griffin because of his lack of his legal experience in Arkansas," Pryor said. "I still have that reservation about him."
Pryor said his perception of Cummins' departure was that he was asked to leave to make room for Griffin. If so, that's "unfair," Pryor added.
In Thursday's hearing, Gonzales would not respond to a specific question from Feinstein about the reason behind Cummins' departure, saying it would not be approrpiate to discuss personnel matters.
Talking to reporters afterwards, Feinstein questioned whether the Patriot Act "is being used to put in people who want a reward or change for one reason or another, and they would never have to go through confirmation for the rest of the president's term. That is unacceptable."
The California senator has focused her concern on Carol Lam, the departing U.S. attorney in San Diego who successfully prosecuted former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham on corruption charges.
Feinstein said Lam was pursuing corruption cases against other federal lawmakers and staff, "so that raises the question" whether she was being forced to leave as a way to set back an investigation.
"Now I am not accusing anybody but my suspicions are aroused particularly becuase the FBI says nothing but the highest things about this prosecutor," Feinstein said after the hearing. "I would kind of like to know."
Firing U.S. Attorneys "Good Management"
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
It was political after all.
The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.
The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.
One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.
Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.
Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.
"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
...Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.
Read the rest here.
The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.
One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.
Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.
Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.
"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.
...Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.
Read the rest here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
It's Going to Get Ugly
Read the whole thing here.
March 12, 2007 issue - The firings of eight U.S. attorneys has put the heat on top Justice Department officials—and some GOP members of Congress. The unusual mass dismissals took place late last year, but the controversy escalated last week when David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, went public with a dramatic charge: that he had gotten phone calls from two unidentified GOP lawmakers in D.C. last October, pressing him to bring indictments in a high-profile corruption case involving a prominent local Democrat before the November election. Iglesias—a former Navy prosecutor who was the model for Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men"—said he refused to answer. Six weeks later, a Justice official ordered him to resign. This week, Iglesias has been subpoenaed along with three other fired prosecutors to testify before Congress. He plans to name the lawmakers who called him as Rep. Heather Wilson (who was in a tight re-election battle at the time) and Sen. Pete Domenici (who originally sponsored him for the job), according to two sources familiar with his account who asked not to be identified talking about the upcoming testimony.
March 12, 2007 issue - The firings of eight U.S. attorneys has put the heat on top Justice Department officials—and some GOP members of Congress. The unusual mass dismissals took place late last year, but the controversy escalated last week when David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, went public with a dramatic charge: that he had gotten phone calls from two unidentified GOP lawmakers in D.C. last October, pressing him to bring indictments in a high-profile corruption case involving a prominent local Democrat before the November election. Iglesias—a former Navy prosecutor who was the model for Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men"—said he refused to answer. Six weeks later, a Justice official ordered him to resign. This week, Iglesias has been subpoenaed along with three other fired prosecutors to testify before Congress. He plans to name the lawmakers who called him as Rep. Heather Wilson (who was in a tight re-election battle at the time) and Sen. Pete Domenici (who originally sponsored him for the job), according to two sources familiar with his account who asked not to be identified talking about the upcoming testimony.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
I'm hoping this is the "watergate breakin" of the W administration. Americans routinely swallows herds of camels (Patriot Act, Gitmo, torture, Military Commissions Act, Martial law rider slipped into the Defense budget AFTER it was voted on, etc) before straining at gnats (political firing of investigative attorneys), but when they start straining they sometimes barf the whole herd back up.
Barbara Fitzpatrick
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Greg Palast | Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?
"There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's
replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal. There was one big
hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers
pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US attorneys to expose a
scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.
But the committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's
assistant, the president's pick as US attorney for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind
a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the
2004 election," writes Greg Palast.
LINK
"There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's
replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal. There was one big
hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers
pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US attorneys to expose a
scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.
But the committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's
assistant, the president's pick as US attorney for the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind
a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the
2004 election," writes Greg Palast.
LINK
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
Now Rove is Involved
See here.
WASHINGTON - Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state.
In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman, said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.
"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.
"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.
"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.
Weh's account calls into question the Justice Department's stance that the recent decision to fire Iglesias and seven U.S. attorneys in other states was a personnel matter - made without White House intervention.
WASHINGTON - Presidential advisor Karl Rove and at least one other member of the White House political team were urged by the New Mexico Republican party chairman to fire the state's U.S. attorney because of dissatisfaction in part with his failure to indict Democrats in a voter fraud investigation in the battleground election state.
In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Allen Weh, the party chairman, said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.
"Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.
"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh.
"I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh.
Weh's account calls into question the Justice Department's stance that the recent decision to fire Iglesias and seven U.S. attorneys in other states was a personnel matter - made without White House intervention.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DAR
For some reason, of all of the politicians to loathe, I find Gonzales near the top of the list. I watched him in an interview and he was obviously spinning something but when he speaks, and lies, he is so smooth and practiced. For instance Rummy fibs just as easily but with Gonzales it's pathological or something. It would be very nice to see him go down in flames. I wonder if the house can pull that off.
For some reason, of all of the politicians to loathe, I find Gonzales near the top of the list. I watched him in an interview and he was obviously spinning something but when he speaks, and lies, he is so smooth and practiced. For instance Rummy fibs just as easily but with Gonzales it's pathological or something. It would be very nice to see him go down in flames. I wonder if the house can pull that off.
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
They're Working on It
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign following disclosures of mass firings of federal prosecutors and a report that the FBI improperly obtained information on private citizens, top Democratic senators said on Sunday.Darrel wrote:DAR
For some reason, of all of the politicians to loathe, I find Gonzales near the top of the list...It would be very nice to see him go down in flames. I wonder if the house can pull that off.
In addition, a key Republican voiced concerns about Gonzales and his embattled Justice Department, but stopped short of calling for his resignation.
...The White House stood by Gonzales, who was Bush's counsel before moving to the Justice Department in February 2005.
...Schumer told CBS's "Face the Nation" that Gonzales should go, and issued a statement afterward saying: "From the mishandling of the U.S. attorney firings to the now-documented abuses of the Patriot Act to wiretapping without a warrant to decimating the Civil Rights Division, there has been a continuing pattern of mismanagement and disrespect for the rule of law."
Biden said on CNN's "Late Edition," "I think Gonzales has lost the confidence of the vast majority of the American people."
Specter told CBS more facts need to be known before any conclusions are reached about the fired prosecutors, all Bush appointees.
But at a Senate meeting last week, Specter said, "one day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later."
See here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
The New York Times | The Failed Attorney General
"During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto
Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held -
President Bush's in-house lawyer - and the job he wanted, which was to
represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key
defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales
does not have a clue about the difference," according to the New York
Times."
link
"During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto
Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held -
President Bush's in-house lawyer - and the job he wanted, which was to
represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key
defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales
does not have a clue about the difference," according to the New York
Times."
link
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
Paul Krugman | Overblown Personnel Matters
Paul Krugman writes: "Nobody is surprised to learn that the Justice
Department was lying when it claimed that recently fired federal
prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. Nor is anyone surprised to
learn that White House political operatives were pulling the strings. What
is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto
Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an
'overblown personnel matter.'"
LINK
Paul Krugman writes: "Nobody is surprised to learn that the Justice
Department was lying when it claimed that recently fired federal
prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. Nor is anyone surprised to
learn that White House political operatives were pulling the strings. What
is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto
Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an
'overblown personnel matter.'"
LINK
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DAR
Hey, look what firing a prosecutor did for them with the Abramoff mess:
***
A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.[..]
In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.
In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.[..]
The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.
A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.
The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade[..]
His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was confirmed in May 2003 without any debate. Rapadas had been recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party. Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist who had been under contract to the Gutierrez administration, said he carried that recommendation to top Bush aide Karl Rove in early 2003.
Boston News
Hey, look what firing a prosecutor did for them with the Abramoff mess:
***
A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff more than two years ago, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.[..]
In Guam, a US territory in the Pacific, investigators were looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress. The legislation, since approved, gave the Guam Supreme Court authority over the Superior Court.
In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.[..]
The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.
A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.
The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade[..]
His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, was confirmed in May 2003 without any debate. Rapadas had been recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party. Fred Radewagen, a lobbyist who had been under contract to the Gutierrez administration, said he carried that recommendation to top Bush aide Karl Rove in early 2003.
Boston News
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Again, I hope this is the "watergate" that brings this administration down. Ironic that people will have fits about political replacement of investigative lawyers and not even turn a hair about losing constitutional laws that protect them from unlawful "investigation" (habeas corpus).
Barbara Fitzpatrick
-
Doug
- Posts: 3388
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville, AR
- Contact:
Yes, three fired federal prosecutors in the history of the U.S. Then the Bushmaster does seven at one blow.Darrel wrote:DAR
It does look like it is hitting the fan. On NPR this morning they pointed out how rare this. Nixon fired one, Carter fired one, and Clinton fired one. This was a slaughter and it looks like they have the trail showing it was for specific political pressure issues. Not good.
D.
It looks so bad.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DAR
I don't know that those were the only other three in US history. But these three examples do give an idea, a context, of how many were fired in the last few decades. Apparently none were fired during Reagan and papa Bush.
More dirt on this topic:
***
Bush Hit-Woman Behind Prosecutor Firings Has Long History of Purges to Protect Bush
Harriet Miers fired investigator in 1997 to cover Bush draft-dodge
by Greg Palast
from the original reports for BBC Television and the Guardian (UK)
The Mister Big behind the scandal of George Bush's firing of US Attorneys is not a 'mister' at all. The House Judiciary Committee has released White House emails indicating that the political operative who ordered the hit on prosecutors too honest for their own good was Harriet Miers, one-time legal counsel to the President.
But this is not the first time that Miers has fired investigators to protect Mr. Bush.
In 1999, while investigating Governor George Bush of Texas for the Guardian papers of Britain, I obtained an extraordinary, and extraordinarily confidential, memo to the US Attorney's office in Austin. It disclosed that, in 1997, Governor Bush secretly suggested to the chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission that she grant a contract to the client of a Bush ally.
The Governor's back-door demand to the Lottery chairwoman was not so easy. Bush wanted the Lottery to grant a multi-billion dollar contract to GTech Corporation. But GTech hadn't even bid on the contract - and a winner was already announced.
There was only way for the Chairwoman to carry out the fix: fire the director of the Lottery who had discouraged GTech from bidding because of its history of corruption.
The Chairwoman, Harriet Miers, did the deed: fired the Lottery director; Miers then ignored the winning bid -- and gave Bush's favored company the contract, no bidding, in perpetuity.
Miers and the Draft
Neither Miers nor President Bush have ever denied the contents of the memo [I've posted it here] despite repeated requests from the Guardian and BBC Television.
Bush's attempt to appoint Hit-woman Harriet to the US Supreme Court in 2005 surprised many. Not me. Miers, personal and governmental lawyer for George Bush, had quite a file on her boss, and he must have been grateful for her discretion.
Most crucially, she knew why Bush so desperately needed to give GTech the lottery contract. The heart of the matter was the then-successful cover-up of the Bush family's using its influence to get young George Bush into the Texas Air National Guard and out of the Vietnam war draft.
The memo to the US Attorney reads:
"Governor Bush thru [name withheld] made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the '94 campaign [for governor of Texas]. Bush was asked if his father … had helped him get in the National Guard. Bush said no he had not, but the fact is his dad call then-Lt. Gov. [Ben] Barnes …."
Lt. Governor Barnes, through a cut-out, called the Texas Air Guard commander and got Bush into the 'top gun' seat and out of the war.
You may recall that in 2004, years after we reported this story in Britain, Barnes confessed to the draft-dodge fix on 60 Minutes. [That was the report that brought down Dan Rather; but the Barnes confession was never challenged.]
What 60 Minutes missed is the creepy Miers involvement. Barnes, after he left the post of Lt. Governor, became a lobbyist -- for GTech, the lottery company. By using his influence to get and keep the lottery contract for GTech, Barnes picked up quite a nice fee: over $23 million. With those millions in his pocket, Barnes kept a happy and lucrative silence about his saving little George Bush from the draft.
According to the memo from the US Attorney's office, Barnes met with Bush about GTech and the lottery. Then,
"The Governor talked to the chair of the lottery [Miers] two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid."
Note something else here: this information was sitting in the hands of the US Attorney. Yet, no action was taken in 1997 though we now know that, from Barnes' confession in 2004, the accusation about his putting in the fix for young George Bush is true.
An insider told BBC TV that the US Attorney's office and Justice Department, though under Democratic control, never acted because they discovered that Barnes, a Democrat, had not only manipulated the system to get George Bush into the Texas Air Guard, Barnes did the same for the sons of Democratic big wigs including Congressman (later Senator) Lloyd Bentsen and Governor John Connolly.
In other words, control over a US Attorney and what is called their "prosecutorial discretion" is worth its weight in gold to politicians. They can provide protection for cronies and exact punishment on enemies. And no one knows that better than "Justice" Harriet Miers and her boss, fighter pilot George W. Bush.
***********************
This report is adapted from Greg Palast's New York Times bestselling book, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. New edition to be released April 24.
I don't know that those were the only other three in US history. But these three examples do give an idea, a context, of how many were fired in the last few decades. Apparently none were fired during Reagan and papa Bush.
More dirt on this topic:
***
Bush Hit-Woman Behind Prosecutor Firings Has Long History of Purges to Protect Bush
Harriet Miers fired investigator in 1997 to cover Bush draft-dodge
by Greg Palast
from the original reports for BBC Television and the Guardian (UK)
The Mister Big behind the scandal of George Bush's firing of US Attorneys is not a 'mister' at all. The House Judiciary Committee has released White House emails indicating that the political operative who ordered the hit on prosecutors too honest for their own good was Harriet Miers, one-time legal counsel to the President.
But this is not the first time that Miers has fired investigators to protect Mr. Bush.
In 1999, while investigating Governor George Bush of Texas for the Guardian papers of Britain, I obtained an extraordinary, and extraordinarily confidential, memo to the US Attorney's office in Austin. It disclosed that, in 1997, Governor Bush secretly suggested to the chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission that she grant a contract to the client of a Bush ally.
The Governor's back-door demand to the Lottery chairwoman was not so easy. Bush wanted the Lottery to grant a multi-billion dollar contract to GTech Corporation. But GTech hadn't even bid on the contract - and a winner was already announced.
There was only way for the Chairwoman to carry out the fix: fire the director of the Lottery who had discouraged GTech from bidding because of its history of corruption.
The Chairwoman, Harriet Miers, did the deed: fired the Lottery director; Miers then ignored the winning bid -- and gave Bush's favored company the contract, no bidding, in perpetuity.
Miers and the Draft
Neither Miers nor President Bush have ever denied the contents of the memo [I've posted it here] despite repeated requests from the Guardian and BBC Television.
Bush's attempt to appoint Hit-woman Harriet to the US Supreme Court in 2005 surprised many. Not me. Miers, personal and governmental lawyer for George Bush, had quite a file on her boss, and he must have been grateful for her discretion.
Most crucially, she knew why Bush so desperately needed to give GTech the lottery contract. The heart of the matter was the then-successful cover-up of the Bush family's using its influence to get young George Bush into the Texas Air National Guard and out of the Vietnam war draft.
The memo to the US Attorney reads:
"Governor Bush thru [name withheld] made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the '94 campaign [for governor of Texas]. Bush was asked if his father … had helped him get in the National Guard. Bush said no he had not, but the fact is his dad call then-Lt. Gov. [Ben] Barnes …."
Lt. Governor Barnes, through a cut-out, called the Texas Air Guard commander and got Bush into the 'top gun' seat and out of the war.
You may recall that in 2004, years after we reported this story in Britain, Barnes confessed to the draft-dodge fix on 60 Minutes. [That was the report that brought down Dan Rather; but the Barnes confession was never challenged.]
What 60 Minutes missed is the creepy Miers involvement. Barnes, after he left the post of Lt. Governor, became a lobbyist -- for GTech, the lottery company. By using his influence to get and keep the lottery contract for GTech, Barnes picked up quite a nice fee: over $23 million. With those millions in his pocket, Barnes kept a happy and lucrative silence about his saving little George Bush from the draft.
According to the memo from the US Attorney's office, Barnes met with Bush about GTech and the lottery. Then,
"The Governor talked to the chair of the lottery [Miers] two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid."
Note something else here: this information was sitting in the hands of the US Attorney. Yet, no action was taken in 1997 though we now know that, from Barnes' confession in 2004, the accusation about his putting in the fix for young George Bush is true.
An insider told BBC TV that the US Attorney's office and Justice Department, though under Democratic control, never acted because they discovered that Barnes, a Democrat, had not only manipulated the system to get George Bush into the Texas Air Guard, Barnes did the same for the sons of Democratic big wigs including Congressman (later Senator) Lloyd Bentsen and Governor John Connolly.
In other words, control over a US Attorney and what is called their "prosecutorial discretion" is worth its weight in gold to politicians. They can provide protection for cronies and exact punishment on enemies. And no one knows that better than "Justice" Harriet Miers and her boss, fighter pilot George W. Bush.
***********************
This report is adapted from Greg Palast's New York Times bestselling book, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. New edition to be released April 24.
-
LaWood
Getting closer to the target: Emails expose Rove
(We should have smelled a Rove-Rat all along, after all Timmy, the L.R. Federal Attorney is a Rove butt-boy.lw)
E-Mails Show Rove Role in US Attorney Firings
By Jan Crawford Greenburg
ABC News
Thursday 15 March 2007
E-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with Harriet Miers.
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel - weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.
Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.
The e-mail exchange is dated in early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys - and while Gonzales still was White House counsel. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.
What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Harriet Miers and was swiftly rejected.
White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.
However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.
The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.
According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail then-Justice Department lawyer Kyle Sampson. Sampson had moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales in the White House.
Sampson responded to Leitch that he had discussed the idea with Gonzales two weeks earlier and that they were considering several different options.
Editor's Note: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to issue subpoenas to 11 current and former Department of Justice officials as part of the panel's ongoing investigation into the firings of eight prosecutors.
The authorization covers five Department of Justice officials and six fired US attorneys. The Department of Justice officials are: Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff of the Department of Justice; Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; William Mercer, acting associate attorney general; Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general and White House liaison; Michael Battle, former director of Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The former US attorneys are: H. E. "Bud" Cummins III, former US attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas; David C. Iglesias, former US attorney, District of New Mexico; Carol Lam, former US attorney, Southern District of California; John McKay, former US attorney, Western District of Washington; Paul K. Charlton, former US attorney, District of Arizona; Daniel G. Bogden, former US attorney, District of Nevada.
more at the link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031507R.shtml
_
E-Mails Show Rove Role in US Attorney Firings
By Jan Crawford Greenburg
ABC News
Thursday 15 March 2007
E-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with Harriet Miers.
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel - weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.
Two independent sources in a position to know have described the contents of the e-mail exchange, which could be released as early as Friday. They put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales' explanations of the matter.
The e-mail exchange is dated in early January 2005, more than a month before the White House acknowledged it was considering firing all the U.S. attorneys - and while Gonzales still was White House counsel. On its face, the plan is not improper, inappropriate or even unusual: The President has the right to fire U.S. attorneys at any time, and presidents have done so when they took office.
What has made the issue a political firestorm is the White House's insistence that the idea came from Harriet Miers and was swiftly rejected.
White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggesting firing all 93 and that it was "her idea only." Snow said Miers' idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.
However, Miers was Bush's staff secretary at that time in January 2005. She did not become White House counsel for another month, after Gonzales left to become attorney general.
The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove both were involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.
According to the e-mails, Rove raised the issue with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch, prompting Leitch to e-mail then-Justice Department lawyer Kyle Sampson. Sampson had moved over to the Justice Department after working with Gonzales in the White House.
Sampson responded to Leitch that he had discussed the idea with Gonzales two weeks earlier and that they were considering several different options.
Editor's Note: Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to issue subpoenas to 11 current and former Department of Justice officials as part of the panel's ongoing investigation into the firings of eight prosecutors.
The authorization covers five Department of Justice officials and six fired US attorneys. The Department of Justice officials are: Kyle Sampson, former chief of staff of the Department of Justice; Michael Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; William Mercer, acting associate attorney general; Monica Goodling, counsel to the attorney general and White House liaison; Michael Battle, former director of Executive Office for United States Attorneys. The former US attorneys are: H. E. "Bud" Cummins III, former US attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas; David C. Iglesias, former US attorney, District of New Mexico; Carol Lam, former US attorney, Southern District of California; John McKay, former US attorney, Western District of Washington; Paul K. Charlton, former US attorney, District of Arizona; Daniel G. Bogden, former US attorney, District of Nevada.
more at the link: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031507R.shtml
_
-
Dardedar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8193
- Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
- Location: Fayetteville
- Contact:
DAR
Here is a wonderful debunk of this rightwing line of bullshit making the rounds:
***
The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense
By: Steve on Tuesday, March 13th, 2007
As the prosecutor purge scandal continues to become more serious and more damaging for the Bush gang, the right has struggled to come up with a coherent defense. They seem to have embraced one, but it’s surprisingly weak. Karl Rove got the ball rolling last week.
"Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place…. I mean, this is normal and ordinary."
A few days later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) repeated it.
Graham … repeated Karl Rove’s lie that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took over,” Graham said.
A day later, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was using it.
"[T]hese are the same Democrats who didn’t raise a whimper when Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno sacked all 93 U.S. attorneys in one unclean sweep upon taking office."
Today, a number of far-right blogs have picked up on the same talking point, and even the traditional media is picking up on it, with NBC’s Kevin Corke repeating the meme this morning.
These guys are going to have to come up with a better talking point; this one's embarrassingly wrong.
DAR
Short version of the roast from the above link:
Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.”
"Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior."
Josh Marshall added this morning:
"First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president."
And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
Here is a wonderful debunk of this rightwing line of bullshit making the rounds:
***
The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense
By: Steve on Tuesday, March 13th, 2007
As the prosecutor purge scandal continues to become more serious and more damaging for the Bush gang, the right has struggled to come up with a coherent defense. They seem to have embraced one, but it’s surprisingly weak. Karl Rove got the ball rolling last week.
"Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place…. I mean, this is normal and ordinary."
A few days later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) repeated it.
Graham … repeated Karl Rove’s lie that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took over,” Graham said.
A day later, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was using it.
"[T]hese are the same Democrats who didn’t raise a whimper when Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno sacked all 93 U.S. attorneys in one unclean sweep upon taking office."
Today, a number of far-right blogs have picked up on the same talking point, and even the traditional media is picking up on it, with NBC’s Kevin Corke repeating the meme this morning.
These guys are going to have to come up with a better talking point; this one's embarrassingly wrong.
DAR
Short version of the roast from the above link:
Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.”
"Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior."
Josh Marshall added this morning:
"First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president."
And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
-
Barbara Fitzpatrick
- Posts: 2232
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:55 am
- Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
I guess the fact that Bill Clinton would have won a 3rd term by a landslide if he'd been able to run keeps that burr in their hip pockets. I can't think of another reason for why "but Clinton..." should still be coming out of their mouths - even if Clinton actually did whatever they say he did, which he usually didn't. A new president may or may not replace appointed personnel when he starts his term, that's not the issue. A political purge of insufficently partisan personnel appointed by the same president and lying under oath about it is the issue. No wonder they're looking for excuses.
Barbara Fitzpatrick