« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Now that the morning papers have taken a shot interpreting the email released late yesterday, let's take another look.
Shortly after the email's release, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that the email does not show that the idea of firing certain or all U.S. attorneys began with Karl Rove. And, admittedly, the email backs her up. Of course, it certainly doesn't show that Rove didn't come up with the scheme, either.
The January 9th, 2005 email (subject line: "Re: Question from Karl Rove"), in which Justice Department official Kyle Sampson brainstorms on what to do about the U.S. attorneys, begins with "Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago." He then goes on to say, “As an operational matter we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys — underperforming ones," the "we" there being Sampson and Alberto Gonzales (who is called "Judge" because he was once a a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas).
That puts Sampson and Gonzales discussing the idea way back in December, 2004. (A DoJ spokesperson said in a statement yesterday that Gonzales "has no recollection" of that discussion.)
Perino stuck to the line yesterday that the whole idea of firings all 93 U.S. attorneys started with White House counsel Harriet Miers. Perino says that "Karl Rove has a recollection of hearing it from Harriet, and thinking it was a bad idea. There is nothing in this e-mail that changes that.... [It] does not contradict nor is it inconsistent with what we have said."
Now, Miers didn't even take over as White House counsel until early February, 2005. But Perino said that in the months between her being named to the spot (November, 2004) and actually starting work, "she would have been thinking about transition issues." But Perino admits that it's "not clear when the idea first originates, but the bottom line is, the idea is never pursued."
But let's step back here for a moment.
Whether the idea of firing all the sitting U.S. attorneys was originally Miers' or Rove's brainchild or not is mostly a red herring at this point. Whatever the original seed of the purge, it clearly became an opportunity for the administration to push out federal prosecutors who were not "loyal Bushies." That's the idea that really matters. And Rove was involved in that effort from its first steps.
Josh
Zachary
The problem is not with the "underperforming" USAs but the "performing" ones. Let's not lose sight of that.
March 16, 2007 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefull there will be a dis-loyal "Bushie" who is going to come forward with some inside dirt. Who is going to be this administration's Deepthroat?
March 16, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting how the email makes it CLEAR they were thinking about transition issues as you say, though the "judge" himself apparently wants to claim memory loss for these same transition issues.
I believe that claim was made in his presser from the 13th. (that he was so busy preparing for confirmation hearings - really? he was doing that from the end of 2004?)
March 16, 2007 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another dot connected. A guest on Countdown--think it was the author of Bush's Brain--made the following argument:
Rove was convinced that Rs lost 2006 election because of scandals. Thus he wanted to put USAs into slots where they could dig up D dirt, thus cementing R win in 2008.
I've been wondering what's the rush, why so many purged on the same date, when if they'd spread out the firings, they were less likely to be noticed. So, apparently it was the election results that lit a match under their fannies.
It is to be regretted that the R attempt to create D dirt ended up creating R dirt. Not.
March 16, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with you, chris.
I'd like to know what the remaining USAs did to keep their jobs.
March 16, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gonlawless-gate keeps getting worse. Impeachment time in nearing, and not just for Alberto.
March 16, 2007 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Summary as stated: We didn't do the really really really really really bad idea. We should get credit cuz we did not do that. Yeah! And throw in some credit cuz Al KiDuh ain't attacked us either. But hey . . . So we did the really slimy crap. You all should be used to that by now. And remember we did not execute the really really really really really bad idea.
Translated: So we are not total idiots, we are just f**king bastards who are really crappy at cover ups.
Answer: Orange jumpsuits for the lot of you.
March 16, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about we just make it simple* for the msm:
BushGate
*security word is polish
March 16, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, put all 85 of the remaining Bush-appointed US attorneys under oath and grill them relentlessly on how many Democrats they indicted not because of evidence of criminal behavior but just because they were Democrats. They can't all be professional liars; at least 5 will crack.
Also ask them what their marching orders on "voter fraud" were.
March 16, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to pass the smell test on the Hill if Gonzales falls back on the "I don't remember" defense. Replacement of all (or some) of arguably the most important members of the DOJ upon entering office as AG is not something one would casually forget. Especially when you are preparing for a hearing about your nomination. This, like all DC "gates" will play out with the ending already known - Gonzales will resign (as I would expect McNulty, who it appears is in some legal jeopardy based on the email traffic released on Tuesday that directly contradicts some of his past testimony), the political underlings (Goodling, Sampson, etc ..) will be quietly removed, and Bush will have to find a "wise man" elder statesman (my money's on Danforth or Howard Baker) to be caretaker AG for the rest of his term.
March 16, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
go to cspan.org and valerie plame is getting ready to testify right now, 10:18am EST!
March 16, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike,
While I admire your zeal, I think it would be a very bad idea to politicize the entire corps of U.S. Attorneys to that degree. Chickens come home to roost, and someday (soon) a Democratic president will be appointings USAs, too.
It may be worthwhile to drag in one or two select USAs, if there is other evidence that they overtly "played ball" with the Administration's wishes to target Dems. All 85 of the rest? Aside from dragging on for weeks, such a move would make Democratic pique the new angle on the story, rather than obvious Republican lying.
My security code, which applies on several levels here, is "fire" .
March 16, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
USAGate
It's got the Gate. And USA has built-in patriotism.
March 16, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry -- the above was a reply to SB, not Mike.
March 16, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that the timeline on this has been pushed back to December 2004 I think it is important to look at what was being said then and how this story might be in reaction to what was being said.
I think we all remember when Bush forcefully stated that the 2004 election earned him a great deal of political capital and that he planned on spending that capital. These firings would certainly qualify as a use of political capital. Someone should ask Tony Snow if these US Attorney firings were an example Bush using some of his 2004 election political capital. While Snow would obviously deny any link it would put before the public the notion that this goes even higher than Karl Rove.
March 16, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The next step for the Judiciary Committee is to investigate ALL US Attorney offices for evidence of politically motivated exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This entire fiasco must be examined down to its roots and exposed for all to see lest it happen again, more successfully next time. (An Arlen Specter should resign or be thrown out of the Senate for doing the dirty work to make it all possible.)
There are already some stats floating around out there showing that 85% of investigations out of these offices were of dems during some portion of Bush's terms.
This is unbelievable, or so one would think. The rule of law is treated as a political tool, with the goal being one-party domination in a faux democracy. Stalin would be so proud.
March 16, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth reading this article on the Daily Kos website today. He gives the names and circumstances of others who were canned by the Bushies because they were ethical
Note to Congress: Hear from the Small Fish Who've Had Their Careers Destroyed by Bush
by Jesselyn Radack
March 16, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are all the Miers emails?
Yeah, I didn't think so.....
March 16, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The main focus of this scandal should be:
1)Was Lam fired for her prosecution of Cunningham and future indictments she may bring against other republicans?
2) Was the US Attorneys office used to influence the outcome of the 2006 New Jersey senatorial election?
3) Did Senator Domenici and Rep. Wilson try to use the US Attorneys offfice to influence the outcome of New Mexico's 2006 1st congressional district election.
4)Was Rove's friend, Griffen, appointed the US Attorney in Little Rock, Ark in order to potentially influence the 2008 presedential election by being in a position to investigate Senator Clinton.
March 16, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could I please have the "Focus Factor" concession for the White House staff: Libby, Gonzales, McCleland, Cheney, Bush, Miers, Rove, etc., etc. I could retire to my own island in the Pacific with the money earned from these "half-heimer" buffoons! Does anyone believe ANYTHING any one of them says anymore?
March 16, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to jhpearman:
Remember too that the whole thing hinges on the language inserted into the Patriot Act. There is no way they could dismiss all and have Senate confirmations.
March 16, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
We should call the date of the Purge Alberto, Harriet and Karl's Pearl Harbor, since the purge happened on December 7, the 64th Anniversary of the attack that began the US involvement in WW2.
March 16, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purging USAs for lack of loyalty is unseemly.
Purging USAs as an effort to interfere with an ongoing investigation is obstruction of justice. And in this context obstruction of justice would seem to reach the threshold of HC&M.
March 16, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about "digging up dirt" to influence elections. You don't use a USA to "dig up dirt." This is about illegimitate intimidation of voters by improper grand jury investigations of non-existent "voter fraud" in order to steal elections.
March 16, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Greg Palast, Harriet Miers has a history of firing investigators getting too close to GWB going all the way back to their days together in Texas. Palast mentions when Miers was head of the Texas Lottery and GWB was Governor she has the US Attorney investigating the granting of a contract to GTech (who never bid on the contract) to run the lottery. This is not a new MO, merely a continuation of replacing US Attorneys getting too close to suspect or illegal behavior by elected officials.
The Texas nexus is at it again!
The whole article cal be found here.
http://www.gregpalast.com/
March 16, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have these "fired" USA's already been replaced? Why not subpoena their replacements? Put them under oath and see if they are Bushie "loyalists" or loyalists to the Constitution and the law?
March 16, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spooky to recall that Gonzales was spoken of as a
Supreme Court nominee, and Miers actually was nominated, however briefly.
March 16, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about if we start to ask all the remaining USAs to resign on their own, as their impartiality and professionalism is radically undermined, if not demolished, by DOJ actions?
Who could now believe in any charges they were to bring against a Democratic politician, for example, or in any case of alleged voter fraud?
(This is not to paint them all as compromised, but to ask them to defend their integrity, and in solidarity with their wrongfully dismissed colleagues.)
March 16, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Call me crazy, but I think Rove wanted to get rid of them all so he could get rid of Fitz. If they got rid of them all, then they could say it wasn't about Fitz. Fitz clearly wasn't a bushie.
March 16, 2007 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Miers e-mails were presumably on the RNC server. Predictably, their servers and back-up systems will have crashed with the loss of significant data.
Congress does not have time to liesurely investigate these sorts of things. Data will be lost, and more scandals will surface. The shark turned into a school of mackerel. Which do you eat?
Karl is not superman. But he has plans for the most likely scenarios. Discovery of his dirty tricks in the White House is among the most likely.
March 16, 2007 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be nice to know who the person was that redacted the memos?? Although I agree with Josh that the White House and the Republican Congress were primarily concerned with Lam's investigation of Duke Cunningham and Jerry Lewis, it is hard to imagine that they would leave off the name of Patrick Fitzgerald as one to be replaced?
March 16, 2007 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anybody noticed that this is not an "informational" contact? I mean, think about how you talk in different meetings.
From above: He then goes on to say, 'As an operational matter we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys —'
He does NOT say 'we are going to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys'
dc
Now, does it sound like an informational note to co-workers, or is this guy talking with his boss?
March 16, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is anyone asking the other 85 Fed attourneys if they had contact with Gonzo or the administration or other GOP elected officials about pursuing investigations?
We know the ratio of Dem to GOP investigations, or is that indictments, is 5 to 1. Such a ratio is impossible by sheer chance. Such a ratio needs to be calculated for other administrations so we have a baseline to see how bad that ratio is.
Why hasn't anyone taked up the AZ GOP chairmans comment calling the US attourney there a disgrace?
March 16, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the converse? If 8 U.S. Attorneys were dismissed for NOT being Bush Loyalists, what of the other 85 U.S. Attorneys? Can we assume that they politicized their office? Do the remaining U.S. Attorneys have a demonstrable record of using the resources of their office to attack Bush opponents and refrain from prosecuting Bush supporters? Is there a Bush enemies list?
March 16, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> Bush will have to find a "wise man" elder statesman (my money's on Danforth or Howard Baker) to be caretaker AG for the rest of his term. <<
Danforth couldn't stomach working for this administration even from the distance of New York City; I don't think he's going to want to have to be in the same city with them.
I don't know about Howard Baker, but what about that other Baker, James A., the Bush family's pooper-scooper in chief?
Or he'll just wait a few months and make a recess appointment of some other boot-licking lackey.
March 16, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some commenters have suggested that all remaining USAs should be questioned to determine which ones, if any, have succumbed to possible political pressure to target democratic candidates or office holders. The general response seems to be that this is too onerous a procedure and would do untold damage to not only the institution of the USA but may even rebound to the discredit of the "hoped for" democratic administration to follow the abomination we are presently saddled with. Here's a solution: There has been an initial statistical analysis of the investigations brought by the USAs across the country broken down by political party. Break these stats down and see if any office in particular has numbers which suggest that investigations have been skewed. These are the people that it may be helpful to talk to in more depth. Just a suggestion, because if the shoe fits . . . [which also happens to be the security word].
March 16, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's appropriate to cut Gonzo some slack on his memory lapse. My intuition tells me that the "discussion" was Sampson asking Gonzo about the issue and Gonzo replying, "Kyle, why don't you send me a memo about that." Gonzo is so completely clueless that it is easy to imagine that such questions would not occur to him. And it would be pretty easy for Gonzo to forget a short conversation like that!
Whether or not Gonzo is lying about the conversation with Sampson in December 2004 is small potatoes. In addition to being forced to resign, he should be DISBARRED. Between (1) his repeated perjuries about the "underperforming" US Attorneys and (2) his recommending that Dubya deny security clearances to the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) lawyers AFTER Gonzo knew that the OPR team had already targeted Gonzo's own actions in approving and sustaining the dragnet interceptions by NSA, his behavior is even worse than Clinton's.
The link to Murray Waas' National Journal article on the NSA probe is
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0315nj1.htm
I've practiced civil rights and employment rights law in a southern state for 35 years. Some of our judges and sitting legislators have been disciplined for far less egregious breaches of professional ethics. Gonzo's breach of faith with the American public and republic deserves an immediate complaint to the Texas Bar, or whatever office investigates professional disciplinary complaints against lawyers.
PS Pete Domenici should also be the subject of a professional disciplinary complaint with the New Mexico Bar, of which he is probably still a member. A toothless Senate ethics investigation is a waste of time and taxpayers' money. So many investigations ... so little time!!
PS
March 16, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone earlier on mentioned the oddity of the firings coming all at once post the November Republican upset and Rove's potential objective of digging up dirt on the opposing party for '08. The question raised here is interesting - why did they fire them all at once? Why not space these dismissals out over a month or two and avoid the questions that would inevitably be asked?
I think the answer is simply power. After the blindsiding that Rove took after the election I think he still had to show some exercise of what remaining power he had left. Reckless? Yes, but I don't think the man could help himself, he'd been humiliated and needed to lash out.
March 16, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a suggestion:
Let's find out:
Who were the USA for each USA district in 2004.
Who were the USA that investigated Democrats in 2004 (and before).
Who did nothing against know GOP corrpution?
Those are the Bushies loyalists USA.
Who were the USA that brought investigations into GOP corruption?
Who brought investigations against Crime organizations?
Let's fill the blanks in the USA email spreadsheet.
Let start connecting the dots (or is that connecting the BUSHIES?).
March 16, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also time to finally peel the "ignorance" label off George Bush. It seem unlikely that he was completely ignorant of all the underhanded dealings of his staff.
He shouldn't only be "held accountable' for what happened under his watch, he should also be exposed for full knowledge and culpability of these "impeachable/traitorous" acts.
Let's stop treating George Bush as a complete idiot and realize that he may only be half idiot and the other half ..... perhaps a devious, immoral, nasty, bully who is easily led to seek revenge against anyone who searches for the truth.
It's not just Cheney and Rove. The true villans are the troika of Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
March 16, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's also time to finally peel the "ignorance" label off George Bush."
It seems probable to me that Bush ordered the firing of the N.M USA. He was not on the list till bush "passed on complaints" he'd received. And Bush was so careful about saying that he did not name names or tell them what to do, but merely passed those complaints along to the DOJ. And he admitted it was a complaint about failure to prosecute electoral fraud. But he got the message across loud and clear. Karl bragged that the guy was "gone" two weeks later.
March 16, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Folks can perceive Bush as incompetent if they like he posesses animal cunning and is petty, petulant and abusive of power...
Notably, he calls it "they misunderestimated me".
March 16, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardheaded Liberal is right.
Disbar them all.
Forget the Senate ethics committee, we found out with the Foley GayPagegate it is a waste of time.
March 16, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way to get to the bottom of all this is to send the Bush Administration to one of those "secret" overseas prisons and use torture on them all until they finally confess to all their crimes --- from A to Z.
March 16, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could the firing of all 93 USAs have come up during brainstorming for ways to stop Fitzgerald? Individually he was untouchable, but if all USAs were being replaced, well, too bad, he would have had to go too—nothing personal, you understand.
March 23, 2007 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi!
September 18, 2007 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi!
September 19, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
free naked porn star picture
free black porn site
free midget porn movie
free bbw porn clip
free porn movie video clip
free toon porn movie
free tranny porn movie
free porn clip site
amateur porn homemade movie free
free download of porn movie clip
free download porn video clip
big free porn clip
free porn picture video
free hentai porn video
free cartoon porn picture
free adult porn site
free anal porn clip
free porn movie gang bang
free mature porn picture gallery
free latina porn movie
free gay porn site
free ebony porn clip
free porn movie .com
September 25, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
pepper
biggest
lingerie
comic
dame
chili
fiction
interracial
homemade
bitch
dating
pizza
sporting
core
mpeg
trailer free
music
eating
teen black
exploited
giving
butthead
web cam
September 26, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink