Comments (65)

ArthurKC wrote on March 22, 2007 9:31 AM:

Near the end of your comments, you use the name Paul McNulty. Don't you mean to refer to Comey instead?

joejoejoe wrote on March 22, 2007 9:32 AM:

"It was not always that way at the DoJ. Remember that, before he left in August of 2005, then-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty generated his own list of U.S. attorneys to be fired."

Shouldn't the above read 'then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey'?

Hamilton wrote on March 22, 2007 9:34 AM:

I believe you mean Comey and not McNulty. McNutly is still at Justice.

anon wrote on March 22, 2007 9:34 AM:

I believe you accidentally wrote Paul McNulty where you meant James Comey in identifying the former Deputy Atty. Gen. who generated a list in Aug. 2005.

Ben wrote on March 22, 2007 9:38 AM:

Thanks for such excellent work on this issue. What I don't see mentioned much in the debate is that the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President. Oughtn't there be more focus on where the buck stopped, and about Bush's ultimate responsibility for canning the USAs. It's politicization of the judical process laid right at the president's feet.

conscriptor wrote on March 22, 2007 9:40 AM:

wow - WOW. this story just gets bigger and bigger. this, coupled with the post's story on AG office intervention in the big federal tobacco case is certain to add grease to the skids.

quinn wrote on March 22, 2007 9:44 AM:

Hmmm, let's see. Ryan was a loyal Bushie, GWB is a former MLB Owner (well, figurehead at least) and the whole Balco case has dragged on forever as to not embarras baseball. Coincidence??!!

M. Malkin wrote on March 22, 2007 9:46 AM:

So Carol Lam was so incompetent that several lawmakers signed a letter calling for her removal, now Kevin Ryan was also incompetent... looks to me like the administration was right in getting rid of those underperformers. No crime here, except in the eye of deranged Bush-haters.

bakho wrote on March 22, 2007 9:47 AM:

When does the story shift from firing USAs to the dirty tricks the fired USA refused to do and the dirty tricks the Bushie USAs still in place have done to please Bush and Rove?

TheraP wrote on March 22, 2007 9:47 AM:

Ok children, gather round...

Once upon a time there was a teacher who let some children get away without doing any schoolwork or any homework. They were "teacher's pets." She let them have recess and all sorts of extra privileges.

Other children, who worked hard, complained that this just was not fair. These same children had "ideas" about fairness. They thought the teacher's pet kind of children should have to work hard like everybody else and not hit other children on the playground.

But the children who wanted "fairness" were punished, while the teacher's pets got to have recess all day.

And that is the kind of story we need to be telling here. Making these outrages so simple that even kids would get it!

ken melvin wrote on March 22, 2007 9:51 AM:

Any competent SOB should be fired immediately.

jeffgee wrote on March 22, 2007 9:52 AM:

The true Bushie loyalists turn out to be incompetent. Who knew?

Rock Golf wrote on March 22, 2007 9:53 AM:

How close is this scandal getting to the tipping point? Not just AG the AG's resignation, but a full-fledged push to impeach the President. TPM's pushing and prodding of the US Attorney scandal may in retrospect be as critical in US history as WaPo's early Watergate coverage, and similarly deserving of a Pulitzer Prize.

quinn wrote on March 22, 2007 9:54 AM:

Hey madam wingnut (if that really is you),

let's see, a complaint letter for Lam signed by ,among others, the very person who was about to be investigated!! Sure, you go on believing your fairy tale story about all is well

Thucydides Junior wrote on March 22, 2007 9:56 AM:

M. Malkin... *sigh*

Your post alone shows what a troll you are. If you had read any of the other excellent posts on Muckraker or TPM on Carol Lam you wouldn't have posted what you did.

Start with TheraP's post to give you a simple framework, one you can get a bit of a handle on, then go back and read the superb entries over the past few weeks.

We'll wait.

EasyRider wrote on March 22, 2007 9:58 AM:

Big Tobacco case, throw out $120,000,000,000 without Bush's approval and involvement is not going to happen.

It was too high of profile of a case. It has his fingerprints all over it.

Can we impeach him today, mama may we please impeach him today?

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 10:04 AM:

Josh Marshall for President!

Paul Kiel for Speaker!

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 10:11 AM:

The SF Weekly broke this story a month before the LA Times. Site below. If anything, the Times understates the morale problem and the number of the most senior staff who left. Not just the junior ones getting experience; the most senior litigators and middle managers walked because of mismanagement and failed leadership. The Times did discover the bit about the judge who intended to "out" Ryan.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-10-04/news/untouchable/

wtfwjd? wrote on March 22, 2007 10:11 AM:

Great post, but esp. now that this is front-paged at TPM, PLEASE FIX the Comey/McNulty error!

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 10:14 AM:

Correction. The SF Weekly story was from October 2006 - before the election, mind.

When was Ryan added to the list?

dc wrote on March 22, 2007 10:17 AM:

It's all a matter of definitions, and I think you'll understand:
Incompetent = stupid
If you wanna keep your job, you better be loyal to Bush.
If you're not loyal to Bush then you don't care about keeping your job.
If you don't care about keeping your job then your stupid.
Stupid = incometent.

easy

dc

cf wrote on March 22, 2007 10:23 AM:

The Northern District of California's interim US Attorney appointee to replace Ryan, Scott N. Schools, has no connection to California, being from South Carolina, but he sure is a loyal soldier and has a history with Rove (and went to law school in Texas) -- To wit:

Going back to November, 2003, Karl Rove is subpoenaed in South Carolina in the free speech case against Brett Bursey:

http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/VoicesArticle.htm

"Bursey's lawyers have subpoenaed Karl Rove, Bush's political adviser, and Attorney General John Ashcroft to testify, claiming that they can provide evidence that the White House and the Justice Department have told the Secret Service to keep anti-administration protesters away from the president.......

Bursey was arrested by Columbia, S.C., police after he refused to go to a "protest zone," but local prosecutors decided not to press charges. Several months later, the U.S. attorney for South Carolina filed the misdemeanor charge against him.

The activist said he believes the U.S. attorney's decision is an indication of the federal government's involvement in the "protest zone" policy, but federal prosecutors deny there was any order from Washington to pursue the case.

"It was a local decision [to prosecute Bursey]. There was no other input from outside this office," said Scott Schools, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney for South Carolina."

SLOUCH wrote on March 22, 2007 10:23 AM:

Welcome, Ms. Malkin.

I guess I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm excited to hear from you and I welcome your input into this crucial matter at the heart of our beloved country's future.

I would like to point out that TPM regulars hold this blog to very high standards, and many of us know a great deal about this issue. A good number of TPM readers work in the legal field and have a great deal of outside expertise that they bring to the table.

To be blunt, you're going to have to do better than that. "Deranged Bush Haters" is weak as water. If you consider yourself an intelligent representative of Conservative America, leave the "Unhinged" smears and excuses at the door.

We've nothing to fear here from rational debate. If your up to it, bring your best, and let's see where it leads. We're mature enough to respect you here. I challenge you to be mature enough to do the same.

security code = poison

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 10:24 AM:

Ryan seems to have been added to the list after the SF Weekly story broke.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-10-04/news/untouchable/

The LA Times mentions Deborah Yang's $1 plus million salary for joining Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles. Not unusual.

It disturbingly fails to mention the reported $1.5 million cash signing bonus the firm paid her. It is apparently extraordinary to pay ANY signing bonus in LA when hiring a lateral partner with no book of business.

observor wrote on March 22, 2007 10:31 AM:

In the middle of the LA Times article about Ryan, there's an amazing kiss off of Feinstein's questions about Deborah Yang:

Other U.S. attorney's offices have experienced a similar exodus of experienced prosecutors, notably Los Angeles, where U.S. Atty. Debra Wong Yang resigned last year, a month before the firings. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has raised the issue of whether Yang was pushed out of office, something the Justice Department has denied.

"Those knowledgeable about the situation insist that Yang left voluntarily, saying that she went to Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, a major law firm, to head the firm's crisis-management group with former Republican Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, for an annual salary of more than $1 million. Yang and her firm have denied that she was pushed out."

Who are these "knowledgeable" sources? Why aren't they named, or at least why they were granted anonymity? No mention that Yang's office was investigating Jerry Lewis. Anybody want to guess if Gibson Dunn also represents the Times?

kit wrote on March 22, 2007 10:36 AM:

You write: "Just let that sink in. In the only case where there was a strong case for firing, the DoJ had to be extorted to do it"

It's worse than than that; your previous sentence says:

"The emails strongly suggest that Ryan was fired in order to prevent that from happening."(that is, head off the judge alerting Congress.)

which I take to mean that they fired him not in acknowledgment that he was incompetent, but primarily to HIDE the fact that he was incompetent.

Douglas Watts wrote on March 22, 2007 10:38 AM:

Observor is right. With a story like this -- which is all about secrecy, nondisclosure, failure to submit documents etc. -- it is perverse and insane for the LAT to use anonymous sources.

Well ... in part because anonymous sources are free to LIE without consequence.

Calgon, take me away !!!!

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 10:41 AM:

CF, great catch. I remember the original story, especially the local prosecutor's decision not to prosecute what was clearly a trumped up charge and a violation of the First Amendment. There was no valid security reason to remove only protesters to a so-called free speech zone out of view of the cameras and Mr. Bush (ie, outside the Bubble). Any security threat, no doubt, would have been camouflaged as a supporter. This was clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

This was a frequent tactic, indicating it was enforced ultimately via Rove's shop.

I had not followed the story to see that the local USA had fired misdemeanor charges. The DOJ did try several of these cases (good use of taxpayer funds). At least one had to be appealed to an appellate court before the charges were dropped on Constitutional grounds. These actions cost defendants a lot of money and heart ache, but no doubt achieved the intended chilling effect.

See, also, the story about the Denver three (?), improperly tossed out of a speech for wearing non-Republican T-shirts. They were "discovered" because their car had anti-Bush bumper stickers. Meaning guards had to have access to drivers' license records to get names and pictures. The "Private guards" who tossed them out were actually under the command of federal agents. One of them is now a senior staffer at DHS.

See, also, the computer system Ken Mehlman created. A MasterCard clone that allowed gate attendants at Bush/Cheney speeking events to refuse entry to valid ticket holders because Mehlman's data base showed no Republican "R" after their names.

Marcy Wheeler needs to write another book: The Privatization of the President.

NapoleonDynamite wrote on March 22, 2007 10:48 AM:

This could be the flip side of this story. While the focus, deservedly so, has been on competent USA's fired for not being political enough, I would love to see some digging into more of the incompetent USA's who were given high marks just because of loyalty to Bush dogma. That could, once and for all, close this case.

C 92 wrote on March 22, 2007 10:52 AM:

Well, for starters, Napoleon, the US Attorney in Miami is requesting that Jack Abramoff's sentence be reduced:

"..Reduced sentence in works for Abramoff
BY JAY WEAVER
jweaver@MiamiHerald.com
Former Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, sentenced to almost six years in prison for his fraudulent purchase of a South Florida gambling fleet, can receive a reduced sentence if he continues to assist prosecutors in a far-reaching Washington public corruption probe, federal officials said Wednesday.

The U.S. attorney's office in Miami filed the paperwork seeking to reduce Abramoff's 70-month prison term stemming from the SunCruz Casinos case, but did not specify any time off his sentence..."

Sound suspicious?
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16948818.htm

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 10:58 AM:

This SF Weekly article is very good journalism:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2006-10-04/news/untouchable/

It interviews several of the top staffers who left Ryan's office. It does a much better job than the LA Times in cataloguing the woes that must have led the federal district judge to threaten to "out" Ryan's incompetence with members of Congress. It came out six months ago, one month before the November election, and weeks before Ryan was finally added to the list of to-be-fired US Attorneys.

It also highlights something else ignored by The Tribune Company's LA Times. It mentions that one of the senior prosecutors who left under Ryan spent a lot of time working on the Enron investigation. Enron, Ken Lay.

Consider the tens of thousands of hours this USA office alone put in trying to get the bad guys at the top of the food chain. Consider how much more those guys could get away with if USA's are demoralized by bad leadership, budget cuts, staffing changes, and allegations of political corruption in their own department.

Karl Rove's motto for "good" government: Privatize or Lobotomize.

cf wrote on March 22, 2007 10:59 AM:

mbbsdphil:
Yes, and Rove buddy Scott Schools went right to work doing the company thing:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/09/BAGOFOI8QL1.DTL&hw=scott+schools&sn=002&sc=568

Mediator fails to free imprisoned blogger

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 9, 2007

"Negotiations mediated by a federal magistrate failed to yield a settlement Thursday that would lead to the release Josh Wolf, a blogger and freelance journalist who has spent a record 198 days in prison for refusing to surrender videos he took at a San Francisco political protest.

U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero said in a court filing that no settlement had been reached after four hours of talks and that he would consult with lawyers about whether to schedule another meeting. Wolf, who had attended the session, returned to the federal prison in Dublin.

Wolf's lawyers and a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Scott Schools declined to comment."

mbbsdphil wrote on March 22, 2007 11:05 AM:

A reduced sentence for full cooperation with federal law enforcement would not be unusual, not where it leads to convictons in other serious cases. But follow ups on the Abramoff scandal seem to be moving very slowly. And why no recommendation for how much of Mr. A's sentence should be cut?

RWN wrote on March 22, 2007 11:07 AM:

This is the window into the entire 'cancer' that Dean once described a similar Admin run amok without conscience. The gap is now too obvious and eventually the smoking gun will emerge with probably GW's handprints on it. But it leads to what is the bigger prize...systemic obstruction of justice by the Admin and DOJ across many cases as they now perculate up.

New Hamp voter manipulation, Lam's prosecution, tobacco and even the possible influence of Libby, but go forward and ask about post 9/11 or pre 9/11. When the picture emerges political obstruction of justice will be the killer ap

kentuck wrote on March 22, 2007 11:13 AM:

So predictable. We are presently much closer to a dictatorship than to a democracy. Red vs Blue? Democrats vs Republicans? Patriots vs Traitors? By division, they have been able to pull off a non-violent coup of our government.

Not only have they destroyed the social fabric for decades to come, with their trillions of dollars of debt and giving away our Treasury to the billionaires and criminals, but they have destroyed the foundation of our democracy with their over-turning of much of our Bill of Rights.

It is very sad. We see the child in the middle of the railroad tracks and we see the train a-coming, but all we can do is scream. We know what is going to happen but we can do nothing to stop it.

Meanwhile, the Criminal in Chief, who has spied upon and betrayed every law of the land, smirks and backhands the Congress for asking for present or former aides to testify, telling the brainwashed masses that it is all political and a "fishing expedition".

Once again, he plays the division card. It is all politics - those Democrats trying to get at Karl Rove - he insinuates with every evil breath.

Most Republicans know. They are not stupid. They voluntarily follow this nimrod, even as their conscience and hearts tell them there is something terribly wrong here. They rationalize thru their cult of personality, even as our country sinks further and further into the depths. The one optimistic note that I find in this tragedy is that I am not in that Party.

Anonymous wrote on March 22, 2007 11:24 AM:

My, my, my...do we need any more clear and convincing evidence for grounds for impeachment of everyone of the folks in the AG office Gonzales and his minions. MS. Eubanks, is singing like a canary in a cole mine, I hope that others join her and tell the story of the aphxysiation of our judicial system.

From WAPO:

Sharon eubanks said Bush loyalists in AG Gonzales office bagan micromanging the teams strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial to the detriment of the government's claim that the tobacco industry had conspired to lie to US smokers.

She said: A SUPERVISOR DEMANDED THAT she and her trial team drop arguments that tobacco executives be removed from tehir corporate positions as a possible penalty. THE SUPERVISOR AND TWO OTHERS INSTRUCETED HER TO TELL KEY WITNESSES TO CHANGE THEIR TESTIMONY AND ORDERED EUBANKS TO READ VERBATIM FROM A CLOSING ARGUMENT THEY REWROTE FOR HER.

The political people were pushing the buttons and ORDERING US TO SAY WHAT WE SAID., Eubanks said. and because of that WE FAILED TO ZEALOUSLY REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Eubanks was a lawyer at the Justice Department for TWENTY TWO YEARS and said 3 political appointess were responsible for the last minute shifts in the governments tobacco case:

Former, associate AG Robert McCallum, former Assistant AG Peter Keisler and his deputy, at the time Dan Meron.

Eubanks is retired but coming forward due to the 'overwhelming politicization' of the DOJ demonstrated by the firing of the 8 USA's.

Eubanks said that Congress should not limit it's investigation to the dismissal of the USA's. She said "Political interference is happening at Justice across the department. When decision are made now in the Bush AG's office, POLITICS IS THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION, THE RULE OF LAW GOES OUT THE WINDOW."

Purgegate is going to cause a tsunami, throughout the ENTIRE FEDERAL JUDICIARY!!

We American citizens have been ROBBED of JUSTICE guranteed under the US Constitution!

Justice has been subverted by Gonzales, Bush and Rove.

Impeach every one of these SOB's

Ms Eubanks you may need to do what MS. Chiarra has done...submit to a self-imposed witness protection program.

Joemama wrote on March 22, 2007 11:28 AM:

here's my complete whacked out conspiracy theory:

What if this is all about one prosecutory, not 8?
If you wanted to get rid of Carol Lam how would you do it? She's too high profile to be fired individually. Getting rid of all USA's at once would insulate from political charges, but that became unworkable. So what would be the second choice? Fire a smaller group, but large enough that she would still be one of many.

Notice the only prosecutor mentioned in DOJ emails is Carol Lam, and she seems to be causing panic. Her net was getting bigger and she was the only prosecutor actually doing damage - as opposed to just not being "helpful".

So if you have to get rid of a group, then might as well kill afew birds with one stone - those not "helpful" (McKay, Iglesias) the possible PR problem (Ryan) and a few more for good measure just to cover your tracks. I remember one email discussing not even knowing the USA's in Arizona's (or Neveda?) performance record.

So if this is really about Carol Lam, and the others are a smoke screen, the question becomes what was she on to? Jerry Lewis was on the radar screen, something also about a prostitute ring Duke Conningham was involved with-

Could there have been something so damaging the
White house would do anything to get rid ofher?

Could Jerry Lewis be in something so corrupt it could bring down the White House? What happened to that investigation? The LA attorney investogationg Lewis is also gone -what happened to that investigation?

Just a complete conspiracy theory ...

Spritey wrote on March 22, 2007 11:28 AM:

Can the President and his talking points parrots LEGITIMATELY continue using the mantra that they are and were ~ hired and fired based on the pleasure of the President....while at the same time claiming the Pres knew nothing about any of the firings and placements?

If there was no communique WITH the Pres on an issue, where is the Executive Privilege on the issue?

If their claim is that Mr. Bush didn't fire them or have any hand in the entire process, in what sense did they serve 'at the pleasure of the President'?

Just askin'

ahem wrote on March 22, 2007 11:29 AM:

It'd be good for Comey to pay a visit to the Hill, no?

cevrero wrote on March 22, 2007 11:34 AM:

Where does this "serves at the pleasure of the president" come from? Don't the USAs serve the Rule of Law based on their individual discretion which is independent of the President? I would argue that they don't serve at his pleasure, but they are "hired at his pleasure" at least initially and then everything there after is up to the DOJ? The administration is trying to blur the line that they've jumped across. They get away with redefining the Geneva Convention and now Obstruction of Justice is now the President's executive right. How many more times can they piss on our back and tell us it's raining?

kentuck wrote on March 22, 2007 11:40 AM:

joemama:

Not that far-fetched at all.

But one thing we have learned about Bush is that he does not like to "fire" people. My hunch is that he asked for input from a few of his most "special" Senators - Domenici, Specter, Kyl and others - to give a name of someone they could put on the list with Lam. I do think you are right that Lam was the primary target.

observor wrote on March 22, 2007 11:48 AM:

Joemama:

You didn't mention that the USA investigating Lewis, Deborah Yang, was hired by the Gibson Dunn, the firm representing Lewis, for more than $1.5 million in October 2006. And GOP powerhouse Ted Olson, whose arguments at the Supreme Court got Bush elected, is a senior partner at Gibson Dunn.

No wonder Feinstein has questions.

BC Expat wrote on March 22, 2007 11:49 AM:

SLOUCH:

Thank you for articulating the level of discourse that we have come to appreciate from our daily pilgramage to TPM. Indeed this is one of the few places left where you're treated with respect and its assumed you actually are smarter than a 5th grader. Thanks for that TPM - wish the MSM felt the same - but frankly I've lived without their tripe since they became water carriers for the fascists in DC years ago.

Congrats to Josh and crew (present and departed) for this amazing display of diligence, perserverance and true patriotism. Please do not remove teeth from posteriors until sentences are handed down! This is far from over! Pulitzer indeed!

Oh yes - all readers and contributors - please contribute to this amazing team of souls to keep the light of truth ablaze! And tell your friends, too.

adam wrote on March 22, 2007 12:12 PM:

snow getting some tougher questions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2595472n

buck turgidson wrote on March 22, 2007 12:15 PM:

Constcriptor,

The tobacco case interference is actually old news. There were reports while the case was still ongoing not only of foot-dragging at the AG level, but also that the DoJ intentionally sabotaged the agreement and conceded to a far lower settlement. The professionals involved in the case went ballistic, but it's the hacks that run the show.

ShorelineCT wrote on March 22, 2007 12:21 PM:

Transcript of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' One-Year Anniversary Speech

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060215.html

WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 15, 2006 - 11:00 AM


...In addition to the fight against terrorism, the Justice Department will focus on five priority areas in the coming year: violent crime, drug trafficking, cyber crime, civil rights, and public and corporate corruption. These priorities are not new; they are fundamentals indicators of the American dream. Nor is this list comprehensive. But we will work in these areas because our success is vital to the health of that dream in the 21st century....

....Integrity in government and business are essential for a strong America. Taxpayers and investors deserve nothing else. And that's why we will strive to preserve the integrity of our public institutions and corporations.

The American dream is in many ways an economic dream. As many people hope to start a business, build a home, improve their community, or invest for a better future down the road.

In some areas of the world such dreams can only be pursued with bribes, kickbacks, and coercion. But here our unique commitment to the rule of law allows ordinary citizens to rely on and expect the honesty and integrity of government officials, corporate executives, and other holders of the public's trust.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we've seen the best and the worst of our open society. Charitable contributions by the millions, but also thousands of cases of fraud and corruption uncovered by the Hurricane Katrina task force.

At every level -- federal, state, and local -- we're enforcing the laws that protect the integrity of our government and corporate institutions. I've told prosecutors to operate with one principal in mind: No one is above the law, not a city council person, not a CEO, not a member of Congress, not an administration official.

We will not allow public officials to misuse their office or misspend taxpayer dollars,...snip....

Pogo wrote on March 22, 2007 12:25 PM:

Skimming the cream off the top tends to leave only the filthy scum behind

joemama wrote on March 22, 2007 1:20 PM:

I wonder if there are any intersections of Jerry Lewis and actions on appropriations committee with
White House 'friends' or maybe Lewis just put in a call to Karl Rove. Maybe Lewis just knows something he can leverage into getting the White House to remove Lam...

Yes right about the USA for Los Angeles - Rove calls Olson, Olson gets his firm to offer her a job...not unbelievable. From investigating Lewis to working for the firm defending him - her info would be helpful in obstructing any investigation. Surely she also had info on what Lam had found.
I wonder what her salary increase was?

I feel like a complete conspiracy nut... but they've never given a reason why they originally wanted to remove all USA's - presumably the majority were dream 'Bushies'. I keep remembering how this group has never played by the rules. Anything to win.

...and I just keep going back to Lam.

Joemama wrote on March 22, 2007 1:25 PM:

The USA's firing was a punitive action almost as an afterthought (particularly as it was after the election, too late to really effect change)

Lam's firing was a preventative action.

David wrote on March 22, 2007 1:59 PM:

Regarding impeachment, John Murtha has indicated it is not off the table for him. Interesting, especially since that is who Nancy Pelosi originally endorsed for majority leader.

nellieh wrote on March 22, 2007 2:01 PM:

I just read an AP report prosecutors waqnt to reduce Abramoff's sentence. With what is alleging in the tobacco prosecution I would suspect there is hanky panky going on here. Nothing on the connection to Senator Burns and the Mariana Islands. They changed Attorneys right when that hit the courts.

observor wrote on March 22, 2007 2:03 PM:

Joemama: Yang got $1.5 million!!

thehim wrote on March 22, 2007 2:39 PM:

For some good background on Ryan's incompetence, just look at the history of how his office tried to prosecute medical marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal.

anon wrote on March 22, 2007 3:01 PM:

Yang jumped to 1.5 million? How much do USA's make a year?

anon wrote on March 22, 2007 3:06 PM:

Googling around found lots of stuff about MZM possibly being one of the contractors the CIA may hae used to validate the WMD info before going to war - stuff mentioned by Josh as well.

If Lam's investigation was headed into CIA/MZM/territory possibly to expose corrupt contracting and it could possibly have intersected into the WMD information.

Talk about a conspiracy nut- i just thought what if one of Brent Wilkes/Dusty Foggo's connection were they ones that fabricated the whole Niger report?

Now that would be worth getting rid of Lam-
All these problems keep intersecting....

Englischlehrer wrote on March 22, 2007 3:22 PM:

it's a tough act to follow kentuck's post but we have to do our best to keep political pressure by phoning senators and writing emails, trying to get what appear to be localized stories into the broader perspective of what is happening nationally.

dboza wrote on March 22, 2007 5:50 PM:

Sometimes it can work to our advantage when non-Bushies are turned away from a Bush presidential re-election rally. A southern Minnesota high school social studies teacher and his students were turned away from one of these rallies. The teacher was ticked and went home and called his local DFL office and volunteered his services. He had taught high school for many years and was retired national guard. He decided to teach the ultimate civics lesson to his students, he decided to run for office. He ran for the congressional of republican who had been considered a safe re-election. Guess what, from a usually predictable republican region a new congressman was elected Congressman Tim Walz, teacher.
Mumble.Grumble.Complain. Wallow. Hope. Despair. Worry. Vote.
Camp Wellstone

shmoopatties wrote on March 22, 2007 8:17 PM:

Here's something that jumps out at me as signifigant, or at least revealing: In the only case where they gave a valid and true reason for firing a USA (Bud Cummins), Gonzales was "furious" that the truth was revealed. The 'poor performance' line was not recited, the truth that a political pal was being inserted was revealed, and this ticked off Gonzales. Yet now that is the only case where anyone can say they "admitted the truth". Isn't it ironic...don't you think?

Bud Cummins says "[they] admitted the truth in my case, that I asked was to leave so that another person could serve in my place". Yet at the same time "Gonzales was furious with how the deputy attorney general characterized the departure of ... Bud Cummins. It was explained as a move to insert Tim Griffin, a former White House political aide, into the slot. The Attorney General was upset because he believed Bud Cummins' removal involved performance considerations.

Longer snips:

From WaPo (sorry, forgot to C&P link):

"In the wake of McNulty's Feb. 6 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales was furious with how the deputy attorney general characterized the departure of Little Rock U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins. It was explained as a move to insert Tim Griffin, a former White House political aide, into the slot.

In an e-mail, Justice's deputy communications director, Brian Roehrkasse, wrote to Sampson and another aide: "The attorney general is extremely upset with the stories on US attys this morning. He also thought some of the DAG's statements were inaccurate. . . . I think from a straight news perspective we just want the stories to die."

Roehrkasse said in a statement last night: "The Attorney General was upset because he believed Bud Cummins' removal involved performance considerations and it was that aspect of [McNulty's] testimony the Attorney General was questioning."

From Bud Cummins 'Now' interview:

"CUMMINS: And so I think if he could see beyond their briefings to know that the seven people that I'm talking about—and—and I separate myself because they've admitted the truth in my case, that I asked was to leave so that another person could serve in my place. And they were within their legal discretion to ask me to leave. They asked me to leave. I left. And they're pretty squared away in my case.

But they never admitted whatever the other reasons were in the other seven cases, and tried to just lump them all together as performance-related decisions. And as recently as yesterday, I saw where Karl Rover gave a speech and tried to—ratify that suggestion once more. And—and that's just simply not true. And he knows it. And I'm—Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General, knows it, because he has enough direct experience in this business to look at the list of reasons that—that they have recited to the Congress, and know that on their face they don't hold water."

http://www.pbs.org/now/news/311-transcript.html

cars wrote on March 23, 2007 1:26 AM:

In the document dump you can find an email where it says that Ryan complained to Jerry Parsky (the GOP kingmaker and big Bush fund raiser in California) about his dismissal. We all can see why they were reluctant to fire Ryan. Ryan knew some people...

---------------

From: Kelley, William K.
[mailto:William,K.-Kelley@who.eop.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 07,2006 4:04 PM
To: Sampson, Kyle
Subject:

FYI Jerry Parsky has put in an outraged call protesting the fact of Ryan's departure and the manner in which the msg was delivered.

And he's having lunch with the president next week.

-------

james O. Clifford, Sr. wrote on March 29, 2007 11:59 PM:

Why the suprise over Kevin Ryan having "morale" problems at the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco? He was a "Bush loyalist" in enemy territory.It's SAN FRANCISCO for God's sake. You failed to note the LA Times report mentioned Ryan's problems with Ivy Leaguers. Could be that being Irish - and Catholic - got in his way. Check it out.
His staff might have needed attitude adjustment.
Jim Clifford

ZetMaster wrote on April 24, 2007 1:40 PM:

Hi!
We offer best prices for OEM Software. Hurry up, it's limited!
[URL=http://oem-software.myzips.org/info-Adobe_Acrobat_6_professional.html]Photoshop Elements 3.0[/URL]
Check our prices and blow your mind!
Bye!

Jonglly wrote on May 17, 2007 4:09 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

gonne collant wrote on October 11, 2007 9:26 PM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

sexi vip wrote on October 16, 2007 9:18 AM:

Good job. I loved youre site, keep it up.

telephone number wrote on December 21, 2007 7:25 AM:

yyqt2vldop4xj0k telephone number telephone number