TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Feinstein: Miers Discussed Removing L.A. USA

Feinstein: Miers Discussed Removing L.A. USA

By Paul Kiel - April 24, 2007, 11:49AM

Apparently I wasn't paying close enough attention to the hearing last week, because I missed this.

Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers discussed firing ex-U.S. Attorney Debra Yang, who was leading an investigation into lucrative ties between Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and a lobbying firm before she left her government post voluntarily last fall, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) charged in a hearing last week.
Feinstein has repeatedly questioned the circumstances surrounding Yang’s departure, but until last week she provided no reasons for her suspicions. Last Thursday, however, during the questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales late in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Feinstein flatly stated that Miers had discussed “whether to remove Debra Yang from Los Angeles.”

A Feinstein spokesman indicated only that the senator had learned that Miers had considered ousting Yang “through interviews” and did not respond to repeated questions to elaborate. Andrew Koneschusky, a spokesman to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is leading the probe, also did not respond to questions about whether Miers had targeted Yang and any evidence Feinstein may have about it.

Yang resigned last October, months before Democrats began reviewing the Justice Department’s decision to fire eight other federal prosecutors. According to a report in the American Lawyer, she was lured away by a $1.5 million-plus offer to become a partner at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, which is defending Lewis in the probe.

Comments (350)

Fozzetti wrote on April 24, 2007 11:52 AM:

How could she be allowed to do this? It is very unethical. I thought there were laws against it.

Sholom wrote on April 24, 2007 12:00 PM:

Simple (in theory). She's not allowed to work in the part of the law firm that is handling Lewis' defense, or have discussions about it, etc.

I've never been in a large law firm, however, and would love to hear from somebody who has who could tell us whether this is practicable at all. It sure _seems_ fishy to me, but I realize that I am speaking from skepticism and naivete, not actual knowlege.

Can anyone enlighten us further?

bordersmuggler wrote on April 24, 2007 12:01 PM:

Whether or not there are laws is a moot issue, when there is no one to enforce them.

Anonymous wrote on April 24, 2007 12:05 PM:

When this country comes to a crashing halt, Soviet Union style, who will be left to pick up the pieces?

c4logic wrote on April 24, 2007 12:11 PM:

Again, what was the motive in offering the job to Yang, when the law firm was defending a high profile client against the very charges Yang was investigating? What was Yangs motivation in accepting: a) A very lucrative offer b)Insinuations from Harriet that Yang would be terminated. Sounds like a offer she could not refuse. It doesn't matter where she works at the law firm. They removed someone extremely well versed in the progress of the investigation. Could this affect the defense strategy? Did Yang's successor have hurdles to overcome to get up to speed?

pete wrote on April 24, 2007 12:12 PM:

Fortunately they didn't need to fire her, because as it turned out she could be bribed.

Crust wrote on April 24, 2007 12:13 PM:

Cute. One of the standard winger talking points is/was that the Bushies pushed out Lam not Yang. But it seems they pushed out both. (It's none too clear why the theory that they only got rid of Lam was supposed to be exculpatory anyway but there you have it.)

Time to subpoena Yang and get her version of the story, I'd say.

HudsonDC wrote on April 24, 2007 12:13 PM:

While it is possible for law firms to keep work isolated, it is quite a coincidence that Yang goes to the firm represeting Lewis. It would be interesting to look at the time line: when did Lewis retain G,D & C, and when did the offer go to Yang.

bobh wrote on April 24, 2007 12:14 PM:

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060123172418265

Holy Crap, has anyone read this?

If Abramoff had such access to the WH then so did the South African government. Interesting.

"Abramoff introduced Williamson to Grover Norquist and they became friends. This relationship assisted South African intelligence's Operations Longreach and Babushka, essentially pro-apartheid influence operations in DC. One propaganda operation was Abramoff's movie Red Scorpion, based on UNITA guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi, a movie for which South Africa provided military equipment, vehicles, and extras.

Abramoff's files from his days as a South African agent emerge: Details of his ties to anti-black, racist groups like World Church of the Creator (insignia on far right -- where have we seen that logo before?) and South African propaganda operations -- Babushka and Longreach -- provided exclusively to WMR. From left to right: Abramoff, Williamson, Leon, and Crystal."

"The real face of the GOP's racial policies: assisting in and championing the murder of anti-apartheid activists since the early 1980s: September, First, and Schoon. Abramoff email: Native Americans are "morons and troglodytes." Abramoff and DeLay champion treating Chinese and other Asians, mostly women, as slave laborers in U.S. island colony in Pacific. Payments made from Abramoff's Capitol Athletic Foundation to illegal Orthodox settlers in Beitar Illit on the West Bank for purchase of sniper scopes, thermal imaging devices, and other "security" equipment used to target Palestinians. The racism here is clear and revolting."

Perhaps the GOP is ignoring the Palestinains because they are working hard to see as many of them killed as possible....

JamesRobert wrote on April 24, 2007 12:18 PM:

Yang is worse than Miers. She went from the government office investigating Lewis to his defense team??! Is there no law against this??

obsessed wrote on April 24, 2007 12:22 PM:

Whether or not there are laws is a moot issue, when there is no one to enforce them.

that pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it?

aimai wrote on April 24, 2007 12:24 PM:

I believe one of the other little reported aspects of the Yang story is that the payment of 1.5 million to a novice lawyer who is not bringing in her own clients is unheard of. I read an article in Brill? or somewhere and I think it might have been mentioned at TPM saying that new partners are expected to bring in their own clients and to buy into the firm, not the other way around.

Remember, just when you think you've gotten too cynical, you find you can't really keep up with reality. It may have been worth it to the Lewis defence team to essentially buy off the head of the state's team just to sideline her, for all we know.

aimai

Buck Batard wrote on April 24, 2007 12:24 PM:

Theoretically, they might could isolate the two cases and not have a conflict, but legally it would take the consent of all parties. We are all one of the parties. We are the people of the United States.
Who gave my consent?

Codeword: Nation

benjoya wrote on April 24, 2007 12:30 PM:

They removed someone extremely well versed in the progress of the investigation.

and got an employee who knew exactly what the government's case consisted of at the time. a twofer.

Ruth in SC wrote on April 24, 2007 12:30 PM:

It's not uncommon in law firms, even fairly small ones. The situation created is called a "chinese wall." Even in fairly small law firms, particularly in smaller states and communities (think South Carolina), a lawyer will have worked on a situation for one client and the firm takes on another client with opposing interests. The firm walls off the two lawyers from each other (figuratively speaking). They can talk to each other but both are aware that they should have no discussions about the matter on which both worked. I've seen it work in a former law firm, of about 16 lawyers. The firm she joined has 800 lawyers, with 220 in the LA area. She could easily go weeks and never see the team representing Lewis.

benjoya wrote on April 24, 2007 12:31 PM:

plus yang got big bucks for entering the private sector. everybody wins!

RandyR wrote on April 24, 2007 12:39 PM:

I wonder if this investigation could go past this administration? Somewhere some how this bubble of silence is going to burst and the evidence is going to come pouring out. Manipulation of the Justice system on this level just can't remain untestified to but the level of prosecutions just might take years. If this isn't straightened out then we will be taking a huge step to a one party system.

obsessed wrote on April 24, 2007 12:42 PM:

"The firm she joined has 800 lawyers, with 220 in the LA area. She could easily go weeks and never see the team representing Lewis."

Could she easily also have verbally given them whatever information they needed in return for the apparently unmerited 1.5 million?

Buck wrote on April 24, 2007 12:44 PM:

RandyR, the evidence has come pouring out.
We just haven't seen it all yet. There is a lot of time leading up to November 2008.

...and some after.

shrubsy wrote on April 24, 2007 12:48 PM:

it is the equivalent to having a coach leave one team and quickly join the other team...

except who doesn't think the transferring coach won't be spending all his time at the new team regurgitating everything he knows about the old team's playbook.

These people have bent every rule, broken every law...I don't see an ethical oath getting in their way, especially when they have already fired one prosecutor looking into Jerry Lewis, and lured away another. They have already run over two dogs and a crowd of pedestrians, I don't think making an illegal UTurn is weighing on them too much.

zk0sm0 wrote on April 24, 2007 12:58 PM:

i'm pretty sure the fact that yang left to work for the firm representing lewis is old news.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2007_03_18.php#013166

the news here is the info that the folks who were behind the USA firings discussed firing yang. this is info that had not been previously known. even though the circumstances of yang's departure already seemed fishy.

it isn't just the USAs who were fired. (the not loyal bushies)

it isn't just the USAs who were not fired. (the loyal bushies)

it is also the USAs who resigned without being fired (both loyal bushies and possibly not loyal bushies as well)

cevrero wrote on April 24, 2007 1:04 PM:

Not surprised,....that's how the Republicans roll,....they buy everything off,...either through tax cuts, incentives, lobbying scandals,etc.... There's a loop hole for everything,...as long as you make the laws and your lawyers craft the language to make it look like its legal,...pure semantics and deception,...I hope the democrats don't fail us and start putting their foot up someones asses. 1.5 million, however seems like a bribe more than a salary....definitely unethical. Go Feinstein!

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 24, 2007 2:39 PM:

bobh@April 24, 2007 12:14 PM

Thanks for the link. I probably read the info about Abramoff on Wayne Madsen's website but I forgot about it.

Re Duncan Sellars - I don't know who is behind the Seek God website but it has some pretty good but not up-to-date bio info on members of the Council For National Policy. Sellars is a member. Link below.

TheraP wrote on April 24, 2007 3:27 PM:

Bribery.

Just another little tool in the criminal toolbox.

Nestor wrote on April 24, 2007 4:13 PM:

It seems there are more subpeonas to be written... one for Hairy-it, and one for Debra Yang. There is NOTHING that will make a reasonable person believe that change of jobs wasn't a bribe.

mjmckay wrote on April 24, 2007 5:58 PM:

So do we get to have it both ways? 1) she's an integral part of the Rep. Lewis investigation and her absence has been as set-back to the prosecution AND 2) she's a hack who has accepted a "bribe" to go over to the defense firm?

Some on the thread have suggested she's an inexperienced USA, and that her comp package and buy-in at Gibson Dunn is unwarranted, but while I don't know the specifics of her deal, it looks like she's the real-deal on the experience and expertise front: 47 yr-old former State of CA judge, former AUSA, former law school prof, former litigator. Eh, sounds like she had a few more things going for her than other USAs currently under the magnifying glass (ahem, Ms Rachel Paulose I'm looking at you) and some of our concerns don't amount to much.

mjmckay wrote on April 24, 2007 6:01 PM:

that's not to say that she wasn't made an offer to leave that might help the "loyal Bushies", but just sayin' her rating on the hack-o-meter isn't very high.

Where does the Lewis investigation currently stand? I know they just raided Doolittle's house in his investigation.

antonyandruleit wrote on April 24, 2007 10:02 PM:

Hello bros

great stuff, swear by the way it works so quickly - - http://steroidonlineshop.com
I picked up some winny, primo, dec, etc

bb wrote on April 25, 2007 5:40 AM:

and some of our concerns don't amount to much.
Posted by: mjmckay
Date: April 24, 2007 05:58 PM

Someone is sitting on a pile of material that will slowly find its way into the discussion. There will be major surprises and major gotchas.

dddfgbsdgcfdfvxs wrote on April 25, 2007 1:35 PM:

reunion

RashadHampton wrote on April 25, 2007 4:55 PM:

Looks Like Dallas is in trouble!
Phoenix might end up blowing them all away.

PHX vs. Det. Hmmm..Could be interesting?

WriglyB wrote on April 26, 2007 12:48 AM:

What role of the Internet in the modern world?
[url=http://deu10.byethost7.com]We shall talk about [/url]

dddtysdgcfdfvxs wrote on April 26, 2007 6:29 AM:

online bible

dddtysdgcfdfgvxs wrote on April 26, 2007 12:26 PM:

eminem concert tickets

Samantha wrote on April 26, 2007 12:56 PM:

I'm not quite understanding what all
this is supposed to be about?

Must be me or something...

Jonglly wrote on May 1, 2007 4:54 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.

Jonglly wrote on May 3, 2007 7:24 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.

Jonglly wrote on May 7, 2007 7:40 AM:

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

djhorserider wrote on May 9, 2007 3:58 AM:

Hi

Very good stuff. They have been around a long time. - http://www.allsteroidsworld.com
What do you think?

Regards

Shamane666 wrote on May 10, 2007 1:17 PM: