Comments (148)

modmom wrote on May 4, 2007 9:44 AM:

$1.5 million signing bonus? Haul her butt w subpoena in hand to congress. Will this ever end?

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 9:49 AM:

Is it possible she would not have known this was the same firm the man she was investigating had hired? Or not suspected?

Another smoking gun!

And remember, this is only DoJ. Everything else was also politicized and criminalized.

The stench grows worse. But can anyone doubt now that the MSM is picking up the trail?

Observor wrote on May 4, 2007 9:50 AM:

"Strong Republican ties" is an understatment. Ted Olson is responsible for Bush being in office. DailyKos has pointed out other Bush loyalists at the firm, including Rob Bonner.

bajsa wrote on May 4, 2007 9:54 AM:

Look, as far as the administration is concerned either you drink the kool-aid and become part of the Hitler Youth or you are out on the street. It's that simple.

bubba wrote on May 4, 2007 9:55 AM:

This does say an awful lot about Yang's character as well. She is hot on the heels of top level corruption, in a job that she likely had pushed for her whole life, and instead of pursuing it further as she had sworn to uphold the laws of the US, she takes the cash and steps out of the way to allow the cover-up to continue. She put her personal interests above the interests of those she swore to protect and in a situation where she had to know she was being bought off. Greedy. Shameful.

Jack wrote on May 4, 2007 9:55 AM:

There will always be minions and rumors of minions. The most important question is:

What did the President know and when did he know it?

LTO wrote on May 4, 2007 9:56 AM:

Explosive stuff.

Code word "letter", as in "letter of inquiry".

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 9:58 AM:

I would loved to have been a fly on the wall during the neogtiations (and "offline" discussions) that arrived at $1.5M as the appropriate bonus.

Follow the money. What has always been "great" about political corruption is how congressmen are the "cheapest" buys in the whole process, a few private jet trips to go golfing at St. Andrews and you got them.

(the "security code" for this post: crime ....)

Punchy wrote on May 4, 2007 9:59 AM:

I've never, ever heard of a 1.5 mill signing bonus outside of sports or CEOs. Is this normal for a legal position? What's the average bonus in a well-respected law firm?

If this bonus doesn't scream "bribe", I don't know what does.

FGF wrote on May 4, 2007 10:00 AM:

What was the intended end game for the Griffin installation? One can argue Yang's leaving softened the Lewis investigation, Lam's firing slowed the larger investigation born from Cunningham, and on and on, but what was the end game in Arkansas? Could it have been...?

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:01 AM:

And she joined the firm defending Lewis???

"Ms. Miers wanted to know whether Ms. Yang could be made to resign."

The $1.5 million "made-woman."

Wonder if she's planning to stay at the firm after the bonus wears off?

Just for appearances, she's got to put some real time in forher new partnership, or one might suspect it was all one big BRIBE...

The threats and the standard Republican "offensive defense" has begun, with Davis and the White House going after their own Iraqi no-bid contract inspector, and this Yang news coming out at this moment, it is clear they have circked their wagons, and they are using what power they have remaining in a desperate attempt to cover their sorry asses after-the-fact.

I still think, at the center of it all, is a prognosticating Rove, whose predictions for a Republican hold on Congress gave them all a false sense of safety.

Like some strange Lovecraft character, "Karlooloo's" slimy tentacles reach in and around and through every corner of this scandal-plagued administration, represented best by the many unqualified or underqualified "operatives" salted throughout their New World Government, each of them a Rove tentacle with a tiny face.

And each of those "faces" fullky believed what Rove predicted, and felt immune because of it.

I wonder how they all felt the day after the election?

I think we can see light at the end of this tunnel: This Bush era of American tribulation is coming to an end.

But as long as they are still in office, they will use their usurped powers to rake in the cash and twist the future, all the while desperately scyurrying-about in a vain effort to cover up their past misdeeds.

Elephants aren't the only creatures that never forget. The American citizen/voter has a pretty good memory, too, once the fog has lifted.

Jason Cravat wrote on May 4, 2007 10:02 AM:

I don't want to rain on this parade but I don't think this particular story will go anywhere because Yang was bought off. She'll just say tell Congress she rilly, rilly wanted to move into the private sector and is jest a gal who cain't say no (to $1.5 million, anyway). And they'll never get anything out of Ted Olsen.

Jason Cravat wrote on May 4, 2007 10:02 AM:

I don't want to rain on this parade but I don't think this particular story will go anywhere because Yang was bought off. She'll just tell Congress she rilly, rilly wanted to move into the private sector and is jest a gal who cain't say no (to $1.5 million, anyway). And they'll never get anything out of Ted Olsen.

Left Coaster wrote on May 4, 2007 10:03 AM:

Somebody should look at the cases her office did pursue. She went after a Clinton fundraiser. He was acquitted. Then they drove Mayor Jim Hahn from office with a highly publicized "pay-for-play" probe that fell flat.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 4, 2007 10:06 AM:

@May 4, 2007 10:02 AM

"I don't want to rain on this parade but I don't think this particular story will go anywhere because Yang was bought off. She'll just tell Congress she rilly, rilly wanted to move into the private sector and is jest a gal who cain't say no (to $1.5 million, anyway)."

Just to be on the safe side, she ought to stay away from swimming pools.

Michael Powe wrote on May 4, 2007 10:06 AM:

Well, we're not characters in The Firm, nor even in search of an author. It's not a given that the prosecutor understood the parameters of the offer, i.e. that it was a backdoor way of getting her out of office.

You don't get to be a (qualified) US Attorney by being a sissy. You get there by being smart, hardworking and ambitious. When somebody offers you 1.5 mil, you are going to look at your current and future prospects to make that decision. You also are probably operating on the belief that you are worth it. She is a Republican, so why would being offered a connection into a powerful Republican firm look strange?

I'm waiting for more detail before I decide on what, if any, culpability she may have.

Thanks.

mp

UnEasyOne wrote on May 4, 2007 10:09 AM:

OK, maybe I'm wrong, but I am so far beyond outrage here that I can barely form a sentence. From the calm tone of previous comments I sense that like me, other commenters have been so angered for so long that there isn't that much left to say - then it gets worse. "These are the times that try men's souls."

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:09 AM:

Griffin was being installed in Arkansas in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton Presidential candidacy, the damage a political hack like Griffin might do to her in her old "home state"
with access to all that Arkansas legal dirt, and his history of illegally disenfranchising whole blocks of ethnic voters, suggests they have been planning this for a long, long time, under at least one uncertain supposition, that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.

Thes Republicans really, REALLY want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate, all thier resources have already been directed towards that option.

Griffin was just one big piece on the Karlooloo puzzle. But "Old Slimy" got it wrong! And they may be very wrong about Hillary getting the nod from the Dems, the more of this "anything to win" mentallity, and Hillary will fall even more out-of-favor with her own liberal base.

modmom wrote on May 4, 2007 10:11 AM:

End game for Griffin (a rovian political operative who Greg Palast exposed as taking part in the disenfranchising of Af Am voters in FL, including those serving oversea in the military) in Arkansas was of course to attempt to dig dirt on Hillary, whom the corporate media has already decided will be the Dem candidate.

HammClov wrote on May 4, 2007 10:12 AM:

She is also the U.S. attorney to lead the suit against the giant class action firm Milberg Weiss. Say what you will about class actions, that investigation, and the subsequent indictments, singlehandedly destroyed, or almost destroyed the largest class action firm in the U.S.

I was very surprised to learn about this: She's a star to the Republicans! When I learned she left the department I assume she was cashing in her star power to make the big bucks, the way any good US attorney would. You don't think they work there because they're worried about justice do you?

anon, too wrote on May 4, 2007 10:13 AM:

With the other USAs, Elston called and threatened to talk bad about them if they didn't leave and hush.

But somebody gave this USA 1.5 mil to go away? What did she have on them that cost them that much?

Dabb wrote on May 4, 2007 10:13 AM:

Who replaced Ms Yang? And what's the background on the replacement?

k wrote on May 4, 2007 10:17 AM:

evidently Yang's assistant at the USA office, also "got poached" by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/005815.html

code word silver, as in every $1.5M silver lining has a dark cloud.

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:18 AM:

mp above;
"It's not a given that the prosecutor understood the parameters of the offer, i.e. that it was a backdoor way of getting her out of office."

Well, lets make our our minds here, was she duped or coerced or enticed? And is she a victim or a co-conspirator?

Either she's smart as a fox (the likeliest option) and knew exactly what the offer represented, or she was dumb as an ox and blindly took the bait?And that just doesn't seem possible, considering this part of your post "You don't get to be a (qualified) US Attorney by being a sissy. You get there by being smart, hardworking and ambitious,"

So to even suggest there's a gap is nothing more than a prelude to apologism.

Was she smart or stupid, or both?

BluestateRedhead wrote on May 4, 2007 10:20 AM:

Could someone comment on the possibility here of an indictable offense for her? Or if it produces circumstances that makes others indictable? In short, is this minable muck?

klyde wrote on May 4, 2007 10:20 AM:

Hey nancy impeachment still off the table?

Gee wrote on May 4, 2007 10:21 AM:

One piece of the puzzle that's missing, for me: has Yang's successor continued the investigation into Lewis with equal vigor?

? wrote on May 4, 2007 10:21 AM:

Kyle Sampson registered "Cascade Consulting LLC" at his home address in Virginia on 3/22/2007.

Just what is he consulting on?

SteveW wrote on May 4, 2007 10:23 AM:

White Shoe? Well that's one way to put it. In my past life I had a lot of dealings AGAINST this firm and this specific office in Orange County, CA. I doubt they have a single Democrat or Independent working for that firm...in their history. Think of the most opulent law firm you can imagine and then times that by 10 and you have GDC.

If you're a Republican and you have legal trouble, this is the go to firm. Just looking on the face of this Yang case and knowing how GDC works, there's NO doubt in my mind (or likely any of yours) this was a quid pro quo deal through-and-through.

Lastly, Yang claims to have left for "personal reasons" and I/we have little doubt she had literally more than a MILLION personal reasons and a partnership in the firm that led to her joining the gang at GDC.

DallasNE wrote on May 4, 2007 10:24 AM:

From the looks of things Yang should have been fired, but not for the reasons stated. The recusal by Yang only means she can't bill any hours. It doesn't mean they can't pick her brain for insider details. In fact, this smells like a negotiated deal for Yang to resign as US Attorney. Everybody looks crooked here.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on May 4, 2007 10:24 AM:

Man!I can feel the memory slipping away from here.Like a giant sucking sound only loud enough to vibrate.
Maybe there should be some penalty for bad memory.

KestrelBrighteyes wrote on May 4, 2007 10:24 AM:

On a tangent not SPECIFICALLY related to Yang, but...

I don't know if this particular angle of the issue has been brought up before, but did anyone ever consider that the domestic spying program might have been used in the politicization not just of the DOJ, but of EVERY department in this administration?

Blackmail is a powerful tool, and Rove and company learned at the feet of the master.

Gee wrote on May 4, 2007 10:24 AM:

Is this normal for a legal position? What's the average bonus in a well-respected law firm?

It depends. Supreme Court clerks who have never practiced a day in their life are getting over $200K now. I would think a USA in Los Angeles would be worth quite a lot to a big firm like GD&C.

Even if the bonus itself weren't suspicious in and of itself, though, the timing is.

Jamf wrote on May 4, 2007 10:25 AM:

Another smoking gun...and this one cost Gibson, Dunn, etal $1.5M. Haul Yang up in front of congress. If she defies the subpoenas, throw her in jail, plain and simple. And while we're on the subject of Jerry Lewis, can somebody start raising some questions about his dirtbag buddy Ken Calvert, who holds sway over the congressional district right next door? There's a powerful stench around this guy...

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 10:26 AM:

Let me guess. Nobody is investigating Lewis now, right?

SB wrote on May 4, 2007 10:28 AM:

Follow the $1.5 million. Follow it. WHERE did that cash come from? What magical $1.5 million deposits were made to the hiring firm's accounts just prior to paying Yang?

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:29 AM:

I'll post this just once. Pelosi has never really had impeachment "off the table", she's letting the pieces fall into place. If they had threatened impeachment, and begun overt investigations of either Cheney or Bush (maybe even Gonzales) do you thing the Republicans wouldn't pull out all the stops, and start destroying potential evidence and careers in a mad rush to cover-up everything they never thought would be investigated?

It is now a subtle game of chess, a race with the shredders and the delete buttons, and if the Bushies thought for even a moment that this is all leading to impeachment, they would start a desperate effort, of historic proportions, to protect thier fragile neocon construct until every last no-bid contract dollar is squeezed out of the taxpayers.

bordersmuggler wrote on May 4, 2007 10:30 AM:

She may not have had much choice in accepting the $1.5 million offer. It was either that or becoming a statistic like Tom Wales.

Jim wrote on May 4, 2007 10:31 AM:

Not bad -- 1.5 mil for revealing the inside track on the Government*s case against Rep. Jerry Lewis. Nice pay off. Meanwhile Jerry Lewis investigation is dead, Gonzales will continue as AG until 08 and the politization of the DOJ will be even more entrenched by then.

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:31 AM:

"And while we're on the subject of Jerry Lewis, can somebody start raising some questions about his dirtbag buddy Ken Calvert, who holds sway over the congressional district right next door? There's a powerful stench around this guy..."

...didn't you see the "R" behind his name? These days, it's like the stripe on a skunk's back, when you see the "R", the smell will soon follow.

jinny wrote on May 4, 2007 10:34 AM:

There's also a Eugene Scalia - and yes, if you think that name is familiar you're correct. He's the son of.

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:36 AM:

@10:24 "domestic spying program"

I assume it's alsobeen used against all Dem candidates. That may be why the repubs were so caught off balance by the 2006 election.

I believe the whole repub party and its administration and every aspect of government has been infected and is close to rotten to the core.

This is not just politics. It's a mafia type game they're running.

And yes, as one poster above, I am numb this morning, numb from the agony of this drawn out torture we are subjected to - as thinking citizens who want a viable government that cares about its citizens, cares about justice and equality and ethics and health and mental health, etc. I could cry a river!

Michael wrote on May 4, 2007 10:36 AM:

One more angle I have not seen mentioned, perhaps because it is too obvious. Assuming the government case against Lewis moves forward, who is in a better position to poke holes in it?

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:37 AM:

If we can quite rightly blame the Taliban for giving aid and comfort to Al Queda, wouldn't it seem just as reasonable we should blame the Republicans for giving their power over to the Neocons?

I'm no cult Democrat, but it seems only logical to me that the more Dems we put into office in 2008, the more likely we are to have a government we can trust again.

They may not be perfevct, but they aren't TOTALLY corrupt like the R's.

That "R" label has become a red badge of shame.

shrubsy wrote on May 4, 2007 10:37 AM:

sounds to me like Sampson is still trying to protect his old boss Karl (like everyone in DC is trying to protect Karl)
and is more willing to throw Harriet Miers under the bus instead of also spilling beans on how much Karl was steering the ship

georgiapig wrote on May 4, 2007 10:38 AM:

There's no way that is anything other than a quid pro quo. I've been around a lot of "white shoe" firms, and no one in their right mind gives out a 1.5 million dollar signing bonus to someone who can't deliver a serious book of business, high visibility or serious political connections, e.g., a former governor, senator, etc. I can't see how a run of the mill US attorney would have that much to offer. In fact, she probably went for it precisely for that reason. Someone with that kind of heft would have multiple offers coming out of a public position, and would be smart enough to pick the one that isn't an obvious conflict of interest. People can be weak, and 1.5 mil is a lot of money. She's probably never been near that much money, and no one else would offer her anything near that much jack up front.

RandyR wrote on May 4, 2007 10:42 AM:

An investigation should include where did the 1.5 million come from. That's a lot of beans to ask from a supporter. I wonder if there was bribe money or favors that came to them over this. Also what was on the Appropriations Committee table that Yang might have been chasing. It's one thing to ask a favor of a supporter law firm but these guys are expecting something in return, what is it?

Yang was a prosecuter, that means she didn't have a client list, if she's a partner she also has got a big salary. Time to get out the thumb screws and see what we can learn. First question, did they come to you with a 1.5 million dollar offer, or did you come to them? Next, did you contact, and who did you contact at Justice about this? Was this reviewed for the appearance of corruption?

Security Code: rain And a hard rain's gunna fall.

BlueIsland wrote on May 4, 2007 10:44 AM:

Dabb @10:13 a.m.: Who replaced Wang?...

George S. Cardona (Tuesday, November 21, 2006, from the Metropolitan News Enterprise, by TINA BAY, Staff Writer):
"Cardona, 46, had been the chief assistant U.S. attorney since July 2002, prior to which he worked in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office as the chief of its criminal branch.

He began his career in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1991 as an assistant United States attorney in the Central District. He left briefly to become the top appellate assistant to the U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California, then returned to the Central District office as head of the criminal section.

From 1989-1991, he worked as a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, and has taught criminal trial advocacy at UCLA School of Law since 2002.

Before entering public service, Cardona was an associate at Irell & Manella from 1987-1989 and clerked for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

He was admitted to the State Bar in 1988 after receiving both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University in 1982 and 1986, respectively. He is also a member of the Pennsylvania bar.

Prior to law school, Cardona worked for a year as a systems engineer for Westinghouse Defense Electronics in Baltimore."

the truth will out wrote on May 4, 2007 10:46 AM:

Follow the money!

What's she purchased lately?

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:47 AM:

"Rove and company learned at the feet of the master."

Kestrel, did you mean "Bush Sr."?

I have always suspected that the 94 electionwas a very secret scam, the beginning of the Diebold era, and the fruits of the cumulative expertise of Bush Sr. who was so put out by his loss to Clinton that he abandoned any semblance of patriotism and pulled out all the stops, hitting the unsuspecting Dems with an election fraud they would be too shell-shocked to recognize and retaliate against.

Newt's contract was ON America, not FOR America.

My tin-foil hat is really crackling with energy lately, all this recent subterfuge constantly supports some of my crazy old conspiracy theories about Bush Sr. and the 94 election theft...

fishwife wrote on May 4, 2007 10:47 AM:

$1.5 million sounds like a hell of a lot of money in a signing bonus for a government lawyer who probably has no "portables." (Portables are pre-existing clients that come with the lawyer to the firm and immediately generate revenue). I can see a very high level justice (state supreme court, federal appeals court) commanding a pretty large signing bonus without any portables -- but a US attorney? Not so much unless the firm is trying to accomplish something more than just hiring a good lawyer. Like making a prosecution of a VIP go away.

That said, I have a hard time condemning Yang for her choice. How many of us would turn down a job offer like that? Honestly, I don't think I would. I've got a family to feed, kids to educate, and so on and so on.

Anthony wrote on May 4, 2007 10:51 AM:

One thing that's becoming more clear now is why Bush wanted Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice.

BlueIsland wrote on May 4, 2007 10:53 AM:

Btw, the public announcement/press release indexes of the Central division of the the Cali USA office can be reviewed here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cac/news/index.html

It is obvious that a lot of gang-related, Internet-related prosecutions are the core activity of this USA district. Maybe someone can find the time to do an analysis of the announcements see if there has been shift in emphasis since Yang left.

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:54 AM:

And don't forget AG, Anthony!

"nail" - as in you hit the nail on the head.

JEP wrote on May 4, 2007 10:54 AM:

Always keep in mind, that $1.5 million in hush money is peanuts compared to the billions in no-bid contracts and the contractors that are being protected here, and the all the campaign donations and wife-employment payola that goes with it..

sappho wrote on May 4, 2007 10:55 AM:

She is a Republican, so why would being offered a connection into a powerful Republican firm look strange?

Because she happened to "choose" to find employment with the very firm that was representing the rethug she was investigating, that's why. This whole episode stinks with a capital S; it is just too coincidental and a little too smug to think that she would go to work for the very firm that she was dealing with on the opposite side of the bench, receive a 1.5 mil signing bonus and somehow maintain her promise to the world that she would keep her mouth shut with what she knows about the case from the opposing side. I'm sorry but my bullshit antennae are indicating that this definitely looks strange. If she didn't want to bring attention to herself and she really wanted to make the big bucks in the private sector there are alot of other conservative law firms she could have chosen to go to work for. Even without the added "incentive" of the siging bonus she probably would have made much more money in one of those firms and she would not have opened herself up to speculation that her motives were less than honest.

Buck wrote on May 4, 2007 10:59 AM:

When the heretofore unknown cache of emails becomes public, heads will really start rolling. Spectating at the French Revolution will pale in comparison.

CatStaff wrote on May 4, 2007 11:04 AM:

It seems likely to me that Ms. Yang was given the word that she was going, like it or not, and then given the opportunity at Gibson Dunn to sweeten the departure and ensure her silence. I have no problem believing that she could have been told, in so many words, that if she caused problems, they'd ruin her. Since her removal was a one-off at the time, she wouldn't have had safety in numbers like the most recent 8, and whoever wanted her gone could probably have made good on any threats.

On the other hand, she could just be another slimy cog in the Republican machine.

the truth will out wrote on May 4, 2007 11:06 AM:

It may have seemed savvy to her at the time.

But looks like she's already paying a high price now!

Of course, justice has clearly been subverted. So we're still paying a price.

But I imagine it can't be fun for her now. This is just the beginning of the web posts and MSM focus putting her under the microscope.

Seems to me that regardless of what ultimately happens with this whole slimy abscess on the body politic that we're following, the players will be paying a price for a long, long time. Think about it - nothing on the web ever really goes away!

"bucket" - as in this woman is now in a bucket of s#$t and it's not going away.

Zorro for the Common Good wrote on May 4, 2007 11:09 AM:

I've always believed there were two main motivations for the firings. One, as we've been discussing, was to handcuff investigations that seemed to be encroaching on some uncomfortable turf. The other was to start grooming the next GOP "bench". Rove probably figured that if they weren't willing to pursue bogus voter fraud charges, how were those namby-pamby, process-driven, reality-based USAs were ever going to win the Congressional seats the Republicans would need to get back their majority? So why not get them out of the way and start building up the career of some fire-breathers?

As for Yang, we obviously don't know the full story. Maybe she's corrupt. Maybe she's dumb. Or maybe she was just sick of dealing with all the crap the Bushies were throwing at her, and decided she might as well cash out while she could. I admire people who are willing to sacrifice their career for their principals, but I also understand the motivations of those who aren't willing to become martyrs. I'm not saying this is what happened, but these types of decisions are rarely black and white.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 11:11 AM:

Keep this in perspective, folks.

We are talking about lawyers here!

ebmck wrote on May 4, 2007 11:12 AM:

If Meyers was interested in two USAs (Yang and Cummins) and we know that one of them was working on a case against Jerry Lewis. What was Cummins working on?

We know that McKay was trying to get more resources to investigate the murger of a former pro-gun control USA.

We believe (but are we certain?) that Carol Lam was in the midst of a highly sensitive corruption case involving high-lever admin. officials.

What were Bogden, Charlton, Chiara, Iglesias, Ryan and Cummins doing? We need to be looking to the NEXT STEP not at the one behind us. These guys are smart (even if their Chief Executive can't put two coherent words together) and they've been one step ahead of the public since day one. To catch up, someone with the resources to really do some digging needs to see what these fired USAs were working on.

osage wrote on May 4, 2007 11:20 AM:

Under Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales, the Department of Justice, our country's ultimate legal watchdogs, were threatened, paid off and fired United States Attorneys who were investigating Republicans or who wouldn't file baseless actions against Democrats. Nothing could be more corrupt, illegal or evil. Gonzales, Rove, Meirs and Bush should be sent to prison for their treasonable criminal actions. They are all heinous crooks who deserve the fullest punishment the legal system they so malliciously tried to circumvent and subvert provides. My god! What wouldn't they do in their desperate and dispicable efforts to strangle lady justice?

BlueIsland wrote on May 4, 2007 11:25 AM:

Zorro for the Common Good:
What we want is USAs who sacrifice for the sake of their principles, NOT sacrifice ... "for their principals."

You can remember the correct spelling by equating the term "principle" with the word "rule" (as in "golden Rule" or "the rule of law": both end in "le."

Sorry, I'm an editor. Can't help myself!

ROBinDALLAS wrote on May 4, 2007 11:28 AM:

Wow, at first glance I thought Harriet Miers was just an incompetent partisan with a penchant for kissing W's ass. Turns out, she is so much more than that.

It subpoena time.

ROBinDALLAS

Austin Cooper wrote on May 4, 2007 11:30 AM:

"But can anyone doubt now that the MSM is picking up the trail?"
TheraP

Maybe. 'Hollywood Insider'-style coverage of news is worthless without more analysis of the facts ... and reportage which *develops* by showing a context, based on those facts, which becomes the narrative of a larger story.

A news organization which tells its audience that eight U.S. attorneys were fired, mentions politics *may* have played a role and that there will be Congressional inquiries, is being factually accurate but only telling a portion of the story.

Viewers know there's a series of 'scandals'; great. They understand the Rethugs, and "the Bush administration", are involved, even responsible; terrific. But -- a voting population treated as adults, who understand there is a context for all these events is harder to manipulate; Why provide news when 'all people want is popcorn'?

American televised MSM news seems to have either little or no analysis of the news (ABC, NBC, CBS); so much competing analysis that it's a bewildering porridge to the viewer (CNN); bland and too-careful reportage (PBS' 'The News Hour'), or bias so clear and toxic it should be glowing Cherenkov-radiation blue (Fox).

I wish I felt more positive, but it seems more possibile that the true, unfolding shape of our history -- that context and narrative for events -- will be lost in e!-Channel popcorn. That would be fine with those people who believe America should continue to be run as a Theocratic-leaning Kleptocracy, but terrible for us.

The MSM continues to dumb-down, and let down, the nation it's supposed to inform and help to educate.

Code = shame

LimaBN wrote on May 4, 2007 11:31 AM:

$1.5 Million sure sounds like "A million bucks AFTER taxes, and I'm okay with that."

pt wrote on May 4, 2007 11:32 AM:

This is about as close to a bribe as one can get. The law firm of a prospective defendant offers the chief prosecuting attorney in the case a $1.5 million signing bonus. Then the chief prosecuting attorney accepts the signing bonus announcing she is leaving her post "for personal reasons". All this is before Rep. Lewis is indicted. Though she has recused herself from the case, what is to prevent her from divulging the strategy of the prosecutors who have replaced her? This is so blatant such a carrer move should be outlawed. What is to prevent this from becoming the SOP of law firms defending wealthy or powerful clients?

Human/Animal Hybrid wrote on May 4, 2007 11:32 AM:

I seriously doubt that she's worth more than 1.5 cents to any other law firm...This one stinks like a two week old diaper.

othercat68 wrote on May 4, 2007 11:34 AM:

Now that's a great lawyer. You can't just pay off the US Attorney to back off the case so you hire her and then call the pay off a "hiring bonus". Slick move.

RonG wrote on May 4, 2007 11:36 AM:

The case for obstruction of justice by the White House has reached the, to coin a phrase, slam-dunk stage. Let the impeachment begin!

chimp wrote on May 4, 2007 11:40 AM:

I wonder if she felt she had to take the money out of fear for her personal or family safety. This is looking more and more like organized crime. I say get after the administration using RICO.

bryan wrote on May 4, 2007 11:42 AM:

Is it ethical or even legal for prosecutor to quit in the middle of a case and go to work for the firm representing the subject of the investigation?

I know in civil practice, the conflict of interest would disqualify the firms from representing the parties without a written and signed disclosure of conflict.

bluestatedon wrote on May 4, 2007 11:54 AM:

Jerry Lewis is feeling the heat that Yang is bringing, and calls the White House. "Goddammit, Karl, you gotta get that Yang broad off my ass! I warn you, if I go down because of her, I'll start spilling my guts about everything. Don't fuck with me, Karl, don't fuck with me!"

Rove calls Ted Olson. "Ted, we've both got a problem here with the same person, and you've got the solution. Yeah, I'm talking about that damn US attorney Deborah Goddamn Yang or Wong or whatever the hell she is. Listen, she's pissing off Lewis, and he's yapping about what he's going to do if he gets in trouble. No, he's just shooting his mouth off, but we can't take any chances. What Harriet and I need you to do—what the President needs you to do—is to make this go away. Any way you can. I don't care if you have to give her a big fucking box of money, you make goddamn sure she's on board with you guys by October. We can't have her making trouble at election time, right? No, I don't care how much it is... if she wants a million let her have a goddamn million. Or two, I don't give a fuck, just do it. The Party pays you guys enough, I've seen your invoices, and don't give me any crap about how you don't have the dough. OK? Good. Let me know what happens."

Harriet Meiers emails to George Bush. "Mr. President, I just wanted you to know that your blue suit looked especially great today. That tie just matched your eyes, too. Laura is such a lucky woman!!!!!

Fondly, Harriet

PS. Just wanted to let you know that the US Attorney out in LA is resigning to take a wonderful new position with Ted Olson's firm. Jerry Lewis is very happy, and sends his thanks. God Bless!

Sholom wrote on May 4, 2007 11:56 AM:

Obstruction of justice? Maybe. But it's possible that Yang was not too much of a part of it.

The story might simply be the following:

a. DOJ guys tell her she's going to get replaced soon -- she can either get fired or go out on her own terms

b. DOJ guys, behind her back, tell the law firm, "make her a really good offer"

c. She gets the $1.5M offer -- and it's from a GOP firm, and she's GOP, and decides to cash out big-time while she can

Folks, I can't help but think that if Yang was going after Lewis, that she really thought there was some wrongdoing here, and that she wouldn't just "change sides" for the money. So, my suspician is that this is a simple cash-out to a GOP firm, and she perhaps secured promises from them that she be kept away from Lewis-related stuff because it'd be such an obvious ethics violation and people would be looking at it.

Going along with this thread -- my suspicians are that the real crime is not what Yang did (for she quite possibly just made the best of a bad situation), but Meiers et al who wanted for force her out. *Those* are the guys we should be focusing on.

It's not where Yang went that's bad, it's that Yang was getting forced out that's the crime.

(I think.)

queridobobo wrote on May 4, 2007 11:56 AM:

Who says prostitution is illegal?

Bill wrote on May 4, 2007 11:57 AM:

I love how people still think things are just "coincidence" or "I have to see more" ...... wow, its been over 6 years now .... sending our boys to be killed in a war is not problem do you think this stuff would be a problem? when do people start getting a clue. Ambition, get "appointment", get "leverage", use leverage, go to bank, cover your tracks, buy vacation home, Repeat.

Sholom wrote on May 4, 2007 12:02 PM:

re: bluestatedon's comments @ May 4, 2007 11:54 AM

greatly enjoyed it, thanks. I think that fits well with my outline in the post that followed.

casam wrote on May 4, 2007 12:05 PM:

ebmck ; May 4, 2007 11:12 AM
What was Cummins working on?
[snip]
Mark F. "Thor" Hearne of Missouri, was in charge of hiring a high-level White House/DoJ operative to help put out the fire in an investigation by former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins,
Cummins, who was fired without cause shortly after the matter came to public attention, was said to have been looking into a multi-million dollar state fee-office scheme, carried out by Hearne's own Missouri law firm, Lathrop & Gage (L&G), and their client, Missouri's Gov. Matt Blunt.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4494#more-4494

Heh! wrote on May 4, 2007 12:16 PM:

ebmc,

these guys aren't smart as they are cunning and only succeed in the cloak of secrecy. They operate in plain site betraying the trust we, the American people hold them to and that is the real tragedy here. If we don't stand up to it and prosecute it for what it is, the real damage to our system of government has just sunk a little lower. Think of the values it teaches the rest of us if these rule of law, and ethics challenged thugs use tax payer dollars to advance their own little secret mafia.
Yang was coming out of a divorce it was reported here at TPM and she had 2 little kids. I don't fault her for taking the money as she was a single mom coming out of a marriage to a wealthy guy.

I don't doubt the machine to steam roll the American people was fully in place ready to continue and then the 2006 elections put a stop to it. Little by little in the first 3 months of the 109th Congress we've uncovered that our government was being hijacked systematically for the narrow interests of a few but how crazy is that thinking?

Krazy as Karl is Krazy fox. oh and EVIL

section321 wrote on May 4, 2007 12:17 PM:

The Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Los Angeles office was and is again the home of former US Customs Commisioner Robert Bonner.

Yes, I would say they have strong ties to this administration.

Eddie-George wrote on May 4, 2007 12:17 PM:

Whoaa. I'm a lawyer, and that large a signing bonus is really odd in the circumstances.

Big-shot lawyers will pick off these sorts signing bonuses when they move between firms because they bring their client relationships with them (yeah, they aren't supposed to, but they do).

But a former federal prosecutor, who brings no clients with her, and for whom the increase in salary alone would be enough of a carrot, would normally not be presented with such an extra incentive. Unless there's a particularly outstanding part of Wong Yang's CV, that signing bonus looks way outside the norm.

And yes, the codeword is "smell". As in, fishy.

TheraP wrote on May 4, 2007 12:21 PM:

BlueIsland:

Your correction gave me this thought:

We want individuals ready to sacrifice for their "principles" - not their "principals."

This puts it in a nutshell.

LaAtty wrote on May 4, 2007 12:22 PM:

Yang's case is a complicated one. On the one hand, she was a darling of the Republicans -- a rare commodity as a woman and a minority -- and she spent much of her time in DC at DOJ. The higher-ups at DOJ liked her. She was considered a rising star when she came on board.

On the other hand, while she was in office, the office did have a number of high-profile cases that didn't sit well with Republicans (the Lewis case, and an espionage case against a major Republican donor, Katrina Leung, come to mind). But she had little to do with these cases, other than the fact that she was in charge of the office while other AUSAs were running the investigations. Unlike Carol Lam, she was not personally involved in these investigations. (Though rumor has it she did sit on on Lewis-related meetings while the offer from GDC was pending.)

It should also be noted that there were real performance problems with Yang -- a la Kevin Ryan in the Northern District. She was an absentee US Attorney who displayed little leadership and who failed to save the office from a severe budget crunch, despite her DOJ and Republican ties. The office's numbers plummeted during her tenure across the board (though budget had much to do with this). Morale was not great under her tenure.

Finally, she went through a divorce while in the office and it was no secret well before she actually left that she was looking to cash in. There was speculation about her imminent departure for at least two years before she actually left.

So it's a complicated case. The most likely scenario is that she was planning on leaving sometime soon anyway, Republican party operatives got to Miers and complained about the cases in the office, some friends at DOJ tipped her off, and helped arrange a soft landing. Given the complexity, there may not be a lot of traction here from a scandal perspective, but perhaps something lurks in Miers' reasons for trying to get her fired.

The office is being run by an interim U.S. Attorney who's been with the office for many years, and there's been no shift in priorities and no noticeable change in any significant cases, other than the continued -budget crisis.

smoore wrote on May 4, 2007 12:26 PM:

Security code: blood--as in it's time to draw blood on this whole caper. Jail time for contempt and other "enticements" are due. The republic is in a heap of trouble and the "real" heroes will prevent the US from becoming just another banana republic type "democracy." Anyone want to bet money that the former USA from New Mexico will be a US senator in the future with votes from both parties? Can we start the hero list here? Cause we sure do need em'

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 12:27 PM:

Yes. The bribers, way more than the bribee. The Miers-Olson connection.

code "keep", as in she'll ...

Pete Moss wrote on May 4, 2007 12:36 PM:

Ok everybody calm down.

Lets look at some big city US attorney's over the last 10 years - where did they go and what kind of signing bonuses did they get.
The let's look at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, over the last few years - what kind of bonuses did they pay for experienced attorneys.
I'm sure the LA legal community knows to the penny what the going rate is for experienced attorneys.

Then we can have some perspective and judge whether this deal is out of the ordinary.

JamesRobert wrote on May 4, 2007 12:37 PM:

Oh, yeah, get that Yang girl under oath, IMMEDIATELY!

JamesRobert wrote on May 4, 2007 12:39 PM:

Pete Moss (har-har) your call for calm is admirable, and of course only a calm SUBPOENA and a calm QUESTIONING of Ms. Yang is needed. But come on, the timing of this sudden job shift and the circumstances surrounding it -- they do warrant a little rise in blood pressure, don't you think?

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 12:42 PM:

smoore,

yes, David Iglesias could be Senator of NM and he should run against Pete Domenici if he doesn't retire, but he has stated he is not interested and when asked if he still wanted to be a Republican, he said yes. Moral of this story, he's an ethical public servant who happens to be Republican

BlueIsland wrote on May 4, 2007 12:43 PM:

TheraP:
Perfect play on words! Indeed.

NAMM wrote on May 4, 2007 12:44 PM:

It seems to me that it's time to revive the Noel Hillman incident, which has many disturbing parallels to the Yang case. Hillman, if you'll recall, was the chief of DoJ's Office of Public Integrity, in charge of the Abramoff investigation. The WH nominated him in Jan 2006 to a federal judgeship--highly suspicious timing for the 2006 elections and the investigation itself. There was mild outrage about the Hillman nomination at the time, but pre-Gonzogate, hardly anyone seemed willing to call the WH move what it so obviously (even then) was: A clear attempt to subvert the criminal justice process and blunt the political impact of the corruption probe. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone go back and take a look at the Hillman case, because it is CLEARLY relevant to what's happening now. Go back and so some reporting about ALL USAs who have left office during the Bush era, including the ones who got judgeships & big jobs like Yang. What were they working on when they quit their USA jobs? What happened to those cases? Who were they replaced by?

Re Hillman, have the House or Senate committees tried to talk to him?

Jimmerson wrote on May 4, 2007 12:46 PM:

Taking the signing bonus & jumping to the same side you were investigating reeks a foul odor.She should be issued a subponea.How is it not obstructing justice for Yang now to go to bat for the same side she was charged with investigating ?
Below her denial that she left on her on seems more is at play here.

marblex wrote on May 4, 2007 12:46 PM:

The entire federal government MUST be purged.

Legislation first must be enacted to limit individual recovery in "discrimination" or "discharge" suits.
Then

Throw em all out.

CLEAN SWEEP 2008

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 12:48 PM:

Why did Miers want Yang out? Why should Miers care one way or the other about what happens to Lewis (R-CA)?

Charles Bowman wrote on May 4, 2007 12:50 PM:

It seems to me that we should look at the gigantic law firm that purchased her! They knew that often the appearance of wrongdoing is far worse than actually doing wrong. They knew that they would be scrutinized by the blogs, newspapers, tv news, and all of the media. They knew that there would be Congressional hearings and that the cost to them would be very dear! In spite of such obvious reasons for not doing it, they paid the gigantic bonus and took her on. Only the severest pressure could have made them do it! The same kind of desperate pressure that the White House felt before it actuated the attorney firings. The tinhorns from Texas were beginning to suspect the worst from the coming elections!

modmom wrote on May 4, 2007 12:56 PM:

WAIT THERE'S MORE! (from DU's Hollinholler):

But wait! There's More!

Douglas M. Fuchs will join the firm's Los Angeles office as of counsel (sic). Fuchs was previously an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California, where he served as Deputy Chief of the Major Frauds Section. - Forbes

As a bonus, let me throw in this!

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that Maurice Suh, the former Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles will join the firm as partner in the Los Angeles office.

Previously, Suh has served as the former Deputy Chief of the Public Corruption and Government Fraud Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and was a partner at Howrey LLP. Suh will focus his practice at Gibson Dunn on complex commercial litigation, internal corporate investigations, and defense of government investigation and enforcement actions. Suh will also work with partner Robert Bonner, the former head of the Customs Department and a former federal judge, in the firm’s fast-growing homeland security practice.

So I guess if you can't beat them, buy them.
-snip
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hootinholler

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 1:06 PM:

A 1.5 million dollar signing bonus?!!!!!!!! I know lawyers get paid but damn, that's an offer that can't be refused by a USA. Definitely makes one wonder if this hire wasn't made to make Bush/Rove/Miers happy. Not only bring in Yang to testify but bring in every single person at the law firm who helped in deciding to hire her and give her that bonus. Seriously. Might not be able to prove anything but it sure looks suspicious as hell.

ShorelineCT wrote on May 4, 2007 1:12 PM:

http://www.answers.com/topic/jerry-lewis-politician

...In 2006, Lewis ran against Louie Contreras, the owner of an insurance brokerage company.[3] In October 2006 it was reported that Lewis had more than $800,000 of his campaign funds to pay Los Angeles-based law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, for the services of its lawyers.[3]...snip

Josh has reported on this issue before. Note that this $800K figure was from OCT 2006. Last time I checked, the total was closer to $1M. Thanks of course to "excess" camgaign contributions!

Miwest Lawyer wrote on May 4, 2007 1:17 PM:

As a partner in a lawfirm, I have some sense of the value of a lawyer. A 1.5 million dollar signing bonus is enormous, but possibly legitimate. If a lawyer has a stable of clients that will generate revenue for wherever he works, he would have to be paid a signing bonus to bring that client (and stream of revenue) to a new firm. The money for such a signing bonus would likely be borrowed by the firm, with the loan paid back from the expected additional revenue.

The obvious problem here is that Ms. Yang likely had no such clients, as she was a prosecutor. Also, if she's not bringing a promise of future revenue, how would the firm expect to pay back the 1.5 million? I would bet they got the money from the same people who were greasing Rep. Lewis for government contracts.

Harriet Miers wrote on May 4, 2007 1:20 PM:

So is this the equivalent of Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, offering Patrick Fitzgerald a $1.5 million signing bonus to quit as special prosecutor and come work for him?

steambomb wrote on May 4, 2007 1:27 PM:

Gee it looks like we have a third world style corrupt government operating on a parallel track. I dont doubt the Democrats sincerety in trying to clean it up but I do wonder how much of it will be left under the rug when the dust settles.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 4, 2007 1:30 PM:

A few months ago, it was suggested that it was unusual in LA to pay hiring bonuses to new lateral partners who had no book of business. After fifteen years in the govt., Yang would have had no business to bring in. Yet, Gibson, Dunn paid Yang $1.5 million.

Yang is regarded as a straight shooter. With her resume, and legal and management experience as a highly competent litigator and US Attonery, she would have been attractive to almost any firm in the country. Given bar admission rules and personal preferences, she would have looked first at local or California firms.

The most convincing hypothesis I've heard is this. Miers and Rove, and by extension, the Mehlmans, etc., put out feelers and got a few bites. They do this all the time, so it may have appeared to most observers that this was not out of the ordinary, but rather just someone in whom the administration put great store in taking care of. But a Ken Mehlman clone at GD may know a lot more.

Gibson, Dunn was the best placed firm and came up with the most cash. Yang looked at several offers and the logic behind the GD offer was the best. She jumped ship before waiting to learn whether rumors that the DOJ was about to snatch the gang plank out from under her were true.

This fits Yang's reputation and the Rovian method. It fits neatly into the thread of slowing down her investigations, possibly derailing them, as "new blood" is brought in and things get stalled during the transition.

New blood may have been up and down Yang's former chain of command, too. The Rovians would have planned on using authority granted to Goodling to approve all new hires for Yang's acting or interim replacement. Presto, several derailed investigations, including one in particular. Like Christie's ABC Murders, the best way to hide one murder is to do it amongst a lot of unrelated ones.

Mark Kernes wrote on May 4, 2007 1:33 PM:

While it may be true that Yang was ousted over attempts to investigate Rep. jerry Lewis, your reporting has missed another equqally valid reason for the DOJ to get rid of her: Her failure to embrace the administration's war on pornography.

On Aug. 29, 2006, Brent Ward, head of the DOJ's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, wrote to Matthew Friedrich, Chief of Staff and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, bemoaning what he described as the "failure" of the task force's mission.

According to the emails, Ward saw the failure as traceable to both the USAs in the field and to the FBI, both of which, he claimed, were refusing to follow the investigation and prosecution strategies developed in Washington.

As I wrote on AVN.com:

"If we can't resolve it soon," Ward wrote to Friedrich, "the difficulty of getting USA [U.S. Attorney] cooperation in key districts is going to lead to a showdown with the FBI. Once the FBI realized that CDCA ["Central District of California" – referring to Debra W. Yang, the U.S. Attorney for that area, who "resigned" in October, 2006 to join a Los Angeles law firm] straight-armed us on our Orange County case (which has been hanging for 4-5 months) and once the WFO SAC [Washington Field Office Special Agent in Charge] and I sat in a meeting with Paul Charlton in Phoenix and heard him thumb his nose at us, the Bureau knew this obscenity initiative could be heading for disaster."

At least three USAs -- Yang, Charlton and Daniel Bogden of Nevada -- were targeted at least in part for their refusal to toe the administration line on prosecuting sellers of adult material, but so far, the mainstream media has ignored the evidence in the emails of this practice.

L-A wrote on May 4, 2007 1:36 PM:

I have to say, I don't think it's really fair to go off on Yang without knowing what kind of pressure she was subjected to. Maybe she did just take a buy-out and sell her soul - but it's also quite possible that they threatened to destroy her career if she stayed or talked. So, get forced and have no career, or get forced out and get paid a million and a half dollars and continue doing the kind of work you love? And no, she wouldn't have brought a book of business with her, but being a former U.S. prosecuting attorney is a pretty good draw all on its own, and a feather in a law firm's cap, so to speak.

At the time she took the job with the law firm, no one knew all this stuff would come out, and she probably had no idea it was happening to anyone else. So, she feels completely isolated and has no reason to believe anyone would credit her version (i.e., that she was fired for investigating Republican corruption). Yes, going to work for that law firm would put a really bad taste in your mouth, but it's a big firm, and with the firewall they put between her and potential conflicts, it would have been like working for a different firm anyway.

So, maybe she sold her soul - but maybe she just took the lesser of two evils. Just a thought.

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 1:37 PM:

mbbsdphil,

What you've written makes the most sense so far. But is still begs the question: why did Miers want Yang out of there? I seriously doubt Miers cares one iota what happens to Lewis.

VJB wrote on May 4, 2007 1:38 PM:

I wish I were a republican. I could use the money.

modmom wrote on May 4, 2007 1:43 PM:

The fact that it wasn't just Yang but Douglas M. Fuchs , Assistant U.S. Attorney with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Central District of California, where he served as Deputy Chief of the Major Frauds Section; and Maurice Suh, former Deputy Chief of the Public Corruption and Government Fraud Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles raise the question on whether the firm hired to defend Lewis was attempting to dismantle the investigation.

This coupled that she brought no clientele to the table raises some serious questions.

observor wrote on May 4, 2007 1:46 PM:

Lurker: Miers didn't care about Lewis? Geez, he was chair of Appropriations, raised a fortune for Bush and they were going to lose the House. Can't you see NOW why everyone in the White House dreaded that?

mbbsdphil wrote on May 4, 2007 1:49 PM:

Neither Ms. Miers, nor the late Rose Kennedy, were kindly, gentle old women. Ms. Miers became the first woman partner at a major law firm in Texas, and the first woman presidnet of the Texas Bar Association.

She is not a shrinking violet pouring tea on sunny late afternoons. She is an energetic, highly ambitious political animal, well versed in the kindly ways of Texas law and politics.

She was well above her talents in seeking a spot on the Supreme Court, but well within them in ruthlessly rearranging a few bureaucratic chairs for strategic ends considered vital by her powerful male clients. Something she has show stunning credentials in dealing with.

Innocent Bystander wrote on May 4, 2007 1:52 PM:

Strangely enough, Mr. Lewis owes the law firm close to a mil....

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 2:00 PM:

At least three USAs -- Yang, Charlton and Daniel Bogden of Nevada -- were targeted at least in part for their refusal to toe the administration line on prosecuting sellers of adult material, but so far, the mainstream media has ignored the evidence in the emails of this practice.
Posted by: Mark Kernes

Bullshit, at least in the case of Bogden. In fact, I think that the Ward emails might have been made to help give cover for the firings. In his letter Bogden shoots down every allegation made by Ward- Ward's charges in the case of Bogden were flimsy at best. In fact, Bogden met with him and agreed to work with him. When you hear Bogden's take on the Ward emails you cannot help but be suspicious as to what Ward was up to. I would really like to see what relationship Ward had with Goodling and those in the White House who decided to fire the attorneys. I'm fairly certain his emails were simply made to provide cover- he's yet another person I would like to see under oath.

parrot wrote on May 4, 2007 2:00 PM:

Drag those through the streets who showed poor judgement...or worse, much, much worse.

I'd rather have The People do it and show remorse later...than have the King do it and show none at all.

--parrot

ebmck wrote on May 4, 2007 2:07 PM:

bluestatedon,

Thanks for the highly humorous mock-up of the Rove-Olsen, Bush-Meiers conversations.

I agree with whoever it was that suggested that it would be a conflict of interest for Yang to go to work for the firm that was defending the guy she's investigating. It goes without saying that she has info that would be useful to his defense -- things she wouldn't be obligated to turnover to them while she's a USA, but might "feel" obligated to turn over as a now-highly-paid employee of the firm providing Lewis' defense. It seems like she's put herself in a highly vulnerable situation. Ever if she decided to act with a shed of decency and keep mum on everything she knows -- there would always be questions about her involvement.

Maybe the plan was to have her resign from justice, hire her an excuse to pay her off. We shoudl watch this woman's carrer for the next few months and see where she ends up.

For her sake, I hope it's not in a dumpster somewhere in LA.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 4, 2007 2:08 PM:

I have to agree with Observor @ 1.46 pm. The Lewis investigation had spread to the House Appropriations Committee, its appropriations processes, possibly other Committee members and House seats, to the CIA and Defense Depts. The center of the Bush spider web of corruption and false claims for war, and false claims of the need for and cost of privatizing war and the federal govt. Lewis would be a Very Big Fish; if he talked, he'd be a whale.

mbbsdphil wrote on May 4, 2007 2:15 PM:

As for how Gibson, Dunn will recover the $1.5 million paid to Yang, it's not unusual for a white shoe firm tender a bill for "services rendered". Like Ms. Palfrey. For high-profile white collar criminal defense work, I would be even less surprised to see a "value bill" like that.

After all, for some reason the law (written by - wait for it - Congress) allows a Member of Congress to use campaign contributions to pay for his or her legal defense. There appears to be no exception for things like bribery or corruption of office, etc. An ordinary citizen might regard that lack of exceptions as an invitation to do exactly those things.

mo2 wrote on May 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

Recall the January 9, 2006 memo, showing Sampson's plan to "work quietly with targeted U.S. Attorneys to encourage them to leave government service voluntarily; this would allow targeted U.S. attorneys to make arrangements for work in the private sector and 'save face' regarding the reason for leaving office, both in the Department of Justice and in their local legal communities."

Also, where is Randall Humm now? Did he get a cush position when he left Justice in 2003?

centavo wrote on May 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

To me, integrity is not just avoiding evil but avoiding the appearance of evil.

No one says she was barred from getting a job to support her kids. But it's hard to imagine she didn't know who this firm was, and their ties to high-level Republicans, including one that had been on her prosecutorial radar. The $1.5 million signing bonus should have been a neon sign, if she needed one.

Even if her motivations were pure as the driven snow, her ethics and principles will and always should be in question.

WB Lynch wrote on May 4, 2007 2:21 PM:

I'm so disgusted with these Corruptlicans.

When will it end? Why aren't they in prison?

code word: Brain, as in Brain-dead corruptlicans.

parrot wrote on May 4, 2007 2:24 PM:

I think what folks are missing here is the way power and law firms work. It does not matter whether or not she ever does say anything. What matters is that when it comes to making a deal, Ms. Yang potentially knows things and the people dealing with the firm from the outside will feel pressure to do what they're told as a result.

Let's look at the Lewis case. Whether the hiring was legit or not--and I doubt that it was--the effect on morale at Ca. Central District on this particular case has gotten to have taken a hit from the loss of the two main folks in that district to the defending firm. Here is where the issue of ethics and disbarment come in.

The principles involved in the deal can't say anything either way since anything, and I mean anything they say, brings attention to the deal.

If Yang isn't called this year, I'm imagining that next March the issue of this alleged payoff will be back in the news in time to ensure a Dem landslide.

regular lurker wrote on May 4, 2007 2:32 PM:

I'm beginning to wonder if Miers was desperate to get Yang out because she didn't want Yang and Lam to talk and connect some dots.

That's why I question why Miers wanted Yang out. I think there's more behind Miers motivation than just protecting Lewis.

t-bone wrote on May 4, 2007 2:33 PM:

"Yes, going to work for that law firm would put a really bad taste in your mouth, but it's a big firm, and with the firewall they put between her and potential conflicts, it would have been like working for a different firm anyway."

If you believe that some supposed "firewall" would have insulated the insider knowledge Yang brought to the party from benefitting the Lewis defense, you probably also believe that Mr. Tobias had the gals from Pamela Martin Associates over to the condo just for massages.

Security code: glove. As in: If the glove fits, you must nail their lying asses to the wall.

observor wrote on May 4, 2007 3:22 PM:

If you want confirmation that this site is vital, check out the WSJ Law Blog interview with the GD&C partner -- from Churchill Downs. It would be funny if it wasn't an insult to your intelligence.

Mikey T. wrote on May 4, 2007 3:36 PM:

Trackback...

http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2007_05_01_goose3five_archive.html#3094073696473869447

How It Works For Republicans

TPM Muckraker has the breakdown on the jaw dropping NYT piece about Debra Wang Yang, the former US Attorney in California's Central District (Los Angeles).

Turk Meister wrote on May 4, 2007 3:36 PM:

Here's another interesting little coincidence. Yang's office was in charge of the prosecution of Katrina Leung, a CA GOP fundraiser accused of spying for the Chinese government who had her case dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct. This case was a major embarassment to the FBI as well as having ties back to the FBI's investigation of Bill Clinton.

Now I'm not saying the prosecuton was purposefully botched, but it does seem that a rudimentary violation of a defendant's rights to a fair trial does cause some suspicion.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 4:00 PM:

Holy shit! I had never heard of Katrina Leung and just read about her case on Wikipedia. WTF is going on?! By the way, it looks like conservatives keep removing all reference to Leung's GOP ties on the Wikipedia page about her- at least judging by the discussion page.

Ricardo wrote on May 4, 2007 4:44 PM:

Give me $1.5mil and I will get off Jerry Lewis' case too.

Nah!

marblex wrote on May 4, 2007 5:05 PM:

CLEAN SWEEP 2008

Warty wrote on May 4, 2007 5:23 PM:

To provide scale: the $1.5 mil "bonus" is just under the average $1.64 million 2005 compensation for partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The other partners' profits are measured against work they bring in.

Maybe the firm figured that the R's had plenty of "Crisis Management" work to keep her busy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_11_29/ai_n18766246/pg_2

harper wrote on May 4, 2007 5:46 PM:

Yesterday, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former DAG James Comey mentioned the unsolved 2001 murder of pro-gun-control AUSA Thomas Crane Wales, W.D. Wash. AUSA Wales was shot through his basement window as he sat at a computer. ebmuck mentioned this murder at 11:12 a.m. above (as did another post on, if memory serves, tpmmuckraker that I can't now find). What dots might be connectable with the reported

(1) odd July and September 2004 deaths in N.D.Tex. of two outstanding AUSAs -- Thelma Quince Colbert, 55, chief of the Civil Enforcement Unit, Fort Worth, found dead in her swimming pool on 20 July 2004, and Shannon K. Ross, 44, Criminal Chief, Dallas, found dead in her home on 11 September 2004, the day before Senate hearings on health care antitrust, and

(2) the resignation or firing shortly thereafter of three N.D. Tex. AUSAs conducting the same investigation as they?

This was reportedly a 1 1/2 half year old investigation of medical supply giant Novation and others for "health care fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, theft or bribery involving programs receiving federal funds, obstruction of investigations and other possible violations" per blogger Tom Flocco, www.tomflocco.com.

Novation, "the industry’s leading health care contracting services company" per www.novationco.com, has a component in Irving, Texas, about 13 miles from Dallas.

Most of the material above is from Flocco's 30 April 2007 post: "Texas assistant U.S. attorney deaths raise foul play questions; DOJ news reports, press releases scrubbed from web while autopsies and death certificates raise questions related to national Medicare fraud probe."

Novation is reportedly represented by Vinson & Elkins, LLP, A.G. Gonzales's former firm.

Novation was also reportedly under investigation by the USAO in W.D. Missouri when DOJ voting rights foe Bradley Schlozman was appointed there in March 2006 as interim U.S. Attorney. (I've read, somewhere, that that investigation went nowhere. Does anyone know?)

Apparently The New York Times for 21 Aug. 2004 ran an extensive story, byline Mary Williams Walsh, on the Novation Medicare fraud investigation.

Per Flocco, Novation also has a recent Bush connection. Last month brother Jeb became a member of the Board of Directors of Tenet Healthcare, itself a "member" -- whatever that means -- of Novation.

Posts above suggested plotting out where departing U.S. Attorneys nationwide have gone, what investigations they had going at the time, and what had happened with these.

I'm getting interested also in what's happened to AUSAs and their investigations. Just how sure are we that the Department has not taken on shades of The Firm?

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 5:47 PM:

$1.64 million per year is an arithmetical average for work performed, billed and paid. Yang came in cold. Yang wouldn't produce $1.5 million extra profit for Gibson Dunn, let alone that much after overhead and a dollop to share with other partners, for quite some time.

The money for Yang was taken out of firm assets, money that might otherwise have resulted in that much in distributable profits to partners. $1.5 million doesn't mean as much in the high-end law practice in LA as it might in say, Demoines, but somebody still paid a lot of money for something they won't get a return on for quite some time.

No, Yang's value to Gibson, Dunn was indirect and potential. Somebody was doing somebody else a big favor, but they still expected to be reimbursed.

Anonymous wrote on May 4, 2007 6:33 PM:

Scum, scum, scum - these people are all scum. Look at her picture - so 'nice'. 1.5M - what are ordinary working-class people to think? Those who have more skills and abilities, instead of contributing to society, are just fleecing it.

Adam C. wrote on May 4, 2007 7:16 PM:

I once saw a great TV documentary series focused on Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Of course, in the show the L.A. law firm was actually referred to by the pseudonym "Wolfram & Hart".

(...anyone seen Yang's reflection in a mirror lately?)

Ross Best wrote on May 4, 2007 8:23 PM:

So maybe the Department of Justice should have a meaningful policy against revolving doors to prohibit buyouts of prosecutors.

AnneW wrote on May 4, 2007 8:27 PM:

Katrina Leung, Chinese double agent...a major Republican fund raiser in California...sleeping with a former FBI agent (Bill Cleveland) and stealing files from his briefcase regarding security at Lawrence Livermore? That Katrina Leung? Then supposedly giving info to China? That Ms. Leung? Sleeping with yet another FBI agent who gets in trouble and whom she posesses information from?

The Ms. Leung-R that seems to be the person that falsely implicated the scientist at Los Alamos, Wen Ho Lee, that made Clinton look so bad?

Wow. I had no idea the case had been dropped, I thought it was just being ignored because it didn't make a liberal look bad.

west coaster wrote on May 4, 2007 10:13 PM:

Nothing new, I've posted here before and e-mailed TPM about the Lewis connections to the Duke Cunningham scandal. With a number of powerful Republicans complaining to the White House (in some cases to Rove directly) about investigations and prosecutions of Republicans, it would be hard to believe that Lewis who was Chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee didn't join that chorus since he was under investigation. Equally hard to believe is that Lewis had no hand in dumping both Carole Lam in San Diego and in creating the sweet parachute given to Debra Wang Yang in Los Angeles to get Yang out as her office was directly investigating him.

The US Attorney scandal is getting to the point where a special prosecutor should be appointed and if laws were broken indictments should be sought.

JulieL wrote on May 4, 2007 10:42 PM:

Sorry, I can't buy that this woman had no idea that the firm was representing Lewis. She'd WORKED on the case, after all, if only peripherally.

This stinks like a 3 day old dead fish. As others had pointed out, she just ain't worth $1.5 mil to any law firm...EXCEPT one she could help with a high-profile client.

I don't blame her for grabbing the money in itself. And I do think she was scared. But really...it's not like she couldn't get a job, although not for the big bucks at first. USA on your resume means something. It seems she could have quietly resigned, promised to keep quiet, and turn up at some law firm or other, likely for more pay than she'd earned as a USA

Security Code: fear. Bingo.

Whistler wrote on May 4, 2007 11:02 PM:

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a sense of irony over the firing date of December 7th? (The anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack; and the US's involvement in World War II.)

As to lawyers and scandals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate#Aftermath

They just can't help themselves, can they?

I think this country needs "None of the above" on every ballot that has a person involved. It is the only way to clean out this nest of vipers.

mark mywords wrote on May 5, 2007 8:51 AM:

A 1.5 million dollar singing bonus?
She should be on American Idle!!!

Oh... signing bonus?
Then she should be on The GOP National Committee

Of course, she did teach at USC, home of the $.

Ying Yang wrote on May 5, 2007 8:58 AM:

DWongYang @ gibsondunn.com

213 229 7472

If you don't agree with her actions,
you can always just drop her a line to discuss this... I feel certain she can explain what happened.

JM wrote on May 5, 2007 10:24 AM:

"Greedy, shameful"--in other words, REPUBLICAN.

Security code: profit. Hah.

jgmurphy wrote on May 5, 2007 10:33 AM:

? How did Yang rate a bribe when everyone else was unceremoniously kicked out the door? Man, she must have some SERIOUS poop in HER files!

JM wrote on May 5, 2007 10:42 AM:

Let me see if I get this straight: the US attorney who is prosecuting a Republican Congressman leaves the US Attorney's office and goes to work for his DEFENSE firm? How can that be legal?

Security code: hope, as in I hope it's not legal.

PJ White wrote on May 5, 2007 11:10 AM:

Bluestatedon: How's that film script coming along? I love what I've read so far. Seriously. I could picture it happening just as you outlined it.

This situation stinks so bad I have steel myself to read the new installments. It`s a real cliff-hanger. Are we going to get out of this with any semblance of a democracy left?

sc: screw. No kidding. Need I say more? It would just be gilding the lily.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 5, 2007 12:16 PM:

If the Democrats are to have any effect on the culture of corruption that has been the Republican congress, they MUST follow every bit of evidence of corruption and prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law.

It will be the only way to restore the Honor of America after the most corrupt Administration in history. We must change what has become the perception of America abroad from one of fear, back to one of ADMIRATION.

TruthSpeaksVolumes wrote on May 6, 2007 1:38 PM:

Republican Recipes:

Recipe 2

Fudgy Brownies

Use only choice white, black or mixture of chocolates [ie. A small, chocolate-covered candy with a hard or soft centers]

Find significant grouping of secretary of state and ASA nuts

Sprinkle them liberally throughout as many states as possible

Apply heat, let simmer until coming to a boil
Remove from Heat as quickly as possible to avoid scorching

Hush Crumb Cake

Take 1 republican in a 'Floury' position of influence

Pursue 'Sugary' interests against your own political party

Publicize the initial 'Sweet' findings
Mix and repeat

Serving Styles:

Plan A:
Guarantee yourself 'ample helpings' of Hush money

Show future reciprocity potential as 'drippy gooey' SC nominee

Plan B:
If no 'luscious' party hush money offered, take down the 'slimy big cheese' who failed to take care of BUSINESS

Write a 'salty acidic' book and collect 'irresistibly scrumptious' hero money

JessWonderin wrote on May 6, 2007 3:32 PM:

AW-FUC-KEEN-MAZE-ZINE!!!
Connecting the dots makes my head explode!
No manner of drugs, cash and liquor mixed with sloppy hookers and fat sheep could enduce a screen writer to come up with this story line . . .

Get some WD40 for the guittine . . . gonna need ALOT!

code word: wrong . . as in NO SHIT!

Jim whitby wrote on May 7, 2007 6:51 PM:

This is six months old news - why did it take so long for it to be reported? Also, what has Lewis to show for his already spent million bucks from his campaign fund to this criminal law firm? - not a cent from his personal money. He goes cashless yet he spends over $500,000 on Wash D.C. restaurant bills and ordered Pitza - Sure. The cheapest careerist on the hill. Famous for stiffing everyone with the check. Those cash $9999. "bricks" come in handy for tips though. How many a day can you get without having to report them? - No limit.