Prosecutor Purge Avalanche: Basic Facts And Update
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on March 22nd, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Corruption, General GonzoFirst, on the principle that more people read posts than comments (especially now that we have been forced to drop “Recent Comments” from the front page), I’m recycling some basic facts from the comments to yesterday’s post, Defending the President’s Defense of Buttercheeks.
One, the Bush propaganda corps has been working overtime trying to convince everyone that firing these eight prosecutors was routine and normal, this is what every administration has always done, replace incumbent U.S. Attorneys. This is, to steal Tony Snow’s ungrammatical phrase, flat false. What is common is to replace U.S. Attorneys only when a new administration takes office. You replace the incumbents appointed by the previous administration. That’s what everyone does. That’s what Bush did in 2000. That’s not what the current prosecutor purge avalanche is about at all. No administration has ever done this type of wholesale replacement of U.S. Attorneys in the middle of its term of office. Not at the beginning of its second term of office, not at any other time. This is a truly unprecedented event. Only an administration with absolutely no regard for the independence of the Justice Department, only an administration with absolutely no regard for the appearance of impropriety, could bring you this. Apparently, we have never had such an administration till we perpetrated Bush 43 on ourselves.
Two, these fired prosecutors were not Clinton appointees, they were all Bush’s own handpicked appointees from 2000, as dear leader himself attested on Tuesday :
I’m sorry this, frankly, has bubbled to the surface the way it has, for the U.S. attorneys involved. I really am. These are — I put them in there in the first place; they’re decent people. They serve at our pleasure. And yet, now they’re being held up into the scrutiny of all this, and it’s just — what I said in my comments, I meant about them. I appreciated their service, and I’m sorry that the situation has gotten to where it’s got. But that’s Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there’s a lot of politics in this town.
This is not about replacing prosecutors appointed by a previous administration. This is about replacing prosecutors who refused to play ball and do the dirty stuff they were leaned upon to do, prosecutors who refused to sell out the public trust and be loyal Bushies.
Three, this scandal is really about one thing only: the Bush regime’s brazen determination to operate the Justice Department as an instrument of political revenge, as a department of dirty tricks. This is what led to the firings, this is what led to the lies to the public, this is what led to the perjury before Congress.
I’m totally fed up of all the Democrats who have been popping up on TV and soft-pedalling the question: “Is there a crime here?” The only thing that really matters at this stage is that there is more than enough evidence of wrong-doing at the highest levels of our government to warrant a thorough investigation. But, yes, you bet there is a crime here!
It is perfectly clear that senior administration officials have lied to Congressional committees under oath. They have lied about the reasons for the firings. They have lied about the facts and circumstances surrounding the firings. Lying under oath is perjury. And perjury, sir, is a crime.
It is also clear that there has been a massive White House and Justice Department conspiracy to a) subvert the machinery of justice, b) lie about it and c) cover up everything. Last time I looked, perjury in the course of such a high-level governemnt conspiracy is regarded as a serious offense, much more serious than impeachable offenses like lying about a private consensual sex act.
Secondly, here’s a nice little list of unanswered questions about the purge:
They couldn’t decide whether (and which) prosecutors were actually bad at their jobs. They can’t explain why Justice Department officials lied to Congress. They can’t explain why White House officials can’t testify under oath. They can’t explain what role the president had in the firings. They can’t explain what role the Attorney General had in the firings. They can’t explain the meaning of the phrase “loyal Bushies.†They can’t explain the 18-day document gap. They can’t explain why they can’t explain.
That summarizes pretty nicely where we are today. And why this thing isn’t going away any time soon. That’s why Bush is making a big mistake by choosing to support Gonzo (always assuming that when Bush says he supports a cabinet member, he really means he supports him, instead of, say, “I’ve already picked out a successor” (John Snow) or “The dude will be gone within the week” (Donald Rumsfeld)).
In other news, Sen. Chuck Schumer on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown last night borrowed my turban and opined that Alberto “Buttercheeks” Gonzo’s going to be gone pretty damn soon. (Transcript not available yet. I’ll insert the quote and link as soon as it is.)
The funniest, saddest comment on the Bush administration to emerge from all this ox-crap? Apparently, they’re having trouble persuading any of their top choices to replace Gonzo to actually accept the job:
President Bush on Tuesday called Gonzales, offering a public show of support. And White House press secretary Tony Snow said that news reports about a search for a replacement were “flat false.”
But people involved in the process to sound out potential replacements for Gonzales said they had not talked to Snow. A GOP loyalist close to the White House said the process went on ice after Bush made his call to Gonzales. “They were reaching out,” the operative said. “Now, we’re in lockdown. We’re just waiting. They’ve reached out to everyone they need to reach out to and are waiting to get a ‘yes’ from someone.”
The operative assumption, the GOP source said, is that Gonzales will go but that he will do so on his own schedule. The first stage in finding a replacement is gauging who is available among the well-established lawyers under consideration, most of whom have previously been confirmed by the Senate. “I think it is going to come down to who is willing to take the job,” said the source.
Just think about that for one effing minute. Of all the people they’ve talked to, no one is eager to be the next Attorney General of the United States Of America in the (remaining) time of Bush.
JimC wrote:
From the beginning, I really didn’t care about this story and figured that there must be something to this scandal because the President “purged†US attorneys and I have never heard of the past history of such things before, surely there must be some wrong doing here that W has done. But then I heard about Clinton’s firing of all the US attorneys when he took office, so I questioned the reasoning behind the criticism. After a while, the criticism evolved into that it was not illegal or even wrong, in fact it was the Presidential right to fire any and all US Attorneys whenever he so chooses, it was just “unusualâ€. Even Dan Rather and Martha Raddatz said on Bill Maher’s HBO show this last week, It is not unusual for the President to fire US Attorneys, but it is unusual to do so in the second term. So now it is not that he did anything wrong or illegal, but he did something unusual. Hmmm, ok, so is there really something to look into here? Well, it seems that the email exchanges from the underlings did not match the underling’s testimonies given to Congress. So if I understand this correctly, this is the real meat of this scandal.
It is not that W did anything illegal or wrong in firing the attorneys, even if it was purely political reasons, it was his Presidential authority to remove any of them at any time; no it is because the reasoning given was not consistent with what was testified to by the underlings.
This is why defending W has become a lost cause. IF he had simply stood up and declared definitively that the reason for the firings was either political or because of job performance, nothing would have come of this, but of course, W and company can produce a scandal out of nothing. What was perfectly in his right to do, has now become one more reason to look forward to when he’s out of office. I just wish the man would learn a lesson or two. When your approval ratings are down, you need to stand up and make sure there is no question of why you do things. But alas, W has handed another scandal, gift wrapped with a pretty pink bow on top to the awaiting hordes. All I have to say is ecce homo, do what you will with him…
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 7:30 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
your comments totally ignore large parts of what I said in today’s post, and everything I said in the comments to yesterday’s post.
your version of this story does not uniquely comport with the facts.
same old JimC, though much better dressed.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 7:48 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This is not really a comment on my post, is it?
It’s like you are writing a parallel article. In some parallel universe. Ignoring everything I wrote, today and yesterday.
And you violated Matt’s first law, which says: “Thou shalt not use the word “homo” without also immediately using the word “nullus”.”
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 8:15 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well I thought it was…maybe more of a an attempt at coming to a nexus of views and then ending in the same location, Gonzales out and Bush taken down another notch?
I thought that applied only to the derogatory use of “homo” and the Latin phrase “ecce homo” would not require it, but better late than never I suppose….
(nullus)
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 8:32 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
1) A comment on my post would actually address the things I said. Especially the ones that conflict with what you’re saying.
2) Your comment seeks to minimize the seriousness of the underlying conduct. This is not a piddling little matter of emails not matching what underlings said. It’s gross misconduct at the highest levels of government.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 9:01 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Please help me out here, and I’m being serious, I want to understand the underlying issue you have with this situation. Keep in mind, I think Gonzales should go in any case but I want to know why this is more serious than what I have made it out to be.
Is the underlying conduct this
If so, from what I have gathered (perhaps this is where I’m lacking in complete facts here) that the adminsitration fired (at least some of these people) because they would not seek investigation of things Bush wanted investigated, like voter fraud. Is this correct? Are there more reasons?
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 9:56 am ¶
matt wrote:
there are many more reasons, some still only touching the surface. but regardless, after a USA is sworn in, he or she, while subject to certain guidelines, is more or less independent. these people were being leaned on, and ultimately lost their jobs. and then there is the matter of the USAs that did play ball and investigated almost only democrats.
They found 309 investigations, broken down as follows:
Democrats: 262
Republicans: 37
Independents: 10
then, they simply lied, several times, to congress and the people, about what happened.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 10:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
yep, like I said, same old JimC.
might I respectfully recommend that (as suggested in comment 2 above) you read today’s post as well as the comments from yesterday’s post?
And if you still don’t get it, then just drop the whole thing and move on to something else.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 10:16 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I did read them but I will just leave it at that and just disagree about the question of the dismissals but agree that Gonzales should be resign.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 10:54 am ¶
matt wrote:
solely because he’s a political liability, not because he or anyone else did something wrong. right?
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 11:01 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Just to make sure I understand, you’re saying you read them but you still don’t understand (as opposed to agree with) “the underlying issue you (i.e. S.G.) have with this situation” or why I think “this is more serious than what I (i.e. JimC) have made it out to be”?
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 11:11 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Because, in my opinion from what I have read, there may have been false testimony given by Gonzales’ department before congress and he failed to properly handle these dismissals and keep it from even becoming a scandal. It appears that Gonzales can’t run the Dept. of Justice with confidence. Even if the President’s reasons for firing these USA’s were not wholesome, Gonzales should have carried it out openly and not created a possibility for scandal.
It is my opinion that the dismissals, regardless of motive, is by law, the absolute right of the President, at least two attorneys for the Clinton Administration that were let go had ethical questions around their firings, yet I hold that it was Clinton’s right to fire them, same as it is now Bush’s right to fire these attorneys. So I have read your postings and comments and do not understand why you think the firing themselves have any legal problems for the administration. The thing I do agree with is that lying under oath about the firings is serious and for that I think Gonzales should take responsibility for.
If this is acceptable as my opinion, flawed as you might take it, I resign from commenting further until new developments occur.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 11:40 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
legally, perhaps, perjury is the only crime.
but wrong-doing is a much broader concept than what is legally criminal. what is wrong is wrong, even if it is not illegal.
and some things are so clearly wrong that the political fallout from being caught doing them can be even more severe than being caught doing something illegal.
ask yourself why they lied. only because they could not publicly declare that the USAs were fired for not following political dictates (for prosecuting too many republicans or not prosecuting enough democrats, for not producing indictments on demand to influence elections).
the firestorm from going public with the real reasons would have been even more hugely embarassing to the administration than the scandal is now.
Posted 22 Mar 2007 at 3:04 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, almost every administration cleans house when they come into office. They replace all 93 US Attorneys with their own appointees. After that, they are generally left to do their job independently. Firings mid-term are rare and usually involve obvious problems. Among the 3 that Clinton fired mid-term was a guy caught on tape choking a reporter and another guy who got thrown out of a strip joint for biting a stripper.
This laterst scandal is something different. Gonzales (at least) and probably Bush were firing attorneys for very specific political reasons, directly manipulating the US justice dept. for purely political purposes. As SB said, there were no performance issues or personal scandals that would warrant the firing of these attorneys. If there were, Gonzales or someone else could simply state that and give an example, as Clinton did with his firings.
As you said, Jim, the Bush administration has only made the situation worse by lying about it, and yes, that is the only technically illegal thing they have done in this case, but it doesn’t have to be illegal to be worthy of scrutiny and disapproval.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 8:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sac,
This is from of all sources, the New York Times, published in 1993, titled :ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
I’m not saying this example makes what this administration did ok, but let’s make sure we are correct about what Bubba did as well. It was “unusual†to fire ALL 93 in short order just as it is unusual to fire 8 mid-term. As Sarabeth pointed out in today’s post, “Dirty Harrietâ€â€™s plan of firing all 93 would have been smart (like Bubba). Best way to hide a single body is to decimate them all. However, just like I said before, until it is illegal or the process changed, I’m not sure the time and effort being put forth to go after this scandal is worth it. I highly doubt anything will happen to the desired targets, maybe Gonzales will walk but who knows…
Since I’m back on this topic, I found out last night that Diane FeinStein had actually sent the Justice Dept. a letter complaining about Carol Lam and her guidelines for prosecuting illegal aliens, questioning her standards were not in line with other USAs and the Justice Dept. replied that Carol Lam was doing a good job. Then later the Justice Dept. fires Lam and Diane FeinStein complains about Lam being fired. I think everyone has lost their minds and this country needs a hard reboot….only thing left to do is to send the unrecoverable error to Microsoft :-)
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 8:37 am ¶
matt wrote:
jim, you do know saint ronald reagan did the same exact thing, right. so in essence your argument has disappeared. stop comparing apples and oranges and telling me they’re the same thing. they aren’t.
and neither saint ronnie nor clinton felt the need to lie about what they did. i know you don’t like the word, but gonzales lied, and then bush lied. how do i know? gonzales has changed his story at least 3 times. bush is claiming executive privilege for conversations he claims not to have been a part of.
and what exactly is your point about feinstein some one can disagree with someone’s priorities without asking for their termination.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 8:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
bullshit! that’s not what I meant. I don’t think any other reader could think I meant it would have been smart.
you’re obviously back to severe reading comprehension issues.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:31 am ¶
JimC wrote:
If Bush or Gonzales has lied under sworn testimony before Congress or investigators, then they’re done. If they are to give sworn testimony in the future and lie, then they’re done. My point is that the firings have nothing to do (legally) with the scandal. It does not matter how, when, where, or to what extent; the President can fire a USA if he feels the USA isn’t prosecuting enough democrats or isn’t paying tribute to Caesar, it doesn’t matter, unless the law is changed…that’s my only argument. Pointing out similarities or differences in other administrations only strengthens that argument. The lying part of the scandal, just like Clinton’s impeachment, is where the meat of this thing rests, you simply cannot lie under oath. So if we get to that point, I hereby pledge I will support W’s impeachment.
My point is that there is precedent for Carol Lam’s performance being questioned by Diane Feinstein (although she did not ask for Lam’s resignation) so there is also a precedent to have Lam resign based on performance charges, it simply is a plausible explanation. I know that Darrell Issa was instrumental in taking Diane Feinstein’s complaint even further, so I’m not accusing Feinstein of getting Lam fired, just showing there are plausible reasons beyond pure political motives for Lam’s dismissal. In the end though, it doesn’t matter, W could have confused Lam with Lamb and thought she needed to be sacrificed…
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 9:50 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Sorry Sarabeth, you are correct, you never said she was smart, you said “only one thing left to do, only one possible way to restore credibility…She came up with the solution to this crisis“. My mistake, I did not make my self clear, you pointed out that firing all 93 would be the solution (even if you were possibly jokingly saying it), I was the one who said it would have been smart. I will try to make the distinction clearer in the future.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 10:00 am ¶
sac wrote:
Of course it’s not illegal, a President should be able to fire USAs, but Bush/Gonzales are abusing that power. I could go on to say that is the M.O. of the Bush administration in general, to take legal authority and abuse it, but I don’t have time to gather examples.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 10:15 am ¶
matt wrote:
you know very well that bush has/will never be sworn. that’s called a red herring. don’t do that. he lied on national tv during his press conference.
if he fired prosecutors to circumvent cases against his allies, that’s called obstruction of justice.
as for carol lam, she was in the middle of a huge case, one where the government was literally for sale. once her sights were on a bush appointee, she was gone. this looks quite a bit like obstruction of justice. at the very least, it must be explained, better than it has been, and certainly under oath.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 10:19 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
with a straight face, he says he’s having trouble keeping clear the distinction between him and me?
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:11 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Good point. If this case can be made, then they should take him down….but If this is the case and it can be proven, would such incidents as the Dan Rostenkowski case during the firing of Jay B. Stephens, provide the “future Bush defense” legal precedent? Seriously, I’m not a lawyer, but would that present a legal hurdle to overcome to prove obstruction? It may not but I don’t know….
Sarabeth, please, I said I was sorry, sincerely, for even coming close to attributing something to you that you did not in fact say. I corrected myself.
Please, I ask that you accept my correction and apology…I do not want to fight with you.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 11:40 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I wasn’t aware we were fighting.
As for apology, in my book, apology is as apology does. I seem to remember that putting words in matt’s mouth and mine that we never uttered was a recurring problem in the past. if it never happens again, all will be well. if it does happen again, doing it and then apologizing handsomely isn’t going to cut it.
What a coincidence! I’m not a lawyer either. But I’ll plead guilty to having enough common sense to know that “someone else may have done it before me and they never got into trouble” is not a legal defense. Or not the kind that keeps you out of trouble.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 12:55 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
And you may as well go ahead and clarify this: what are you sincerely sorry for? For attributing something to me that I did not in fact say? Or for coming close to doing so?
(Or did you perhaps just come close to being sincerely sorry?)
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 12:59 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I’m sure you’ll take this as a compliment even though it’s not meant to be, but you’re annoying as hell, SB.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:21 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
go and boil your head, dear sac
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:50 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
And I hope to keep it that way and in the wise word’s of Forrest Gump: “That’s all I have to sa’ay about tha’at”…
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:53 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just a little public service we like to provide, dear sac.
Who you find annoying – JimC or me or both – provides a cheap little litmus test of who you are.
of course, there are those who are not pleased to find out who they are. To them, I always say (very affedctionately): go and boil your head.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 1:57 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Ha. You are truly pleased with yourself. It’s a wonder to behold. Do continue my free, online education. I can’t wait for the next lesson in self-awareness. The internet is a beautiful thing.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:15 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
sac, give up. you really suck at this kind of banter.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶
sac wrote:
If that’s all you have, then I agree, it’s pointless.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:27 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
sometimes people have the sense to realize when you’re doing them a kindness. sometimes they don’t.
keep on going…
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:29 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Give me a minute, I’m still recovering the “go boil your head” zinger. Very cutting, that.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:32 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
if you want to be annoying, try a little harder, maybe?
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:35 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Have some sympathy for those of us for whom being annoying doesn’t come naturally.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 2:36 pm ¶
matt wrote:
this is what i get for enjoying the sunshine all day.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it may have been your punishment for having sunshine to enjoy.
Posted 23 Mar 2007 at 7:13 pm ¶