And let's not forget the US Attorney who was "investigating" the slippery Repub Congressman Jerry lewis.
From Laura Rozen at WarandPiece March 2nd:
Perhaps the most interesting recently departed US attorney to hear from would be one who left ostensibly voluntarily. Former Los Angeles US attorney Debra Wong Yang, who had been heading up the investigation into former Appropriations committee chairman Jerry Lewis. And where did Yang go on January 1st? To the law firm representing Lewis. The fact that Yang resigned her office November 10 -- just after the elections - is interesting. It's no secret that the decision to retire and a decision informed by knowledge one is going to be dismissed are sometimes the same thing. Is Yang the exception that proves the rule, or no exception at all? Among the powerful partners at Gibson Dunn, the firm that offered Yang a golden parachute, you will remember, is Theodore Olsen, the Bush White House former solicitor general. The Lewis investigation is of course the big enchilada, the one that would really hurt, and not just Lewis. Will Congress want to hear from Yang as well?
And from the Huffington Post:
Actually, the Lewis prosecution was being handled in Los Angeles by U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang, who also left in late 2006. Ms. Yang, who reportedly received $1.5 million to join Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the firm of Bush water carrier Theodore Olsen, denies that she was part of the purge and says it was a personal financial decision.
The fallout from the firings continues to grow in Washington, and sources tell CBS News that it looks like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will take the fall.
Republicans close to the White House tell CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod that President Bush is in "his usual posture: pugnacious, that no one is going to tell him who to fire." But sources also said Gonzales' firing is just a matter of time.
"Pugnacious." "No one is going to tell him who to fire." Will someone please beat the crap out of this arrogant little bastard. He and Hitler would have been great friends.
Posted by at March 17, 2007 08:09 PMAlso in tomorrows NYTimes
His firing was a cause for celebration among his critics. Mr. Weh, the state Republican chairman, recalls saying something like “Hallelujah” to himself when he heard the news from Karl Rove at a holiday party in Washington.
Story about GOP anger in New Mex about Iglesias
Posted by PwapVt at March 17, 2007 09:23 PMSo, how did you folks feel when Bill Clinton fired 93 attorneys?
...the controversy was being fueled by "superheated political rhetoric," ...there was no similar uproar when President Clinton dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term.
Just asking.
Posted by muckdog at March 17, 2007 09:54 PMJust keep the pressure on, in every possible way, these fucks must be shown their free ride is over
Posted by Sharkbabe at March 17, 2007 10:51 PMSo, how did you folks feel when Bill Clinton fired 93 attorneys?
'bout the same way we felt when Bush fired all the attorneys in his first term -- it was expected behavior.
But Clinton didn't fire the people he'd picked for his team when he went into his second term.
Why did Bush think he should fire the people he picked for his team in the first place? No other president has ever done that. It says something about how bad Bush was at picking people in his first term that he had to clean house as much as he did, right?
Next question?
Posted by Mary at March 17, 2007 11:13 PMMuck, did you really lower yourself by repeating an already discredited White House/RNC talking point? I expected more out of you than that.
muckdog
as always you and yours are disingenuous and specious..it almost always is with no regard for the truth...bill clinton fired them all as he had the right to do..by firing them all one cannot really argue what the politics were..but if one cannot tell the difference between that ...and cherrypicking which attorneys were involved in investigations not going how you'd like..well there is a world of difference..and if one cannot distinguish between the two...one is either stupid or totally dishonest..take your pick
Posted by dennis at March 18, 2007 02:56 AMAnd let's not forget the money angle, too.
The huge number of Democrats hounded by compliant and complacent U.S. Attorneys on orders from the political wing of the White House versus the much smaller number of Republicans and independents meant that far more Democrats had to "lawyer-up" and spend money on defending themselves from the allegations.
I believe a pattern will emerge, moreover, that these DOJ attacks against Democratic Party candidates (like in New Mexico) coincided with the election cycle, in an attempt by corrupt Republican strategists to force Democrats to divert money (whether personal or through donors) from a Democrat's campaign before an election and into that Democrat's legal defense fund. In these days of high-cost elections, a Democrat having less money to advertise or get-out-the-vote due to high legal expenses could make the difference in their getting elected.
I wouldn't put anything past Republican rats like Rove and Gonzales, including using the taxpayer-funded DOJ and public servants like U.S. Attorneys to promote such a devious and evil scheme. Prosecute Democrats, whether charges are merited or not. Tie-up Democratic funds in spurious, fabricated litigation just before an election. Eureka! Another deserving (HA!!) Republican wins an election by outspending the falsely-accused, "swift-boated" Democrat 10 to 1.
Posted by The Oracle at March 18, 2007 03:07 AMIf Speedy Gonzales is foreced to resign, as many believe will happen, as guesses who Bush will finger to replace him?
Two of my readers are convinced Bush will ask Texas senator and rightwinger, John Cornyn.
Image that?
Posted by Christopher at March 18, 2007 04:37 AMThe Dems should investigate everything. Someone who knows something is eventually going to squeel. It's inevitable. And it just mightbring this administration down.
Posted by Blue Heron at March 18, 2007 04:43 AMMuck, When Clinton fired people in the travel office no one said any thing right, oh, that's right they where investigated.
Posted by goose1 at March 18, 2007 05:58 AMFiredoglake has a long "bedtime story" about classified information and the directives allowing Cheney to "de-classify" at will. Please read it. It's the law made digestible to us lay-people and it's excellent reporting on how the law was ignored, then twisted and abused. I am not in California, but if you have any pull with Henry Waxman, have him take a look at it too. One of his witnesses this past Friday should be ushered back into the panel of several investigating committees.
Posted by gtash at March 18, 2007 06:47 AMWill someone clarify: in the Laura Rozen story, am I to take it the Jerry Lewis investigation just stopped when the USA resigned to play for the other side? I realize USA's are not suppposed to confirm or deny whether a probe is occurring--so maybe that is why nobody knows or says. But given the context, I go back to Arlen Specter's odd questioning of Attorney Lam. If she had handed the case off to a second, who then decided to jump ship, wouldn't Republicans and Dems alike want to know if that killed the investigation? Wouldn't Arlen want to coax out an answer? He offered Ms Lam a closed session to do it in.
Posted by gtash at March 18, 2007 06:57 AMAfter 12 years of politicized partisanship in DC, I'd fire every vestige of political appointees from the other party too. And, more to the point, when a corporation gets a completely different ownership team, they generally fire all of the existing management, regardless of qualifications, in order to make it THEIR team.
Also, Muck, it appears that President Clinton didn't fire all 93 USA's, as this post indicates:
Tom Heffelfinger resigned his post as U.S. attorney in Minneapolis last February. He had served two stints -- the first from September 1991 to April 1993...
Clinton took office in January of 1993. Get it? Can you reconcile that with firing all 93 USA's?
Posted by Duckman GR at March 18, 2007 07:59 AMThe administration would love to turn this story into an issue of accidentally 'misinforming Congress', rather than an attempt to use US Attorneys to influence elections. If they can get people focussed on arguing whether the Justice Dept. or the White House is responsible for the bogus testimony to Congress, they win.
It's not who is responsible that matters, it's what were they trying to cover up.
Posted by biggerbox at March 18, 2007 09:21 AMThe angle that doesn't get enough attention, in my opinion, is the provision that was slipped into the Orwellian 'Patriot' Act II that removes congressional oversight from this process, which is unprecedented, and shows the depths of skullduggery that this administration will go to in order to expand its power.
Voter fraud? Gimme a break. Funny how it's such a big deal to the Republicans in New Mexico, yet all was supposedly well in Ohio, New Hampshire and Florida...
Finally, consider this--if it truly is a tempest in a teacup, why then is the White House trying to cover it up, only to get caught in lie after lie?
Posted by cheSF at March 18, 2007 10:58 AMIt's time to substitute something more appropriate than "witch-hunt" to describe going after the corrupt officials in the Bush administration, the worst presidency in the history of America.
I suggest using "bastard-hunts" or "SOB-hunts" in place of "witch-hunts."
Of course, "witch-hunt" would still be appropriate to describe going after the molls in the Bush mob, like Ann Coulter, Victoria Toensing or Michelle Malkin.
Posted by The Oracle at March 18, 2007 11:44 PM