Fired U.S. Attorneys Felt 'Leaned On'

[mrbowler]

This will be a good story to follow in the workings of possible
political pressure.



[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]


"A Justice Department official, invited to one of the two hearings, denied that any of the eight fired U.S. attorneys was improperly pressured or that they were ousted to make room for Republican political allies. Most of the firings were inspired by performance-related issues, he said."

"If the allegations are correct, then there has been serious misconduct in what has occurred in the terminations of these United States attorneys," Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
As a former district attorney in Philadelphia, he was troubled by reports that two lawmakers - Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both New Mexico Republicans - had contacted Iglesias about a pending case"

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

White House Retreats in Flap Over Firings:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[FUNdamental]

Question of the day; If the Attorney General fired the guy who fired the US Prosecutors, because, according to the AG, "mistakes were made," why is AG Gonzales steadfastly standing by last December's seven US Prosecutor firings?

Timing is everything in life; From the wire dispatches; "In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, [Kyle] Sampson urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis."
As we all know, Cunningham is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Arizona. Lewis has not been charged with any crime. Lam was forced to resign.

Note, I saw the latest Republican talking point memo (distributed to pundits and conservative talk radio), the first tidbit is "Clinton fired all 93 US Prosecutors in 1993." Difference; This administration did their dismissals in 2006 not a year in which a new party came into the White House. Whenever a new party comes in, new Presidential appointments are made. The US Prosecutors know this and expect this to happen. They know at the beginning of a new administration they are more than welcome to submit their names for another political appointment. However, a mid term "cleaning house" has, until now, been unheard of.

But hey, the President's Latin American trip went so well; at least give him that!

Rock On!

[mrbowler]

If you get a chance-read the email/memo's that have been posted.
Under What's New & Documents in Demand. I just started reading-some
are difficult to read-dark highlighting.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

General Firings Part I
On page 20 I found the wording very interesting:

"Targeted for Removal"

[mrbowler]

Part II-Page 7

"USA in process of being pushed out"


Summary:

"It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USA's out
and then don't have replacements ready to roll"

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

But hey, the President's Latin American trip went so well; at least give him that!

Rock On!

Hey-"What's for Dinner?"

A week ago, the White House said it knew of no involvement of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. But this week it disclosed that Rove was consulted two years ago on a suggestion to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys and that he warned against it. The White House is in the position of explaining why it has repeatedly changed its story

May I say that the days of Accountability are back

[mrbowler]

Data according compiled by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan supports the notion that the current administration has/is doing political profiling.
(January 2001 through December 2006)

Of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).

Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials.

[mrbowler]

Earlier Justice told White House was not involved.


Underperforming if not a "Loyal Bushie"
----------------------------------------
Here is Kyle Sampson(AG Chief of Staff)

Dec 5,2006
"Administration has determined to ask some underperforming USAs to move on"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In one e-mail, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, said an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." The e-mail concluded that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

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

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."

[mrbowler]

Job performance used as the excuse of firings-some real doubts in this example. Yes I know he "serves at the pleasure of the president"

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes"

[FUNdamental]

On Fox News Watch yesterday, Cal Thomas asserted that questions surrounding the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys "didn't surface in October [2006]" because,” GET THIS MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF DOD, "the left in the media -- but I repeat myself -- had enough scandal going with Mark Foley and a bunch of other stuff, they didn't need this." This statement floored me when I heard it, because, when we look at the timeline, by “October {2006},” only one of the U.S. attorneys had been dismissed; the other seven were not dismissed until December 7, 2006, a full month after the November midterm elections. Gotta Love that Fox News, turning this Bush scandal into a slam against the mainstream “liberal” media. Fox News Channel is the alternative reality news!

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by FUNdamental

On Fox News Watch yesterday, Cal Thomas asserted that questions surrounding the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys "didn't surface in October [2006]" because,” GET THIS MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF DOD, "the left in the media -- but I repeat myself -- had enough scandal going with Mark Foley and a bunch of other stuff, they didn't need this." This statement floored me when I heard it, because, when we look at the timeline, by “October {2006},” only one of the U.S. attorneys had been dismissed; the other seven were not dismissed until December 7, 2006, a full month after the November midterm elections. Gotta Love that Fox News, turning this Bush scandal into a slam against the mainstream “liberal” media. Fox News Channel is the alternative reality news!

I've argued before that the media actually leans more conservative, but people have been constantly told about a "liberal media bias" that they start to believe/agree. If you factor in all forms of Media-local newspapers, op ed's, radio stations, military, ownership of media. IMO people tend to listen to media that they agree with-which is unfortunate. I enjoy listening to all points whether if I agree or not-I believe it provides myself with a more balanced view on how people view a issue...trying to get away from the labels placed on people. Getting back to the point you wrote about-I would assume that the reason is to deflect away from the overall discussion/investigation, and to show that democratics are playing politics. You know if the release of AGs was handled differently this issue would of never grown to what it has, and the issue/opportunity(playing politics) would of never been a issue to begin with.

[Throwin64]

As the cliche goes, Attorneygate keeps "getting interestinger and interestinger." Now the Watergate analogy becomes even more apropos as Karl Rove is suddenly missing, oh about 4 years worth of email. But hey, it's probably no big deal, as he was a big fan of online ordering from Papa Johns. Riiiiiight!

As the below link says, the Republicans have been actively attempting to find ways around the monitoring of White House communications and business instituted after Watergate. A REPUBLICAN lawyer even says Rove may have purged his own email. Sounds like a pretty good effort at plausible deniability to me. Now what could Rove have been doing that made him so desperate to get rid of 4 years of correspondance. I'm pretty sure the Bush Reichstag has no desire for anyone to find out. Check all the smoke coming from the building; trust me, they didn't just elect a new pope.
Throwin

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[mrbowler]

Testimony seems to support the notion that Hirings were done based on Republican credentials & also read about the possible influence of folks such as Monica Goodling in which a possible link of religion influenced hirings such as her's-i.e. 150 Lawyers that were hired from Regent University School of Law(Pat Robertson). Regent's accreditation is near the bottom of all US law schools. Sweeeet

p.s. I pasted entire article since these stories are usually only available for one day on partner sites.


Ex-Justice Aide Admits Politics Affected Hiring:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

WASHINGTON, May 23 — A former top Justice Department aide testified on Wednesday that she had “crossed the line” in considering the political beliefs of applicants for nonpartisan legal jobs and suggested that earlier testimony by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and another top official about the dismissals of federal prosecutors may have been flawed.

Monica M. Goodling, the former Justice official, told a House panel that she regretted favoring applicants with Republican credentials for lower level prosecutor jobs or prestigious postings at Justice headquarters, actions that could violate federal employment laws.

“I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account,” Ms. Goodling said. “And I regret those mistakes.”

But she said that even though she was the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, she did not play a significant role in the dismissals and never discussed them with Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser or Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel.

“I did not hold the keys to the kingdom as some have suggested,” Ms. Goodling said to the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Goodling testified under a grant of immunity from prosecution, which the Judiciary panel issued after two months of wrangling, because her lawyers said she would refuse to answer questions on grounds that to do so would violate her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

With a crush of cameras whirring in the hearing room, and one lawmaker snapping pictures with his cellphone, the 33-year-old Ms. Goodling took her seat in the witness chair for five hours of testimony that brought Congress little closer to understanding the administration’s motives for the dismissals.

“There remains basic unanswered questions about how and why the termination list was created, how it was compiled, how it was revised and how it was finalized,” Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who serves as the committee chairman, said at the close of the hearing.

Sitting alone at the witness table wearing a navy blue suit, with her hands folded neatly in her lap, Ms. Goodling’s soft-spoken, careful and often deferential answers seemed to clash with descriptions of her as an abrasive conservative at the Justice Department.

Ms. Goodling, a lawyer, arrived there in 2002 after working for the Republican National Committee as an opposition researcher, but with no experience as a prosecutor. She moved up rapidly from a job as a junior aide in the press office to the attorney general’s staff with authority over hiring and promotions throughout the department.

Her dedication was valued by some political appointees allied with the Bush White House. But some lawyers in the civil service ranks reviled her as an ideologically driven aide who circumvented experienced prosecutors to carry out the administration’s political agenda.

Ms. Goodling appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s testimony to the committee this month in which he said he had not spoken to his senior aides since the firings “to protect the integrity of this investigation.”

During a meeting in March before she resigned, Ms. Goodling said, Mr. Gonzales asked her questions that left her uncomfortable. She thought he might be trying to compare recollections, so their stories would be consistent if they were questioned about their actions, she said. “I just thought maybe we shouldn’t have that conversation,” she said.

Brian J. Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement that Mr. Gonzales “has never attempted to influence or shape the testimony or public statements of any witness in this matter, including Ms. Goodling. The statements made by the attorney general during this meeting were intended only to comfort her in a very difficult period.”

Ms. Goodling also accused Paul J. McNulty, the outgoing deputy attorney general, of misleading Congress when he testified on Feb. 6 to a Senate panel. Specifically, she said Mr. McNulty knew more details about the White House involvement in the firings than he acknowledged in his testimony.

“I believe he was not fully candid,” she said.

Later, Mr. McNulty sharply denied her assertions. “I testified truthfully at the Feb. 6, 2007, hearing based on what I knew at that time,” he said in a statement. “Ms. Goodling’s characterization of my testimony is wrong and not supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony already provided to Congress.”

To show support for the beleaguered Mr. Gonzales, Republican lawmakers embraced Ms. Goodling on Wednesday as a sympathetic witness. Several praised her testimony and said it proved that the investigation into the dismissals led by Democrats was not justified.

“It seems to me that with this fishing expedition there ain’t no fish in the water, and we’ve spent an awful lot of time and an awful lot of money finding that out,” said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin.

Ms. Goodling acknowledged repeatedly that she had improperly sought to gauge the political leanings of applicants when she reviewed résumés for nonpartisan jobs or promotions, including posts as assistant United States attorneys and immigration judges or for temporary assignments at Justice headquarters.

She said she had done Google or Nexis searches on job candidates or searched their names on campaign-finance databases to see if they might have given money to Republican or Democratic candidates. She also pressed applicants’ references, at times, to ferret out the political background of the job candidates they were endorsing.

“There were times I crossed the line probably in my reference calls” by asking political questions, Ms. Goodling told the committee.

Political factors are routinely considered for some jobs at the Justice Department, like United States attorneys or senior posts, like the heads of the litigating divisions.

But civil service rules prohibit such questions when federal agencies are hiring or promoting staff members for career positions. Violations could be unlawful, although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said. Two internal investigative units have begun an inquiry into Ms. Goodling’s screening practices.

She told lawmakers that she could not be precise about how many hiring decisions were influenced by inappropriate political considerations, though at one point she said it probably involved fewer than 50 jobs.

She provided details on only one case, an applicant for a position as assistant United States attorney in the District of Columbia. She blocked the hiring of Seth Adam Meinero after determining the candidate was a Democrat. “I think that when I did look at that résumé, I made a snap judgment, and I regret it,” she said.

She was ultimately bypassed and Mr. Meinero was hired, Justice officials have said.

Ms Goodling tried to play down her role in the decisionmaking process related to the dismissals of the nine United States attorneys last year, saying her primary contribution was to compile complaints or praise about prosecutors that had been raised by others — not to recommend anyone for firing on her own.

Democrats, clearly frustrated that her appearance did not provide a window into the White House and whether it had political motivations for the firings of the prosecutors, said they would push on in their effort to answer those questions.

Congress has asked for Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers to testify, but the White House has demanded conditions that Democrats are unwilling to accept.

“The only way we can get to the full truth is if Mr. Karl Rove is sitting in the very same seat that you’re sitting in and he needs to be here, and he needs to be here posthaste,” said Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee, Democrat of Texas.

[FUNdamental]

33-year-old Alexandria, VA, resident, Monica Goodling, mentioned that part of her work at the RNC was working with Tim [Griffin] on “caging” in 2004. When asked to explain what “caging” was, she replied that she didn’t know much about it, and it was a direct mail campaign to certify addresses. Being a lawyer, Ms. Goodling certainly should know “caging” is a political dirty trick to suppress votes, and is a felony.

Tim Griffin was appointed US Attorney in Arkansas earlier this year.

If the American people knew what “caging” really is, they would be horrified. Mr. Griffin now must go into his job at a federal prosecutor with everyone in the building knowing he should be indicted for illegal activities in 2004.