WP: White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say

[Hissyspit]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201949.html

White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say

By John Solomon and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 3, 2007; Page A01

The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.

The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.

One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.

Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.

MORE

[ms liberty]

1. K&R - the only surprise is that they've acknowledged it. n/t

[agincourt]

2. Smokescreen,

Rove/Bush/Cheney and a few asshole congressmen who didn't want to be investigated were behind this whole thing. "Justice Department officials"? In the Bush administration? What an oxymoron.

[Hissyspit]

3. Yup. Group firing because of a policy review/evalution.

Give me a break.

[jaysunb]

4. I ain't buying it...

:evilfrown:

[lovuian]

5. Abuse of Power first Congress calls,Gonzales fires, bush ok's

is this Presidency absolutely out of control

[hootinholler]

6. Oh, no it's totally *IN* control..

That's the problem.

-Hoot

[caligirl]

7. ethics commission needs to go after Domenici, along with lots of press

[rodeodance]

9. yes, take this ego down a few notches!

[rodeodance]

8. they serve at the pleasure of the President.

[armodem08]

10. Burn Gonzales, Burn!!!

One more nail in the impeachment coffin.

[cascadiance]

11. It's interesting that both Carol Lam AND Gonzales spoke to the ABA here in SD yesterday!

And it was noted that they didn't talk to each other, and that Gonzales was basically LYING about his desire to prioritize going after corruption of course! Hmm... Kinda juicy!

Check this article out:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070302-9999-1n2usat.html

Lam called to testify about ouster

One U.S. attorney sees political motive for his dismissal

UNION-TRIBUNE ASSOCIATED PRESS and THE WASHINGTON POST

March 2, 2007

WASHINGTON – A House subcommittee is compelling four of at least eight U.S. attorneys ousted from office in recent months to tell their stories under oath after one prosecutor said he believes he was fired for political reasons.

The Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law approved the subpoenas for former prosecutors Carol Lam of San Diego, David Iglesias of New Mexico, H.E. “Bud” Cummins of Arkansas and John McKay of Seattle.

...

Lam, a panelist yesterday at an American Bar Association event in San Diego, had no comment on the subpoenas. She was speaking about white-collar crime.

Also appearing at the conference was Lam's former boss, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave a luncheon speech about the importance of pursuing corporate and political corruption, which were the hallmarks of Lam's tenure.

Lam left the conference immediately after her panel discussion and did not interact with Gonzales. She said she had to return to her new job as senior vice president and legal counsel at Qualcomm Inc. to attend a meeting.

...

[indepat]

12. 'pukes way of mocking the equal justice under the law principle

[tanyev]

13. Silly me. I thought U.S. attorneys were supposed to uphold the law, not a political agenda.

D'oh!

[gulliver]

14. Why didn't they admit this right away?

There is no good reason the admin could not have admitted long ago to firing "prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues." What would be wrong with them doing that? That sounds so innocent. It sounds like they are doing things that at least Republicans would approve of.

But no, the Bush Administration didn't admit to "backing" the firings until late in the game -- months after the incident. We have their explanation for the firings. Now what is the reason they waited so long give their explanation?

[gratuitous]

15. John Solomon reporting?!

Hoo boy, look for the fix to be in early and often if John Solomon, author of numerous hit pieces such as the Harry Reid boxing tickets and the Hillary Clinton charity stories, has been assigned by the Washington Post. The Bush administration really does leave nothing to chance when it comes to their crimes.

The problem, of course, is that in committing any crime, there are 50 ways to foul up. If you can think of 25 of them, you're a genius. And this group isn't exactly bursting at the seams with Mensa candidates.

[NashVegas]

17. My Thoughts, Exactly

He must be Karl Rove's squash partner or something.

[Doondoo]

16. K&R