Does anyone really think Harriet Miers wanted to fire all 93 USA's?

[Old and In the Way]

I don't know, I look at Harriet and I don't see this lady looking to wipe out the careers of 93 Republicans AG's. What was her beef with these people? Did she just decide, out of the blue, to engage the DOJ in this idea?

I think not. I think Ms. Harriet probably was asked to start the conversation with the DOJ. Make it look like it was her idea. If this was the plan, why weren't they ready to do this right after the 2004 election? Instead she starts this in 2006....hmmmm. What was happening in 2006....a mid-term election! So, the idea to off 93 US Attorneys is deemed impractical, but it sure did make sense to use that club to get these people to look into "voter fraud" and get investigations/indictments against Democrats done before the the 2006 elections. Of course, after the election was history, the need for pre-election pro-active Republican USA's changed to the need for these USA's to play serious Republican defense. #1 problem - Lam in San Diego had to go. Rove's choice for Arkansas was probably a pre-emptie strike against Hilliary. I'm sure the others that were fired must have not been protecting the criminal syndicate's interests diligently enough. The bottom line, those fired weren't obstructing justice diligently enough. And while that might be good for this country, it was a big problem for the Republic Party.

[Bonobo]

1. I have a real question about this.

It seems like spin to me to bring up this about the firing of ALL of them. After all, firing ALL of them would show no bias against any individual for political purposes and this MEMO was dug up pretty quickly after the shit started hitting the fan... It alsoi "dovetails" nicely into the "all presidents hire their own AGs" meme...


Wha do you all think?

[nashville_brook]

2. nice angle...

firing ALL of them seems absurd. it doesn't ring true. i like your idea.

[pnwmom]

12. Except whoever heard of a President firing all his OWN appointees

at the beginning of his SECOND administration?

[Bonobo]

13. That much is true, but it still makes the "they all do it" meme easier.

[pnwmom]

14. To the ignorant, it would. Which, unfortunately, is a very large group

of people.

[DUgosh]

3. i don't think she can count to 93

[gristy]

4. It makes no sense at all that they were considering firing all 93 -

in 2004 or in 2006. They were all appointed by * in 2000, as I understand it. It just seems like nonsense that they ever considered firing them all. Why are they pushing this meme? What does it cover for them? I don't know.

[Bonobo]

6. See my post above, #1

[Old and In the Way]

7. I thi8nk it was a threat to get the USA's with the mid-term election program.

It was all hands on deck...nuetralize the corruption issue and swing some close elections. Now, it's about obstructing justice.

[AlCzervik]

5. i think Miers is a convenient person to blame, they're only regret is that she's already

gone, if she stayed they could have fired her and this story might go away in a week or so.

[babylonsister]

8. Google... Check this out about Meirs: She's involved and not as dumb as you think.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2946995

White House Involvement

The emails released today show that then-White House counsel Harriet Miers and Gonzales' now former chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson discussed the possibility of asking for resignations from all 93 chief federal district prosecutors at the start of the 2004 term. In one of the emails, Sampson wrote, "Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys…" The "first step, " he wrote, was " to agree on the target list of U.S. Attorneys." In another email, Sampson warned the White House the firings could cause a political firestorm, saying they should all be prepared "to withstand any political upheaval that might result… if we start caving to complaining U.S. Attorneys and Senators then we shouldn't do it — it'll be more trouble than it is worth."

[Old and In the Way]

15. True...but given how these guys operate, I think they use

people for plausible deniability...it's an artform with them.

For instance, this sentence that you posted: "Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys…" Well, maybe she asked...or maybe Bush asked the question directly. And, in keeping with the 'protect the king at all costs' mode that this gang work in, they responded back in documented way that makes her the firewall. Maybe I'm just too cynical and maybe she's as nasty as any of these guys...but I can visualize Bush asking that question much easier than Harriet deciding firing 93 USA's was a good idea for the administration. She seems to be the little picture person, making sure the documents "t's" are crossed and "i's" are dotted. But Bush is a "big picture" guy who probably asks a lot of outrageously stupid questions and is, above all else, obsessed with loyalty and protecting his backside.

[Mind_your_head]

9. With this whole story.....I feel like I've got 'sand in my eyes'

I really don't 'get' most of it. Doesn't make sense/add up for me. Perhaps it's b/c I'm stoopid or perhaps it's b/c I just can't think in such evil/convoluted ways as these current players on our national stage do.

I'm gonna keep working to figure it out though.

M_Y_H

[AshevilleGuy]

10. I noticed that there was never any reason given

for her wanting to fire them all. No reporter even got near it, which I thought rather remiss.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Good point.

Seriously, with all the problems this administration has going....they contemplate firing all 93 USA's out of the blue and just because? Where's the detailed plan and the list of operatives ready to slide into these openings?

A lot more value to threaten to fire and use this to get the proper focus on working the Republican agenda before the election, I think. OTOH, the actual firings, could have been done to cover the real target, Carol Lam. But first, they had to set the table by picking a few USA's who'd take one for the team. The fact that they were threatened to keep quiet while also being rewarded, privately, with job letter recommendations by Gonzalas (!) makes me think this was the real deal. If you've been following the Wilkes/Cunningham story over at TalkingPointsMemo, Carol was ready to take the investigation to another level...this investigation had a few more Congresspeople (Republicans in CA), CIA players, and links into the WH (bogus contracts and Abramoff) that could bring the entire Republican Crime Syndicate down. To go after Lam alone would have been way too risky....so an elaborate, political 1 act play had to be devised...

[Old and In the Way]

17. And look what leads off on Talking Points Memo today....

Josh has been on this story from the getgo-

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013023.php



Below I noted this paragraph in tonight's article from McClatchy ...

In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, 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.

The timing is well worth noting. But the Lewis investigation wasn't the only trouble Lam was making. Look what else was happening in the couple weeks before May 11th ...

April 28th, 2006 -- Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo "Hookergate" scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney's Office's Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.

April 29th, 2006 -- Washington Post reports that Hookergate's Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.

May 2nd, 2006 -- Kyle "Dusty" Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.

May 4th, 2006 -- Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.

May 5th, 2006 -- WSJ reports that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.

May 5th, 2006 -- Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.

May 6th, 2006 -- WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the 'hookergate' Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.

May 7th, 2006 -- House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate's Shirlington Limo.

May 8th, 2006 -- Lyle "Dusty" Foggo resigns at CIA.

May 11th, 2006 -- LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.

May 12th, 2006 -- Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and CIA office of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.


As Kos notes...firing Lam for immigration cases would have been like firing Plame because he racked up too many frequent flyer miles to Chicago.

[Czolgosz]

11. Harriet Miers, like Al Gontanamo, would walk fire for Bush (which is how mediocre lawyers get promot

promoted well beyond their limited capacities in this maladministration).