What was the U.S. Attorney Purge Meant to Achieve?

[babylonsister]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/mar/22/what_was_the_u_s_attorney_purge_meant_to_achieve

The Coffee House
What was the U.S. Attorney Purge Meant to Achieve?

By Mark Schmitt | bio

It's beyond question now that the purge of eight U.S. attorneys was motivated almost entirely by politics and directed from the White House "OPA" through Kyle Sampson. Prosecutors who were either going after Republican office-holders or not prosecuting alleged Democratic crimes represent at least five of those purged.

But there is still a puzzle here. What did the administration expect to accomplish? This is a serious question. If David Iglesias's offense was in not bringing indictments against a prominent New Mexico Democrat, or prosecuting voter fraud, in time to help Rep. Heather Wilson's reelection, firing him won't undo that fact. Similarly, Carol Lam's investigation of Randy "Duke" Cunningham is out of the gate; it would be pretty difficult for a new U.S. Attorney to stop it before it leads wherever it leads.

So I can think of three possible reasons for the purge: One is simple political vengeance, punishment for the sake of punishment. They screwed us, we screw them. That's a good possibility, but it doesn't actually do anything to ensure that the next U.S. Attorney is going to be more of a "loyal Bushie" than the Bushie they appointed in the first place and are now firing. And it doesn't adequately explain such a slow and deliberate process.

The second possibility is that the replacements have marching orders -- e.g., that Iglesias's successor knows that he's expected to indict some Democrats and Lam's successor knows to yank the leash on the Cunningham-Foggo probe. If so, that would be a level of obstruction of justice well above and beyond the self-evident obstruction we already know about.

A third possibility is that the firings were meant to be a signal to other U.S. Attorneys about what kind of loyalty was expected. It sounds like U.S. Attorneys talk to each other a lot and have a pretty good handle on who's doing a good job and who has problems in their office. The remaining U.S. Attorneys would know that their fired colleagues were not fired for poor performance, and could read between the lines. When a Senator calls them, or they stumble across evidence of Republican corruption, somewhere in the back of their mind would be the intimidaing awareness of what happened to Iglesias, McKay, Charlton or Lam.

more...

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. a vote for door #2 . . .

k&r

[soothsayer]

2. I say all three. They would totally try to drop investigations mid-

stream, and probably get away with it.

[progdonkey]

5. yup, all three sound right...

We know that they really are such vindictive assholes that they'd ruin someone's career because that person "screwed" them (cough Plame cough).

We know that these hack political appointees have no other purpose than to abuse their offices to maintain the Republican's ever-diminishing grip on power (redacting environment data, not allowing climate scientists to speak about Global Warming, etc.).

And we know that resorting to intimidation is something they greatly enjoy (kidnapping KSM's kids as one more way of getting him to confess to sinking the Titanic, etc.).

[no_hypocrisy]

3. And Option Four: Install loyalists as prosecutors for eventual

elevation to the federal bench to get "conservative" judges to rule on constitutional controversies the "right" (literal and figurative) way. Maybe even a slot on the Supreme Court.

[SpiralHawk]

4. I think the republicons wanted to cover up Prostitute Gate

They know their base will accept lies, cheating, stealing, and war profiteering and all the rest of that Standard Republicon Crony bullshit. But the republicon-appointed US prosecutors were about to make a damning case out of all the male and female prostitutes the republicons were using in the Duke Cunning-ham scandal.

The republicons know their base would FLIP upon learned how fond the republicon cronies are of prostitutes, male and female. So they did the perverted thing, and tossed out the honest US republicon prosecutors to spare the corrupt republicon cronies.

[Iwasthere]

6. I am going to catch Holy Hell for this...

perhaps one of the things they were thinking, "Maybe we don't have to give up power in 2008 afterall." What if the election could actually be cancelled or postponed or?

[babylonsister]

7. Funny, but I think just the opposite. I bet this admin cannot wait

to get the hell out of there and sweep all their problems over to the Dems to figure out. If they don't want to give up power, they have got to be masochists. :crazy:

[leveymg]

8. NO! NO! NO! Firings were cover for criminal Obstruction of investigations by WH

I don't know who Mark Schmitt is, but he REALLY doesn't understand what's going on. The fact is, US Attorneys serve at the will of the President. Bush can demand the resignation of any one or all of them for any legitimate policy-related reason. That is perfectly legal -- even vengence might be acceptable, if it doesn't interfere with an investigation.

No, Mark. This is playing right into Karl's hands. The primary reason for the firing of the 8 was to provide cover for the firing of Carol Lam, who's investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) sparked the notorious "we have a problem" e-mail of Kyle Sampson on May 11, 2006. Once that investigation started, Lam was untouchable -- to fire her was Obstruction of Justice.

To suggest that this was all "politics as usual", even particularly nasty politics, is a Republican talking-point. :thumbsdown:

P.S. - no aspersions cast at the OP. :hi:

[tanyev]

9. Complete control of the judiciary branch.

With the hope of regaining complete control of all 3 branches. Forever and ever.

[LiberalFighter]

10. As long as Democrats don't abuse the power

[tanyev]

11. I was saying that's what Rove hoped to achieve for the GOP.

[gulliver]

12. All of the above.

Plus, four, reward some toadies.