NYT EDITORIAL: FIRED U.S. ATTORNEYS WOULD NOT USE OFFICES TO HELP GOP WIN ELECTIONS

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
Phony Fraud Charges
Published: March 16, 2007

In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.

In partisan Republican circles, the pursuit of voter fraud is code for suppressing the votes of minorities and poor people. By resisting pressure to crack down on “fraud,” the fired United States attorneys actually appear to have been standing up for the integrity of the election system.

John McKay, one of the fired attorneys, says he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race, which a Democrat, Christine Gregoire, won after two recounts. Republicans were trying to overturn an election result they did not like, but Mr. McKay refused to go along. “There was no evidence,” he said, “and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”...Before David Iglesias of New Mexico was fired, prominent New Mexico Republicans reportedly complained repeatedly to Karl Rove about Mr. Iglesias’s failure to indict Democrats for voter fraud. The White House said that last October, just weeks before Mr. McKay and most of the others were fired, President Bush complained that United States attorneys were not pursuing voter fraud aggressively enough.

There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country. Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups. They have intimidated Native American voter registration campaigners in South Dakota with baseless charges of fraud. They have pushed through harsh voter ID bills in states like Georgia and Missouri, both blocked by the courts, that were designed to make it hard for people who lack drivers’ licenses — who are disproportionately poor, elderly or members of minorities — to vote. Florida passed a law placing such onerous conditions on voter registration drives, which register many members of minorities and poor people, that the League of Women Voters of Florida suspended its registration work in the state....

***

The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/opinion/16fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Erika]

1. U.S. attorneys make an oath to be non-political

W/Rove has laughed at that oath, and dismissed attorneys who upheld their oath.

[bananarepublican]

7. It makes you wonder what oath he is operating under, doesn't it? n/t

[liberaldemocrat7]

48. We're watching the REPUBLIKLAN Party implode.

The independent voters see what the REPUBLIKLANS have done with the Iraq war and now they're watching the Plame affair and the US attorney affair, etc. etc. etc.

I believe the Republicans will stay out of power for at least 20 years if not more.

[Raksha]

51. The oath he took at the crossroads, when he made his deal

with the devil. It's been so long ago he probably doesn't even remember when it happened.

[MsMagnificent]

17. Makes one wonder about all those others

who weren't fired... "The others, Sampson said, "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies."

[tblue]

2. I'm glad the Times is being upfront and frank about all this, but they've missed plenty of

opportunities to expose the evil inner workings of this administration way, way, way before things got this bad. They could have brought this whole dang cabal down years ago, honest to God.

[jelly]

9. Better late than never, I suppose.

But yeah, it just kills you to think about what a difference they might have made had they started paying attention earlier.

[blm]

20. Yeah - like in 2001. And 2002. And 2003. And 2004.

.

[Zhade]

53. It killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, too.

The NYT will forever have that blood on its hands.

[Raksha]

49. Especially right after the 2004 election,

when they joined the rest of the corporate media in writing off everyone who brought up evidence of election fraud, as opposed to "voter fraud," as a tinfoil-hat conspiracy wacko, and didn't even bother to seriously address their evidence.

[renate]

3. it would be beyond wonderful if this scandal got election fraud into the news

I assume that these particular cases aren't about Diebold, since it's Republicans who are fussing about them, but still, if Americans finally get the message that their votes aren't necessarily counted a few eyes might be opened, and people may pay attention to the facts of what happened in Ohio and Florida instead of dismissing them as conspiracy theories.

[PinkyisBlue]

4. Voter fraud is different from election fraud.

Claims by the Republicans of voter fraud, as stated in the above editorial, is used to disenfranchise (mostly minority) voters. To cut down on so-called voter fraud, voters have to provide official photos or legal documents or other proof of their status that may be difficult for poor or minority people to obtain.

Election fraud is improper vote counting, and the Republicans have so far not been interested in investigating this (probably because they rely on it to get "elected").

[robinlynne]

33. Also voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. 23 possible cases in the past 10 years. while

election fraud,as we know is RAMPANT.

[autorank]

38. You know what you're talking about. Here's a great source.

She says 24 plus or minus, you nailed it!

The Politics of Voter Fraud

Loraine C. Minnite, PhD
Asst. Professor of Political Science
Barnard College, Columbia University

[robinlynne]

45. why thank you autorank!

[jelly]

10. Totally. Let's get it out of the way NOW, before the 2008 election.

By the time of the 2008 election, they will not dare "go there" because everyone will be onto them and watching them. Can you imaine: an honest election.

[Joe Chi Minh]

18. I think you are right. I think that is precisely what it is doing.

Once the Republicans' role in voter fraud is out in the open, how easy is it going to be for them to keep those machines, already established by professionals in the industry to be eminently hackable. If they can be so lawless in suppressing the voters, why on earth would they baulk at using the machines fraudulently. Moreover, the statistics indicating their fraud are overwhelming.

Of course, their obstinate secrecy and refusal to allow investigations, on all sorts of risible pretexts, is precisely the way in which frauds are customarily proved in the courts. Compelling circumstantial evidence, now buttressed by the evidence of voter suppression instigated by the highest tier of government.

[diane in sf]

27. A quibble, what repugs do is election fraud

voter fraud is a bullshit phrase that repugs throw around. There is almost no actual voter faud (unless you count Mann Coulter voting out of her own district) and there is plenty of election fraud in between machine abuse and various repug methods of disenfranchisement like caging, etc.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. I'm sorry. I expressed myself very clumsily. What I was referring to was this

issue MENDACIOUSLY referred to as "voter fraud" by those neocons, who were actually furious because the voter suppression which they themselves were attempting, was seen by the Prosecutors for what it was, namely, voter suppression - and that, by variety of means, I believe - and the honest Prosecutors concerned refused to conspire in their major, major-league fraud.

Thank you for taking me to task about it. When I realised what you were pointing out, for a moment I reminded myself of a troll!

[aquart]

5. They come right out and say it: "code for suppressing the votes.."

What a little oversight can do.

[Fridays Child]

6. k/r

[Justice Is Comin]

8. That's why the unprecedented calls

by Domenici and Wilson have huge implications.

Domenici has already lawyered up. It has an umbilical cord right to Gonzalez too. I'd bet anything on it.

[texpatriot2004]

11. But the firings "weren't political" - WHATEVER. Thank you

Mr. McKay for not playing with the "elections"

[sinkingfeeling]

12. Hope the rest of the 'media' picks this one up!

[cassiepriam]

13. These attorneys help Bush get "elected". Now they are the targets.

Karma time.

[Blackbird_Highway]

14. The "Democrat" Gene

Republicans are now sponsoring medical research to find the specific gene that causes people to vote Democratic, in hopes that babies with this gene can somehow be fixed in utero.

[AikidoSoul]

34. Repugs want babies with the Dem gene "fixed in utero"? Is that kinda like abortion?

At first I thought you were joking but then I remembered that there ARE scientific analyses on the differences between how liberals and conservatives think. There are some data showing different responses when each views violent images for example. Liberals' amygdala activity is heightened by violent images. The amygdala is the part of the brain that responds to danger and threats. Republicans tend to respond more calmly according to some research:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEEDB1E3BF933A15757C0A9629C8B63

If true then scare tactic images might work to scare liberals into voting for Repugnantcans who paint themselves as "tough on terror". If you remember the campaign ads -- they showed terrifying images such as the twin towers on 911.

So you say that Repugnantcans want to "find the specific gene that causes people to vote Democratic, in hopes that babies with the is gene can somehow be fixed in utero."

What does "fixed in utero" mean?

Is that like abortion?

If so... jeez... what will the pope say?

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Raksha]

50. The "Dem gene": An innate aptitude for critical thinking,

along with an equally innate high degree of resistance to propaganda and brainwashing.

[Clark2008]

37. Don't those twits know that a gene doesn't cause one to be a Dem...

...good upbringing does.

:hi:

Welcome to DU. Happy St. Paddy's Day!

[jimshoes]

55. And a functioning

frontal lobe. Most pukes are missing this important piece of anatomy.

[riverdeep]

43. I'm confused...

'Finding a gene' implies belief in evolutionary theory, and here I was sure that we were created in God's image, in six days.

BTW, it's 'democratic' not 'democrat'.

[TellTheTruth82]

15. so what

Presidents can fire these people for any reason whatsoever (or for no reason at all). Don't forget Clinton fired every single one of them when he got into office (various reasons were given here - one is that he wanted to reward his friends, though another said he wanted to get rid of the guy who knew about Whitewater and other Clinton dealings). So saying that they were fired to prevent an investigation or because they weren't investigating is meaningless. What you want to say is that "the system" needs reform - but one needs to be careful of that as well. The rules about firing government employees are too stringent in many case - impossible to get rid of (short of them committing murder). A happy medium needs to be found.

[jaybeat]

22. Oh, come on, now

What the current White House did is completely different than what has been done by past administrations. Past administrations replaced all USAs at the beginning of their terms, replacing the appointees of the previous President with their own. All appointees were subject to Senate confirmation, and then held their offices generally until the end of the President's term.

BushCo replaced a select few of their *own* appointees, half-way through Bush's *second* term, after receiving pressure to do so from high-ranking Republicans. This pressure can, in turn, *after* the later-fired USAs *resisted* political pressure from Republicans to take action against Democrats, or to back-off investigations of Republicans.

This comes in an environment in which the actions of the DOJ have been *absurdly* politicized since Bush took office. Paul Krugmann has the exact numbers, but the # of Dem politicians investigated from 2001-2006 was something like 275, and the number of Repubs was something like 30!

The remaining USAs are clearly "on-board" with the White House's policy of using the DOJ as a tool to go after political enemies, protect friends, and generally enrich themselves.

I don't have time to go find all the relevant threads here on DU, but this has links to Abramoff, Duke Cunningham (fired San Diego USA was pursuing other corrupt Repugs), and phony defense contractors, who got Republican earmarks for "services" the DOD never asked for.

"Clinton did it, too," is the oldest Faux talking point in the Republican playbook. If you're not a troll, then please do the reading. If you are, then can't you at least be a little more original? Sheesh!

[TellTheTruth82]

26. Again - so what

This doesn't invalidate any of the original comment. Again, so what?! Bush can do the firing at any time for any reason. He doesn't have to abide by what previous administrations have done, right? I'm not arguing that it was (or wasn't) politically motivated, to prevent investigations or help the GOPers. I am merely saying that he didn't do anything illegal in the process. If you have something to dispute that, please present it. My other point is that maybe the system of political appointees for the prosecutors needs to be done differently - as in you change the firing procedures (I believe the appointment process is probably OK). Not sure what a troll is in reference to blogs - I am fairly new at this stuff. But I believe I did exactly ask you asked - I did the reading - not you need to comprehend the points I made.

[riverdeep]

42. They say invoking Nazism is the sign you're losing the debate,

but all the same, I have to point out that what the Nazi's did was also legal. In this case, the Bush administration placed a law into the Patriot act that allowed them to circumvent the normal process of Senate confirmation. That is unprecedented and dangerous. That, among other things, is so what.

[TellTheTruth82]

60. again - so what

Ah, you've made my point. Change the law. Complaining about someone who obeys the law is ridiculous. Do something about changing the law!!!!

[PinkyisBlue]

52. Here's the difference between these firings and Clinton's firings.

These firings occurred in the middle of the president's term and the reasons for the firings were clearly unethical, if not illegal. That is why Gonzales lied to Congress about the firings and his role in them, that is why Gonzales' chief of staff resigned, and that is why the White House has been fighting to avoid having aids and staff members testify under oath before Congress. Also, the fired prosecutors were warned not to publicly discuss the reasons for their dismissals, and they had to be subpoenaed before they would agree to discuss the issue.

So, it's true that the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired at any time. But if nothing illegal or unethical has occurred, why all the lies and deception about it?

And I have a question for you and (other) Republicans: if Clinton was so bad when he was in office, how come you always point to him and say, "Well Clinton did it, so we can do it too." It sounds hypocrital, almost flip-floppy.

[TellTheTruth82]

58. again - so what

I didn't point out that Clinton did it to justify Bush doing it. I pointed it that all presidents can do it. The firings (per the law) are perfectly legal, though perhaps unethical. My point is this - if you think the law needs to be changed, get it changed. Complaining about someone following the law is ridiculous - its like complaining about the CEOs who get huge bonuses for making huge profits (like in oil) - what are you going to do - fire them for doing their job?

If you want to know why all the lies and deception about it - I would suggest that is politics - like the common lie about weapons of mass destruction - which has been thoroughly debunked - their is a great difference between being wrong and telling a lie - ask any child who has taken a test and gotten an answer wrong. This lie was told for political reasons, certainly not because it had any basis in truth.

And for the record, I am not a Republican. I am for telling the truth.

[MsMagnificent]

61. Bah, you are a RW troll

Plain & simple.

I look forward to your ts...

[TellTheTruth82]

62. ts?

Not sure what ts is, but I am not a RW troll - not sure what a troll is either. It's so nice to know that people here at the underground have special powers, such as mind reading, as well as omniscience. Oh, and don't forget the ability to push normally moderate voters away from your viewpoint with these abilities of yours....

[TankLV]

25. You are really transparent and are NOT fooling anybody as to who you are...

It will be fun toying with you...

[tanyev]

29. Don't forget Bush also got rid of most of them when he took office.

No one is disputing his right to do that. It is the firing of 8 of his own appointees well into his second term that is so unprecedented. And the emails establishing that they waited to do it until after they could appoint replacements that did not need Senate approval.

[EFerrari]

35. Oh, bull. Clinton didn't fire them mid term for partisan reasons.

[AikidoSoul]

40. These were selected firings in the middle of Bush's term

The DoJ firings of federal prosecutors were done selectively and strategically. There is good reason to believe that the Repugs kept the loyal Bushites on who would bend the law, and got rid of those who were more non-partisan, and sticklers for the law. Being loyal to the Bush administration is far, far more important to this administration than upholding the law.

Here's a quote and a link to the story that cites an email that verifies that sentiment--e-mails sent between DoJ and White House attorneys when discussing firings of 15-20% of the federal prosecutors:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"When the Rove inquiry described in the Jan. 6 e-mail message — sent
by Colin Newman, a White House lawyer, to David G. Leatch, another
lawyer — was forwarded to Mr. Sampson, then a top aide in the Justice
Department, he replied with an outline of his thinking, as presented
to Mr. Gonzales. 'As an operational matter we would like to replace
15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys — underperforming ones,'
Mr. Sampson wrote.

In the message, Mr. Sampson said, 'The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys,
80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.' "

There is at least one other very good reason to believe that this admin is replacing these prosecutors with loyal flaks. Take the case of the newly appointed federal prosecutor (to Eastern District of Arkansas) --his name is Timothy Griffin --he used to be Karl Rove's research assistant and Griffin has allegedly violated federal voting law. Read this excerpt from a recent newsletter by Greg Palast entitled, "Is Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?"

To me this illustrates the outrageous lies and hypocrisy of Gonzalez and Bush's claims that they fired some of the federal attorneys because they "weren't aggressive enough" going after vote fraud cases.

Here's the Palast item:

"Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for
the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was
the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000
citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women.
Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters
where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series
of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the
Republican National Committee. He didn't mean to send them to us. They were
highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails --
potential evidence of a crime -- to email addresses ending with the
domain name "@GeorgeWBush.com" he sent them to "@GeorgeWBush.ORG." A
website run by prankster John Wooden who owns "GeorgeWBush.org." When
Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called,
'Caging' lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for
challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from
Democratic precincts."

Link to the Palast investigative piece:

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

By contrast, those who were fired showed they have integrity and will not break the law to appease their masters in the White House.

The Bushites actually asked some of the fired fed prosecutors to use their offices to run some campaign activities which is against the law. They refused.

There is a lot out there on this and you need to do a little more research. There are also emails that went between DoJ and the White House legal staff about how Carol Lam was "a problem" right after she started to look at Rep Jerry Lewis' connection to Duke Cunningham and a lobbyist for a defense contractor. Remember, it was Lam who originally indicted Cunningham.

The original e-mail is are available at a link below, so you don't have to take my word for it.

Here's a link to one of them at the house judiciary committee web site and is possibly the most important one --that discusses the "problem" of Carol Lam the same day it was announced that she was going after Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJdocsPt1070313.pdf

Another fired prosecutor is John McKay who didn't do Repug's bidding. He said he was pressured by Republicans to bring voter fraud charges after the 2004 Washington governor’s race where Democrat Christine Gregoire, won a very close election. If you remember it was in all the papers and there were two recounts. Repugs wanted to overturn the election, but McKay refused to do it. His statement as reported in several national newspapers thus far is: "There was no evidence," he said, "and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury."

Here's one of the links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/opinion/16fri1.html?hp

And here's another good one from the LA TIMES that ties together some of the important timing of the firing of San Diego fed. prosecutor Carol Lam. She by far seems to have been the most dangerous to the Repugs:

Gonzales aide called prosecutor a 'real problem'
After news reports of a widening corruption probe, D. Kyle Sampson sent an e-mail about replacing Carol Lam.
By Richard A. Serrano
Times Staff Writer

March 15, 2007

WASHINGTON — The day news broke that a federal corruption probe in Southern California was spreading to Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales fired off an e-mail to the White House about the federal prosecutor who had begun the investigation.

"The real problem we have right now is Carol Lam," D. Kyle Sampson told White House Deputy Counsel William Kelley on May 11. "That leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-usattys15mar15,1,5413433.story?page=2&coll=la-news-a_section

The Repugs are afraid of her because if she went after Rep Jerry Lewis and a lobbyist connected to Duke Cunningham -- the Repugs corruption scheme using phony defense contractor outsourcing companies, would start to unfold.

There's lots more out there.

[BlackVelvet04]

63. I see you got the memo.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Cleaner]

16. Newsflash: IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY

It all started in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and took off like wildfire after Bush was "elected" in 2000.

Here in Texas I recall the Republicans re-districting in this state in order to give them more seats in Congress. The Dems were so angered (rightly so) they skipped off to neighboring Oklahoma in protest. It was a huge bru-ha-ha back in 2002. And it was clearly designed to establish a permanent Republican majority in Texas, and also cement Republican rule in Congress.

It is sickening that dirty Texas Republican politics has in every sense been forced upon the entire nation. :(

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Instead of which, it looks like doing precisely the opposite.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Oh, snap.

Blatant abuse of power. The other shoe just dropped.

[texpatriot2004]

23. Seems to me that this Administration would NOT want to open

the door on "elections" and "fraud" especially not in the same sentence. I don't know, I'm just sayin'...

With all that data that has been accumulated regarding this issue, if they open the door on it, it could backfire, big time! I understand that their "argument" is bogus in the context that they are using, still, bad idea to bring it up from where they stand. Oh well, bring it on...

[glitch]

24. If they were bright they wouldn't have to be corrupt. nt

[diane in sf]

28. Repugs cheat at vote counting and use Orwellian tactics and terms

like "Clean Air Act" etc. becuase they have absolutely nothing to offer ordinary Americans. They exist for oliarchists.

[barbtries]

31. i just love this

goddam administration - up is down. wrong is right. it appears to me that the administration was pissed because by not pursuing "voter fraud" the attorneys were refusing to commit ELECTION fraud.

goodGAWD

[19jet54]

32. Ohio..

Did anyone investigate Ohio for voter fraud?

Only 1 or 2 voting machines in "black" neighborhoods where people waited 8 hours to vote, with excess machines in "Republican" white neighborhoods? How did Rove know ahead of time that Ohio would be the decisive state? Were any United States attorneys in Ohio fired? Why not?

Guess what - Americans are not stupid & our last election results are proof American Democracy works! Look for more in '08...

[NashVegas]

36. Where's the Florida Attny Going After Ann Coulter?

Hmmm?

[Sydnie]

39. I've been asking that question quite a bit myself lately

they could start there, couldn't they?

[NastyRiffraff]

41. But...But....

The FL AG is a "good Bushie" Ann(thrax) is a valuable resource.

[Land Shark]

44. YOu heard it here on DU, TPM, bradblog and other places FIRST

now it's in the NY Times. Lead the way, DU!

[midnight]

46. HI land shark. I know it does you good to see the words

voter fraud equated to voter suppression. It has been known for so long here at DU. As some have suggested on this post; hopefully, this story of judges being purged will reveal this well known fact-voter suppression.

[Ilsa]

47. Woohoo! Let the truth rain down like a hurricane! nt

[juno jones]

54. What we need to get them on is...

...The outrage committed against black and hispanic SOLDIERS whose votes were negated. Get out those caging lists and make a fuss...these men and women are serving their country and their vote is suspect?...Say what? I think in terms of the current walter reed scandal this has the abililty to strike a chord and drive another wedge into the support of this illegal war.

[Hubert Flottz]

56. We saw that nothing happened to a republican who committed

voter fraud! She's out calling John Edwards names and writing more hate books and making more hate speeches on TV.

[senseandsensibility]

57. Yeah, and that's even REAL voter fraud

not election fraud.

[bleedingheart]

59. One word - Impeach

with all the evidence pointing to this administration manipulating the goverment and the people to go to war for no reason, to destroy people for political purposes and to defund our treasury to fill their friends coffers....I just don't understand why we haven't impeached the bastards...both Bush and Cheney.