The larger (potential) problem in the U.S. Attorney scandal...

[hiaasenrocks]

I'm sure I'm not the first to raise this point but I have to wonder, since it's pretty obvious that these eight attorneys were fired for not complying with the WH's political demands, how many of the remaining attorneys have retained their jobs because they did comply with the political demands of the White House.

This is a frightening prospect.

Will the investigation go this far?

[originalpckelly]

1. They aren't political demands when you're party is being investigated...

by the people fired, those become criminal demands.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. Well, of course. That's the whole point.

We're talking motive here.

[KharmaTrain]

2. The "Elephant" In The Room

Credit Josh Marshall for asking this question when the lid blew on this scandal a couple weeks ago, and I have a good feeling TPM is digging at the very question you're asking.

One that's already been raised is the indictments that came down in New Jersey in the final weeks of that campaign involving a former business associate of Bob Menendez who was in a close race with Tom Kean Jr. Josh and Co. have flagged that one and there are surely others that could be tied to the politicization of the Prosecutors office. If proven Ashcroft and Gonzo turned this division into another patronage shop, the ramifications will be felt for years and affect many, many cases. Appeal attorneys have to be salivating at the possibilities.

[hiaasenrocks]

4. Thanks. I try to read TPM as often as I can, but I don't

always get to it every day.

I'll have to keep a closer eye on Josh's site. It's a good one.

[Wilber_Stool]

5. It's already been hinted

that there are other players waiting in the wings. Remember, most of the Dems involved in this were prosecutors. They know how to play the game. I don't think we'll hear the fat lady for a long long time.

[notadmblnd]

6. I guess we can just assume that they're all corrupt

With the exception of Fitzgerald (who IIRC was on a list of those underperforming, whom they didn't dare fire).

[TahitiNut]

9. I'd say it's conservatively clear that ALL the 'top tier' US attorneys toed the line ...

... and increased their prosecution of the GOP's political opponents while decreasing their prosecution of the GOP's political allies.

Fitzgerald was in the 'middle tier' ... not having demonstrated adequate personal loyalty to the Cheney/Bush regime but no disloyalty either. Clearly, the top performers found themselves ranked in all three tiers ... with the most important litmus test being loyalty. It seems clear, as well, that those who happily found themselves free of pressures (to increase OR decrease prosecutorial activities for political reasons) all found themselves ranked in the middle. Thus, I think it can be fairly concluded that EVERY US Attorney ranked in the top tier complied with pressures to shift their prosecutorial activities for partisan reasons.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. My opinion is closely aligned with yours

As this scandal unfolds, it's likely that evidence will emerge that partisan US attorneys are involved in covering up crimes already committed by Republicans. When this happens, add 'obstruction of justice' to the list of crimes committed from Torquemada's office.

Some in the corporate media grudgingly admit that the reason behind firing/replacing the nine US attorneys may be to conduct a partisan witch-hunt against Democrats. IMO the corporate media are offering a 'plea bargain' - admitting to a 'lesser' crime in order to avoid prosecution for an even bigger one.

[Robbien]

8. The thread about Griles getting only ten months for

playing footsie with Abramoff

giving away our mountains for strip mining

getting into bed (literally) with the head pollution cop and auctioning off almost all US pollution rights

making sure Indian tribes were completely put through the wringer

telling auditors not to look at Bigoil not paying US royalties

and plenty more

After Griles received ten months as punishment, the USAttorney said "see we go after our own too".

So what do you want to bet this USA is a loyal bushie.

[merh]

10. here ya go

-snip-

In the last few days we’ve also learned that Republican members of Congress called prosecutors to pressure them on politically charged cases, even though doing so seems unethical and possibly illegal. The bigger scandal, however, almost surely involves prosecutors still in office. The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: “We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest.”

And let’s not forget that Karl Rove’s candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove’s time in Texas: “In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.”

-snip-

scroll down to Krugman's March 9, 2007 entry at this link http://mgpaquin.blogspot.com/search/label/Krugman

The Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan preview of their study, complete with the statistical data/charts can be found at this link http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html
(look at the end of the article for the charts)

merh
Wed Mar-21-07 11:20 PM
17. Here is the list

* Carol Lam (Southern District of California)
* David Iglesias (District of New Mexico)
* H. E. Cummins III (Eastern District of Arkansas)
* Paul K. Charlton (District of Arizona)
* John McKay (Western District of Washington)
* Kevin V. Ryan (Northern District of California)
* Daniel Bogden (District of Nevada)
* Margaret Chiara (Western District of Michigan)

Let's see, Arkansas, could that be because Hillary Clinton has baggage worth investigating in Arkansas? Didn't Clark announce his 2004 presidential bid from Arkansas? And isn't Arkansas a weak red state?

New Mexico, Richardson is a dem candidate, does he need further scrutiny and isn't New Mexico a barely red state that had voting issues in 2004? Weren't New Mexico's electoral votes important in 2004?

Nevada, a barely red state.

California, a blue state that has the most electoral votes and a republican governor, do they think it is vulnerable and do they need to increase the investigations into dems?

Arizona - McCain? Is he not their annointed successor?

Michigan - 17 electoral votes and a state that is barely blue.

Washington ??



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3175377&mesg_id=3175426

[LiberalFighter]

11. It appears that it was a two prong attack

1) Target the states to influence elections

2) Those not replaced will know that there was a political reason and they better toe the line. From the emails it is apparent that prosecutors have their "Peyton Place" on what is happening across the country.