The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings today on the firing of US Attorneys by the Bush Administration. And, with more fired attorneys coming to the fore — including one from Maryland who now says that he was forced out because of investigations into political associates of the Republican governor. From the NYTimes:
The former federal prosecutor in Maryland said Monday that he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican.
“There was direct pressure not to pursue these investigations,” said the former prosecutor, Thomas M. DiBiagio. “The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.”
Mr. DiBiagio, a controversial figure who clashed with a number of Maryland politicians, had never publicly discussed the reasons behind his departure. But he agreed to an interview with The New York Times because he said he was concerned about what he saw as similarities with the recent firings of eight United States attorneys.
The DoJ disputes DiBiagio's account, but this makes a number of fired USAttys who were all forced out under similar circumstances. With revelations over the weekend that Sen. Pete Dominici (R-NM) admits to contacting the ousted USA in New Mexico about a pending corruption investigation — and today's admission by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) that she did the same — the Senate hearing today should prove to be very interesting, indeed.
Especially given the fact that the chief White House apologist, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has announced (H/T TPM) that he will likely miss the hearing altogether today, leaving the WH dangling without their usual committee talking points mouthpiece.
TPM, which has been doing fantastic work on this story from day one, has the lame excuse that the Bush Administration is now floating out for firing Carol Lam — and TPM readers drive several trucks through the big holes in it.
Today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, beginning at 10:00 am ET today, will include testimony from:
H.E. “Bud” Cummins, III
Former U.S. Attorney
Eastern District of Arkansas
Little Rock, AR
David C. Iglesias
Former U.S. Attorney
District of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Carol Lam
Former U.S. Attorney
Southern District of California
San Diego, CA
John McKay
Former U.S. Attorney
Western District of Washington
Seattle, WA
Oh, and did I mention that the House Judiciary Committee will be holding similar hearings? Today? (H/T to Mary4 — I misread the House schdeule this mornng and thought these hearings were for tomorrow — but they are today as well.) All I can say is, let the oversight begin. If political cronyism or an attempt to thwart corruption investigations into elected Republicans and their political pals is at the bottom of all of this, there is not enough sunshine in all the world for that sort of smarmy conduct.
In case you missed it over the weekend, more here from me, and here from looseheadprop. And I'm with LHP: anyone connected with this needs to be asked what contact they had with Karl Rove on this — because this whole political smarm operation reeks of a Turdblossom Special.
UPDATE: TPM Muckraker has a must read on this.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Cannot wait for this! Should be compelling TV.
Oh and … JUSTICE!
And ulcers for the Bushies!!
They definitely need to ask about Karl Rove’s involvement in this… it smells of turdblossom.
Go Fitzie!!!
TEAM FDL!!
I’ve mentioned before that we live 30 miles east of Seattle. We were very thankful to see John McKay on the list of those testifying over the next two days.
I can hardly wait to hear today’s White House spin.
-S
What a great day! Got my boots on. (Wellies, dressiest thing I could find.) Wearing the TechnoTrousers (Couldn’t find a dinosaur suit). Borrowed pearls from Wendolyne. Got my knitting. Got my cheese and crackers. Got my laptop. Let’s get cracking!
FITZ!!!!!!!!!!!!
ESTEN!
(Watiting for AAA with frozen battery)
Investigations.
Trials.
Verdicts.
Prison.
Kathryn at 9 — Oh, brrrrr! Stay warm in the meantime.
Gromit I crack up every time I see your nom de blog.
Well, that’s just great. Today, we might actually get a verdict and it will be drowned out by something equally important.
Scandal overload.
You, too, sweetie. Remember, in winter, cotton kills. Layer silk first, then wool, then polartec fuzzy!
CHS @ Top: “And I’m with LHP: anyone connected with this needs to be asked what contact they had with Karl Rove on this — because this whole political smarm operation reeks of a Turdblossom Special.”
Or OVP, with Karl signing on in a few instances to push through some political favors on his own behalf.
The reason I bring the OVP into this is simply because Cheney had more contact with the House and Senate in his day to day duties than Rove.
I’m amazed and delighted with the speed at which these investigations are ramping up.
Was it only last week that the Walter Reed scandal was discovered? Already heads are rolling and BushCo has taken a direct hit. As they should.
The lawyer firing thing has been going on longer but the speed with which it achieved critical mass has been amazing.
Accountability (Democratic style) anyone?
portia.vz @ 13
Bring’em on!
They say the jury is dressed up!!!
Going off for some details.
portia.vz @ 13
What, Anna Nicole’s baby’s first visit to her grave?
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will hear from all four of these USA’s, as well as Paul Charlton(AZ) and Daniel Bogden(NV).
They have not yet subpoenaed either Kevin Ryan(CA) or Margaret Chiara(MI).
If anybody has time to do a comparison for me, I can get you lists of the USA’s from 2001, 2004, 2005. We need to know which USA’s “dropped out”. Email me at rayne_today [at] yahoo if you have time and want to help; be sure to put your FDL name in the subject line so I recognize you.
My question is, who architected the provision in the Patriot Act they are exploiting? By architecting I mean – who in executive branch pushed this?
Gromit @ 7
crackin’ good!
egregious @ 18
Ruh roh! Could this be it? Please, please, please………….
CHS-
Turdblossom Special…LOL! He has his stinky, pig-pink hands in everything, doesn’t he?
Also wanted to say a HUGE THANK YOU to FDL for the liveblogging at scooter’s trial (remarkable WORK by all!) and for all the insightfulness and truth that gets posted here everyday.
What a day today is going to be!! TRUTH, JUSTICE AND PEACE…Im out for now.
Toles’s cartoon take of the attorney firings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._main.html
Careful Christy, it is funnnnnny!!!
Today the other two branches of our constitutional republic will be heard from!
Hopefully, by today’s gloaming we will have powerfully reasserted we are a nation of laws, not men.
coffee break! just checking in. nothing new on PACER since Walton’s response to jury questions.
Maybe AAA won’t come til after the verdict is announced!!
Rayne @ 20
Rayne left you a long comment near bottom of last thread. It conatianed specific question to be asked by J. Committee investigators.
old gold, ‘gloaming.’ Nice.
Kathryn in MA @ 28
Tell them you have the verdict, and you’re trying to deliver it.
Pat_AlexVA @ 21
Interesting question. It has been mentioned that Specter’s CoS for Judiciary was a WH placement, the price that Arlen had to pay for keeping the chairmanship. I don’t remember name, was in the threads in the last couple of days. Follow his career and the truth will probably come out.
He was the guy that slipped the provision into the Patriot Act and of course, Arlen, when he found out ex post facto was SHOCKED, shocked , I tell you.
Pat_AlexVA @ 21
I have no clue, but if I had to guess,I would suspect Rove.
OT: Marcy’s earlier thread on the jury notes seems to show a pattern of creating questions and then continuing to work on other things (and perhaps coming up with OTHER questions). While the latest questions (dealing with Count 3) are next sequentially after the “reasonable doubt” question, I do not think they are the jury’s response to Walton’s asking them to rephrase it. I think they are other questions that came up in the interval between asking it and then considering (or submitting) Walton’s request for the rephrase.
Therefore: I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the “reasonable doubt” question has been dealt with by these specific Question 3 questions. I think we may see the rephrased “reasonable doubt” question TODAY.
one quick comment – is Congress working its way backwards in time? if so, it will take YEARS to get to the real problems for which Congressional oversight has been sorely lacking.
Credit: sundance kid at 6:19 on the vultures thread—
Shuster on msnbc reporting that the jury “is dressed up” and emphasizing that even the marshalls noted the dress code change …
FITZEASTER!
Fitzeaster indeed.
You know we are much closer to St. Patrick’s Day than Easter.
On DiBiagio, I don’t buy it. My most accounts at the time, DiBiagio was a terrible USA. Office morale was low, AUSAs were leaving (one was murdered — and I don’t think that crime was ever solved), prosecutions were down, and most of all, DiBiagio’s *Republical* partisanship was grating, and his ineptness at it was embarassing to the administration.
Remember that internal memo in which he demanded his AUSAs bring three “front page” corruption cases before the 2004 elections? That was widely — and in my mind correctly — read to mean he was targetting Democratic elected officials to help the Republicans in the election. Now, of course, I doubt the administration has a problem with that approach per se (see, e.g. Inglesias), but the memo was leaked to the press and turned into quite a scandal. He wasn’t just a Republican hack; he was an incompetent Republican hack.
It doesn’t surprise me much that he would jump on this bandwagon, but I think this one is a red herring.
I do think there is a major issue (corruption, cover-up, political gamesmanship) in the firing of the six USAs who are going to testify today. But that doesn’t mean that every fired USA is part of it. Notice that you’re not hearing anything about fired San Francisco USA Kevin Ryan. That’s because if you ask most anyone in the legal community in SF, they’ll tell you what a mess of an office he ran there. Same thing for DiBiagio: most folks in Maryland were happy to see this guy shown the door.
CSpan 3 covering the judiciary hearing live at 10 am.
If? If?
No ifs about it — Arkansas already has the “political cronyism” one nailed cold, with Rove’s former assistant having been named (and now that the heat’s been turned up, withdrawing as a permanent replacement).
Bring on the sunshine, and put it through some high powered magnifying glasses!
aaarrrggghhh! of course it will be today – mr cbl and I (total non shoppers), have to go out shopping for several hours – it is the only time window we have for a wedding this Saturday – crikey !
pssst – pls remember the jury could be ‘dressed up’ simply b/c they knew they would see Judge Walton this morning
Well I got epu’d at the end of Christy’s post on this subject so I am repeating it here.
My question and thoughts at the time and still remain. Who inserted this language into the Patriot Act that allowed the political patronage laden Administration known as Bushco to remove these prosecutors in the first place and appoint their Heckuva Job lover Hacks (and Rove’s bff’s) without any scrutiny or oversight/hearings from Congress? YOu know bypass the usual nomination processes built into the system. Specter is denying that he had anything to do with the language….well it just didn’t show up their by miraculous insertion into that legislation did it? And once that question is answered…it will lead to the culprits behind the rest of this fiasco…because it appears most lawmakers where unaware of it so someone higher up was keeping tabs on it and knew about it do be able to take advantage of the situation. I smell Rove on this too…with his toady Abu in on it.
And lastly, now that it is happened what the heck is taking Congress so long to (retroactively???) change the language of this legislation on this matter?
cbl @ 41
D’Oh!
Isn’t this one of the crimes that Nixon committed? Firing the special prosecutor that was put in charge of investigating him?
Total (i hope) tinfoil territory here – but i’d like to hear (perhaps at YKos2) Gen. Clark ruminage about a possible terrorist hit, followed by martial law and the “postponement” of elections 2008. What can those of us who plan ahead do?
Peterr @ 40
Amen
Fresh thread from EW, liveblogging at the courthouse this morning.
The “Saturday Night Massacre” (October 20, 1973) was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the forced resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the Watergate scandal.
Cox was appointed by Richardson after Richardson gave assurances to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would appoint an independent counsel to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972. Cox had earlier issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations which Nixon had made in the Oval Office as evidence. Nixon initially refused to comply with the subpoena, but on October 19, 1973, he offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise – asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor’s office.
Cox refused the compromise that same evening, and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend. However, President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night – a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he, too, refused and was fired by Nixon.
Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere – Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Bork complied with Nixon’s order and fired Cox.
Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of Presidential power. In the days that followed, numerous bills of impeachment against the President were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, in which he said,
“…in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that [sic] I’ve welcomed this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President’s a crook. Well, I’m not a crook!”
Nixon’s presidency would later succumb to mounting pressure resulting from the Watergate scandal and its coverup. In the face of the by-then certain threat of removal from office through impeachment and conviction, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.
The now expired Independent Counsel Act, passed in 1978, was a direct result of the The Saturday Night Massacre.
my too sense @ 42
See RevDeb @ 32 – It was Specter’s Chief of Staff, and Arlen was shocked — shocked, I tell you — that such a thing could have happened.
ruminate, conjecture,
addie loggins @ 38
Is it possible that DiBiagio is a White House plant? By that, I mean, can the WH discredit his story by saying “Why would we force him out if he was working for us?”, thereby, casting doubt on the others that were fired for political reasons?
Are the house hearings not until tomorrow? I thought the were this afternoon
Or is the HOuse not going to have access to the fired attys as witnesses until tomorrow?
Peterr @ 49
IIRC it was Specter’s CoS for the Judiciary Committee, not necessarily his CoS.
LHP — I got it, I’m on it.
Warming up Skype now. And repurchasing eFax, ’cause I’m going to need more than free service.
Mary4 at 52 — My understanding is that the House is having soem hearings today — but the big one will be tomorrow. But let me check that to be certain they haven’t switched the scheduling — this has grown exponentially the last few days, and they may have accellerated the schedule for today.
And a bit OT for Christy (is she is so inclined),
As I worked yesterday and am now just catching up on all the posts I missed yesterday…. On your wonderful essay yesterday regarding Shiny Objects (about Walton’s writings) You mentioned a footnote (#18)that you found amusing (and a skillful commentary). It was about Schmall’s testimony and Libby’s VIBP defense strategy. Would you care to elaborate/expand on it as I don’t have access to it and am curious about it. Otherwise thanks and I understand if you don’t get this question here in this thread. TY.
JGabriel @
15
can’t find link now but recently read the tentacles of OVP into Justice… David Addington seems to have done much of the work for Gonzales…
That was an interesting experiment in multi-tasking multi-media yesterday, I had two TV’s, a VCR and two computers all going at once; One TV was on C-Span, the other TV was changing from channel to channel in response to comments here and at Gabbly, from other FDLers wh were watching the Walter Reed hearings.
If the jury sits and works the whole day away, when those hearings come on later, it will be interesting to try it again. If you are reading or watching something that “fitz” our daily project, just post a link or a location here of whatever news item or story you have found, then the rest of us can look at it as we watch, listen and converse.
Mary4 — They are contemplating subpoenaing the USAs this morning, and then discussing the need to restore checks and balances this afternoon beginning at 2:00 pm ET. See the House committee website for more details.
Pat_AlexVA @
21
suspect David Addington first… if that doesn’t work out, try…
I’ll second the props on the liveblogging at Scooty’s trial. (Amazing how much more work I can get done w/ 2 monitors.)
FDL rocks!!
-PeaceOut
njr @ 60
I kind of wonder where Yoo fits into all of this. He may be safely sequestered at UC Berkley now, but he sure was at the bottom of a lot of foul things, at least in writing the language that tried to legally justify them,
It occurs to me that the situation with the DoJ vs. all the fired attorneys has parallels with Libby vs. all the prosecution witnesses. In order to believe that the firings weren’t political, we have to believe that all the fired attorneys are just making excuses for themselves (and all of them have work records that justify their firing). What are the odds?
My question wrt who requested the legislation, it just seems to me like it was planted for just this purpose. So we ought to burn the candle from both ends of the stick.
Who wanted the legislation?
Who’s behind the cannings?
Local senior staffer for a Democratic Rep scurrying right now to get me phone numbers for the appropriate Subcommittee staff (not available over the internet).
What time is the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting — right now?
I’ve updated above — the House hearings are today — not tomorrow. Sorry gang, I misread the schedule date on the House website. And TPM Muckraker has a must read for today.
Pat_Alex Va,
I’m with you on your inquiry…because that language was inserted into it late and someone(s) requested it be put in quietly into the night. And someone(s) did it knowing and planning to take full advantage of it. Get that Specter Judiciary COS individual under oath at a hearing to testify…NOW.
Rayne — It starts at 10 — so about now.
Christy — thanks.
I see that the Executive Office is reading FDL this morning.
JF @ 51
I don’t know… my guess is that this is just DiBiagio jumping on the bandwagon. But I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Kevin Ryan was included in the group that was fired. He’s their cover — a fired USA who most everyone would agree deserved it — it makes sense they would include one in the group. Plus, if they hadn’t included Ryan, that would look even worse. Then everyone would be yelling “how in the hell can you fire Carol Lam and let Kevin Ryan keep his job?
PS. I don’t know why this is in italics and underlined, but I can’t seem to turn it off. Sorry.
addie loggins @ 70
addie, we’re going to need data. See TPM yesterday on Iglesias’ performance and you’ll see what I mean. If Ryan and DiBiagio don’t have the numbers behind them, then they could be discounted to a limited degree. Remember that one of the methods by which USA’s could be “punished” is lack of resourcing, which could very well effect performance.
I’m going to continue to keep an open mind about any and all changes in USA’s until we’ve investigated every one of them.
Be sure to include in the count …
The US Attorney in LA who resigned, I believe it was last summer. She was working on the Jerry Lewis case … her current job is with the firm defending Lewis.
On C-SPAN this am I heard callers on the Republican and Indy line harp on the “Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys” when he got into office. And their point was that, “if Clinton did it” why are we so worried about what Bush is doing? What is the background to this story and what is its merit? (I couldn’t stay with CSPAN for the whole program..therefore, my ignorance here)
It was kind of interesting to see Comey’s name surface in this, wasn’t it?
Can’t tell from that whether Comey gave his stamp of approval to the firings (kind of doubtful), or even what he understood the purpose of the list to be.
bookwoman @ 73
It’s pretty normal, even customary, for an incoming President to replace all or most of the U.S. attorneys with candidates of his or her choosing. This is a presidential prerogative. It’s extremely unusual for a president to fire, for no good reason, a whole slew of U.S. attorneys he himself has appointed. It’s especially reprehensible when they’re being replaced because of pure politics and cronyism.
When the Presidency changes parties, all the US Attorneys submit resignation letters. Usually, they are replaced during the first or second year, scheduled around completion of big deal cases. The thing with the Bush massacre is that he appointed every last one of them on the recommendation of some Republican or another.
He may think he’s the Decider, but he’s not become famous for making good decisions.
It’s on C-span 3 on my local cable and through the webcast given at the top of the thread/post. It’s mislabeled on the guide, though. Grr..
Schumer is loving this
Thank you Sprinkles and TexasEllen…much appreciated. But now you know the GOP talking points!
Sparkles the Iguana @ 74
Comey’s been with Lockheed for roughly two years.
Wonder if that’s another guy who “stepped down”…
But he definitely had no feedback on these dismissals.
Iglesias is standing up to be counted thank god. He clearly states that he considered Senator Domenicis’ phone call to be a threatening call.
So…. Why did Specter slip this little nugget into the renewal of the patriot act anyway? He has admitted to doing it.. Has he said why he did it?
feingold time!