electoral-map.gif

(Electoral college numbers map via The Talent Show.)

Readers will be happy to know that the House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative law voted to authorize Full Committee Chairman Conyers to issue subpoenas for WH and DOJ officials and documents this morning.  The motion to do so passed by voice vote.  (I hear this via e-mail — will post a link when I get one.)  Will let you know more from the Senate when I get some news.  Please keep those calls going, though — support for public scrutiny and accountability is important today. 

And now on to the motivation for the DoJ mess and the US Attorney firings.  It’s “the math.”

Remember before the 2006 election when Karl Rove did a weird little NPR interview — in late October of 2006, to be exact — about how the polls were or were not shaping up for the Republican Congressional possibilities.  And Rove said this (via RawStory):

“You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math,” Rove said. “I’m entitled to ‘the’ math.”

Let’s all take a peek at the above electoral college map — and contemplate which states are solidly red and blue — and which states are potentially on the verge. And then let’s contemplate, of those states on the map, which of them have US Attorneys who were fired or are involved somehow in the current mess with the Department of Justice and “Rove’s Shop.”

And then, just for kicks, take a peek at what Bob Geiger found:

Durbin is referring to a study done by Shields and Cragan showing that, under the Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Departments from 2001 through 2006, a vastly disproportionate number of Democratic officials were scrutinized when total investigations were viewed based on political party affiliation.

“We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys’ federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials,” write the authors in their study. “The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).”

The Shields-Cragan report reveals that, of the 375 investigations of public officials conducted by the Bush Justice Department, 298 — or almost 80 percent — were done against Democratic public officials. Only 67 investigations were performed on Republicans, while 10 probes were done on people affiliated with the Independent, Green or other parties.

“Our ongoing study of the Bush Justice Department (to be published in 2009) investigates the implications of the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department’s blended religious-fundamentalist and neo-conservative rhetorical vision,” write Shields and Cragan. “The study views the impact of the Justice Department’s vision on the fight against public corruption and reveals the non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials.”  (emphasis mine)

When you add in the fact that, as I am told through the grapevine this morning, a number of campaign finance violations cases that have been brought by US Attorneys were, in fact, brought without first seeking a majority vote of the FEC as required by law — and that these cases are likely to be dismissed over the next few weeks in pending litigation.  Well, that adds up to a whole lot of math, now doesn’t it?

Congress — ALL of Congress, regardless of party affiliation – has a duty to the American public of providing oversight.  Karl Rove’s focus has always been on the electoral math and gaming the system to win elections.  Nothing else, and I mean NOTHING else, matters to “Rove’s shop.”  You want to know what the root of the US Attorney firings is?  Follow “the math.”

How much of the “loyalty” question for DoJ evaluations of US Attorneys had to do with loyalty to Karl Rove’s vision of “the math?”  Gaming the rule of law for your own perverted political ends — by whatever means necessary?  Just one of the many reasons that Karl Rove should testify in public, under oath, and on the record.

UPDATE:  From Hugh in the comments — this is exactly what I was talking about above:

Referring to the map above, here is the list of fired attorneys

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)
Daniel Bogden (District of Nevada)
Margaret Chiara (Western District of Michigan)

Carol Lam (Southern District of California )
Kevin V. Ryan (Northern District of California)

6 of the attorneys come from states that are not completely red or blue. The other 2 are from the country’s largest state and a major source of campaign contributions California.

Coincidence? I think not. And the USAs from California? Contemplate, just for a moment, what an electoral prize CA would be in the upcoming 2008 election.