Comey sounded a little homesick for DOJ didn't he?
Back before Comey became USA SDNY, there was a bit of war in NY over the nomination for that office. The Bush Administration had already abandoned the notion of getting nominations from the Senators (who are both Dems) and had made then govenor George Pataki the point person for both USA and federal judicial nominations from NY.
Because of 9/11 and her special expertise in terrorism cases, Mary Jo White had stayed on at SDNY until 2002. She offered to stay indefinatley, but the White House had publicly shunned that idea. After all, political affliation trumps competence every time with this crowd.
Anayway, Gov. Pataki wanted to nominated a very nice man named James McGuire to be USA SDNY. McGuire reputed to be a decent sort, had zero federal law enforcement, or even federal civil practice experience. He had very limited trial experince. He had been Patki's Criminal Justice Coordinator, which means he was a guy who figured out how to move funding around to push the Govenor's Criminal Justice priorites. This experience might have suited him for a high level administrative position at main Justice, but was never going to qualify him for the most high profile US Attorney's gig in the country.
Now SDNY is the jewel in the crown of DOJ. Jobs there are more highly coveted than jobs in main justice, and along with clerking for a Supreme Court Justice, a stint at SDNY is one of THE most valuable and prestigious lines a young lawyer can have on their resume.
USA SDNY has enjoyed unusual independance from Main Justice, and depending on the personalites involved in some years the USA has held more de facto power within the District than the AG. For this reason the Southern District of New York is widely known as the "Sovereign District of New York."
Chuck Schumer did not take the idea of the home state senators being cut out of the judical and U.S. Attorney selection process lying down. Love him or hate him, you cannot question that during the first Shrub Administration Chuck Schumer blocked a lot of really, really awful judicial nominees–am I the only one who remembers his filibusters?? – not just in NY, but totally idealogigically insane wingnuts and craven "loyel Bushies" who were going to be slotted into Courts of Appeals with an eye toward putting one or more into the Supreme Court. Remember the Estrada fillibuster?
Schumer did some really hard core pressuring and horse trading with Pataki (which allowed Pataki to put at least one supremely unqualified, incompetant, lazy and just plain stupid person into a lifetime federal judgeship — every lawyer in NY who is reading this will know instantly to whom I refer), and forced the Comey nonmination for USA SDNY. At the time, I heard about it from a D'Amato person and from a member of the NYS Republican Committee.
In fact, it was Comey's own credentials and personal prestige that made the deal work. Every person who heard the idea (pre-nomination) seemed to have the same reaction, slap self on forehead and say "why didn't I think of that!" followed by a big grin. That was the first I knew that Comey was a Republican. Years later, New York Magazine reported on the deal.
Why do I bring this up? Well, at the time that Comey was appointed to become Deputy AG, the NY rumor mill kicked into high gear again. I heard more of the following from Republicans than Democrats, and since most of these folks were pretty directly involved in the judical nomination process, I take it pretty seriously.
Word on the street was that when the FBI realized that Rove was major suspect in the Plame leak case, they confronted Ashcroft and others about the conflict of interest — Ashcroft had once hired Rove. Moreover, Ashcroft did not want to have to stand up to the WH if there was going to be a cover up attempt. He was supposedly relieved to hear that "someone" was going to force Comey down the White House's throat.
I don't think the WH had any illusions at the time of his appointment that Comey might be a "loyal Bushie." He had already publicly (in front of over 100 pretty high powered and well connected federal practitoners) questioned whether the WH had lied to him to get him to hold Jose Padilla. Do you think for nanosecond that no one called DC the next morning with that tidbit?
Nope, the WH had to know by then that Comey was not a go along to get along guy. I always thought that the fact that New York Magazine made a point to talk about the fact that Schumer had forced Comey into SDNY to keep a loyal footsoldier out of there in an article about Comey going to Washington was a clear signal that NYMag had heard the same story about Comey being forced down the White House's throat.
I have always wondered who pulled that off. Was it Schumer? Was is a group of non-wingnut Republicans? I can tell you that many republicans saw his arrival in DC as the only hope that the party would not be destroyed by the Plame scandal, not because he would cover it up — but precisely because they were confident he would NOT allow it to be covered up. When he immediately appointed PatFitz, many good, honest, ethical, decent republican lawyers breathed a sigh of relief.
Pretty much from the day he arrived, the word was that Comey was effectively running DOJ and that Ashcroft was off at his farm in Virginia doing the planning work for his next job, and taking care of his health.
Certainly, Comey became the guy with his finger in the dike trying to hold back the worst of the WH power grab and trying to protect his beloved DOJ from the unethical assault that was to come.
You may have noticed from Marcy's timeline and Jane's post building on it, that the really outrageous things which were apparently in the planning stages for a long time, could not be executed while Comey remained in office.
Question, why did he leave? We can all see why he might want to leave, it must have been incredibly draining to be the only meaningful pushback against the WH and the Rovians.
But why did he leave?
Maybe, just maybe …..
Was he the first one purged? Was the purge of James B. Comey the necessary beginning of the larger purges to come?
Follow up question for the still open Comey testimony record.
Were you asked to resign?
If so, by whom?
Where did you believe that idea originated?
Another thought.
Was the "I miss the Department terribly" line a shout out to the miracle worker(s) who forced Comey into the DAG spot in the first place indicating that he would be willing to try to come in and clean up the mess Bushco has made of DOJ?
That would be interesting!
(Update: Steve Audio reminds us of this article on Comey that came out at the time Ashcroft resigned:
Distrust of Comey deepened after some of his early staff picks were vetoed by the White House for not having strong Republican credentials, sources say.
"The White House always wants to make sure the administration is staffed with people who have the president's best interests at heart. Anyone who resists that political loyalty check is regarded with some suspicion," says one former Bush administration official. "The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team. It is to assemble the best possible team that supports the president."
– JH)
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

could it be zed?
Jane!
♥lOvE teh ZeD
no zed for me
I don’t generally care for functionaries. Nor am I seduced by them. The prevailing proclivity is to dislike them. But I respect Comey.
lhp, what a great question that is. Hello, judiciary committee! Ask it.
Justice is what I seek. Nothing more. And certainly not a bit less.
Great read, of course, and terrific questions for Comey. I had not thought of the possibility of Comey being purged, but it would not surprise me one iota. Thanks, lhp.
Comey definitely seems like a decent sort. Wish we had a lot more like him running the govt.
WE miss the Justice Department
(the real one that SHOULD be)
terribly too!
I just thought it odd. If he had reallly resigned voluntarily, the “i miss the dpet…” comment seems kinda out of place.
Plus there are jst so many breadcrumbs in his farewell speech.
BTW, I have been to many a going away/resignation/retirement party including of some really high profile folks.
Even if the press took a couple quotes out of the reiriee’s remarks, I cannot think of another instance where someone went to the trouble of putting them up in written form on the Net.
Clearly those words were meant to be seen by a much wider audience than just the people in attendence
I posted this on the last thread, this will be the last time…but today’s Washington Post is showing yet another reason for firing McKay (that was referenced by Comey the other day) and, to me, it’s as bad, if not worse, than the excuse they used to fire Iglesias.
McKay wanted the Justice Department to prioritize going after the killer of a federal prosecutor and this pissed of some people in Washington.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule
I guess this is still a big story in Seattle, and is not playing well.
Everybody is so focussed on the 8 who were purges at oncce. The bigger scandal involves those who went in ones and twos. And the even biger scandal is what some USA were forced/were willing to do to keep their jobs.
LHP:
IIRC, the house sub-committee left the record open for five (businesss?) days for both additional questions AND answers. Hopefully, someone connected to the sub-committee is trolling this weekend and picks up on the questitons inquiring minds want answers to.
looseheadprop @ 12
Like NJ who went to the press on Menendez prior to the election? And whatever became of THAT “corruption” investigation?
looseheadprop @ 10
This makes so much sense.
“The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team. It is to assemble the best possible team that supports the president.”
It’s not about competence, it’s about *reliability*. Will they always do the right-wing thing, rather than Will they always do the right thing.
looseheadprop @ 12
I agree, I think that’s were the real dirty stuff will start to turn up.
looseheadprop @ 10
Sends the message in a subtle way without being in your face about it. Nothing there to alarm the Bushites but plenty there for those who can properly read the tea leaves. Like yourself! :})
AnnieW @ 11
It certainly does beg the question why the DoJ/WH wouldn’t say “My God, man, do whatever it takes to find the killer!”
looseheadprop @ 12
How many USAs have resigned in total? And how many of those were after Comey left?
AnnieW @ 11
The whole idea that DOJ and the WH would fail to support the effort to find the killer of an AUSA is mind biggling to me.
BAck in the late 80’s or early 90’s a mafia punk named Gus Farace killed a DEA agent.
Every federal law enforcement agency in NY threw everything it had into finding this a**hole. NAd they did. Washington was completely supportive and overtime in the pursute of that killer was not questioned.
Just for a bit of balance, look at the comment by Mary4 a couple of threads back. Let’s get the whole picture, please.
As for me, I’d much rather have Comey in charge than Gonzales, Rove’s sock puppet. But if I were Comey, I’m not sure I’d want the job.
Bob in HI
AnnieW @ 11
The local Seattle news stations replay this story occasionally, usually on the anniversary of the murder. The last I heard, there were still no leads. It has remained a mystery. You have to wonder what cases and investigations Ton Wales was working on when he was killed and if that had any bearing on the murder. I suupose this was investigated, but it is odd that the DOJ would not be obsessively gung ho about one of their own. That fact alone makes one wonder about the crime.
So have we reached the tipping point? It seems the USA scandal has gone beyond the “mean Dems are playing politics” phase and into the “they were doing WHAT?” phase…
TheraP @ 9
Ain’t it the truth!!! And thanks so much for the insider’s perspective, LHP, awesome post.
Yes I actually vaguely remember the Estrada filibuster. I try to pepper my advice to the (more-responsive) senior senator with appreciation for what he’s done well, –glad to have something else to add to that list. (Also his current dogged pursuit of “Nat’l Security Letter” abuse.)
If I were a Democratic President elected in Nov. 2008. I’d look long and hard at Mr. Comey. With an eye to the possibilities.
Eli @ 16
They are like a mafia family. incompetence is forgivable, breaking omerta is not
When I read this post I had one of those Homer Simpson “doh!” moments. Comey should definitely be asked about the circumstances surrounding his departure from the DoJ.
Same goes for Fitzgerald.
Here is a
McNultyconnection, and some scandal linkies. The Nation yesterday had a good update on Wolfie-Gate. But the reference to “Cleveland” leads to more scandal-topia.Robin Cleveland was part of the BOEING SCANDAL. She had to leave OMB, but Wolfie gave her and several other of his cronies jobs at the World Bank at $250 K a year-more than Riza got and tax free. MSNBC had a report over a year ago. It does seem “Iraqi Reconstruction” leads to the biggest crooks.
Robin Cleveland tried to get a job for her brother Peter.
This case also includes REDACTED DOCUMENTS and MISSING PENTAGON E-MAILS. Why was Cleveland not prosecuted? Who was the prosecutor in the Boeing scandal? McNulty.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
I’m thinkin’ Mr Attorney Genral Fitzgerald has a nice ring to it. Hmmm? Ring to it?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
I was wondering if Mary Jo White would be a good AG. My recollection is that she’s a major no-nonsense hardass, but she might be more valuable as a prosecutor than an administrator.
dakine01 @ 13
If I had such questions, I would fax them immediately to some of the thoughtful Democrats on the subcommittee. I would not wait for them to ask me, or wait for them to look around on the web for my questions.
Bob in HI
Relevant ThinkProgress post mentioned in one of this afternoon’s threads:
REPORT: Karl Rove’s Politicization Of The Federal Government
Link to ThinkProgress report mentioned in the ThinkProgress post:
White House Politicization of Federal Agencies
looseheadprop @ 12
And Yang, who left in October to work for the firm defending Jerry Lewis, even though she’s recused herself within Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. But someone there did arrange a $1.5 million signing bonus for her. DiFi is all over this one.
Lhp Thanks for writing about Comey and mentioning Padilla. A lot of mean things have been said lately about that case. I don’t know everything that really happened but knowing you (from the lake) and trusting your opinion will give me something to throw back at the naysayers. Why am I so worried about him? He looked awfully stressed out at the hearing. ( talk about a ShowTrialHearing) Something was not right. I certainly hope that after reading today about all the deaths relating to the fired attorneys nothing happens to him and Fitz. Do you think that the reason that hearing was conducted in such a manner means that it is possible they got him on the record behind closed doors?
Could they have deposed him and just asked basic questions in public? So many questions.
ps. sorry if I am rambling. I take drugs and have a cognitive disorder.
lolo
This is going to be Dubya’s “Watergate.” I swear, this bunch makes Tricky Dick & Co. look like preschoolers.
Astounding.
Hi y’all!
Eli @ 20
Did they ask that at the hearings?
Is that just one of those lawyer things? Don’t answer a question unless you are asked it? Otherwise, why wouldn’t Comey already have told the cmte. that he was asked to leave?
TeddySanFran @ 35
I’m kind of amazed that it’s even legal for a defendant’s law firm to hire away his prosecutor.
I think I read somewhere that Yang might not have realized that they represented Lewis – doesn’t she have a serious ethical issue if she did? Doesn’t she have a serious ethical issue now that she surely does know?
SnarKassandra @ 38
Hi, Cassie! Welcome back.
Feliz Cinco de Mayo! Have you heard any good mariachi this weekend yet? I used to play some…
Bob in HI
SnarKassandra @ 39
An what’re they doing now, and for who, and for how much?
Also, as pointed out over TPM, 1.5 million for a signing bonus might be fine for a big name lawyer who will no doubt bring over some big clients, but Yang doesn’t meet that criteria.
Bob Schacht @ 42
Lots of mariachi and Mexican dresses at school yesterday. And a dance last night.
Eli — Yang was leading the Lewis investigation (or perhaps slow-walking it….) How could she NOT know GD&C was representing him? Wouldn’t the firm’s name be on every communication with Lewis? Lewis has incurred almost a million in legal bills; isn’t all of this with GD&C?
conniptionfit @ 43
This would be especially interesting for the ones who resigned to take a new job, as opposed to the ones who resigned without having anything lined up (like the guy who resigned to clear the way for Paulose).
off topic, does anyone here download torrents? anyone know how you open something that is TS.XViD-mVs ?
I am pasting Mary4’s comment from the a=earlier thread here because I think it is relevant.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
24 -
It was the Independent Counsel laws that were allowed to lapse in 1999. During the initial stages of the CIA leak, there was a push to re-enact something along those lines.
When the Indep Counsel laws lapsed, a new set of regulations were put into effect for one category of Special Prosecutor – outside Special Prosectuors.
From Schumer’s website quite awhile back, before he threw in the towel that he seems to have only recently refound:
Since the Independent Counsel statute expired in 1999, the Justice Department promulgated new regulations that allow the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel when there is a need to investigate a unique case involving high-ranking Executive Branch officials and/or there is a conflict of interest for the Department. (Under the Independent Counsel law, the independent counsels were appointed by a panel of federal judges upon application by the Attorney General.)
The Attorney General has total discretion over whether to appoint a Special Counsel, controls the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction, and oversees the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Special Counsel essentially has the same powers as a US Attorney, including subpoena power and the ability to convene a grand jury. If the Attorney General precludes the Special Counsel from taking any proposed actions (such as subpoenaing documents, interviewing witnesses or presenting evidence to a grand jury) he is required to report those instances to Congress after the probe has concluded.
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer…..02072.html
Now, what Comey pulled off was having the CIA leak handled under a different Special Counsel approach – one where the investigation did NOT involve an outside counsel, but rather where someone inhouse at DOJ was given jurisdiction to handle a particular matter of investigation that would normally be outside their jurisdiction. Because of this, the Special Prosectur regulations for an outside counsel, which would, for example, require reports to Congress on any interference with actions, did not apply to the Fitzgerald investigation.
Also, unlike a Congressional investiation, which was also being pushed as an option at the time, information could easily be kept from Congress and from the American people and all the things like the RNC email accounts the fact that, criminal or not, Rove was sitting in the WH leaking information about CIA operative in an election year for political revenge – all would at least have had an airing of some sort before the disastrous 2004 elections.
As just about the only one who thought the in house approach in an election year was an awful thing, not really offset by having a “by the book” prosecutor (who would also be by the book about not letting Congress know anything he found out) you have to take my input with a large grain of salt I suppose. *g*
I think Fitzgerald did a remarkably good job with what he had, and I think Comey, far from being a saviour of liberty, did a remarkably good job of CYA for Ashcroft and Bush. Far better than any other result they could have hoped for. But the miles here vary so wildly that I am clearly stuck with the plodding burro while the porsches leave me in the dust. So all fwiw.
Mary and I have gone around and around both in the threads and via email about the Comey thing. We have agreed to disagree on this point.
However, I would point out that if the Plame outing had been allowed to go to a Congressional investiaagation WHEN REPUBLICANS STILL CONTROLLED CONGRESS–well, do you remeber the bang up job the Intelligence Committee did with tat NSA report?
What report you say?
You know, the secend phase report!
The second what? Oooohhh…..Nevermind
IIRC, Mary, aka, Mary4ever was the first I recall mentioning it.
Thanks doesn’t even begin to say it lhp.
Does anyone have a fax number for Comey where we can send him our appreciation?
TeddySanFran @ 46
That was my thought as well. But I’m pretty sure I read that possibility someplace I trust, so it was either here or somewhere in the TPMiverse.
TeddySanFran @ 35
I have never heard of “signing bonuses” from law firms. Never.
SnarKassandra @ 48
Try giving it an .avi extension.
Eli @ 53
just change the name? STILL looks like a BIN.
WRT: dead AAGs and such.
These are amazing stories. I do recall the wingnut tinfoil hat business got a huge boost during the Vince Foster suicide.
Projection much?
I mean, there were the deaths by small aircraft prior to 2000. And this is a lot of dead attorneys.
Quite a lot.
Wow- excellent question and brain-work, Loose!
Interesting comments as well.
As for cronyism, that goes on everywhere, but probably should have a higher standard for WB: is that the issue?
It’s becoming more and more clear that we absolutly MUST have a thourough examination of the circumstances of every USA , and every DoJ employee hired or fired during Bush’s tenure. The trustworthyness of the DOJ is paramount to honest government.
lolo @ 36
I was very upset at how exhausted and stressed he looked. He was almost unrecognizable. And the bags nder the euyes from lack of sleep reminded me of the pix of PatFitz on the day he hosted the meeting in Chicago where Gonzales met with a bunch of USAs from the midwest.
Same large luggeage under the eyes. Same haggard look of a man who had paced the floors instead of sleeping for many nights in a row.
I don’t know if House Judiciary did a better job in a private deposition than they did in public testimony. I have no reason to believe there was nay private testimony at all, but really don’t know.
I imagine that if I knew all the backstory, I would be even more worried about them as individuals than I already am.
Debra Wong Yang is co-chairing the firm’s crisis-management team, along with Theodore B. Olson, former BushCo Solicitor General and widower of 911 Pentagon plane passenger Barbara Olson.
SnarKassandra @ 38
Afternoon Cassie! How goes finals prep?
looseheadprop @ 52
“Signing bonus” sounds oh so much better than “bribe” or “hush money”.
Bob in HI
looseheadprop -
the thing i have difficulty getting my mind to comprehend is – what lies could comey have been told that would EVER make locking up an american citizen (padilla) w/o a lawyer ok.
something just doesn’t compute.
It would be interesting to see a comprehensive layout of the “dead” USAs, timelines, and circumstances, connections, and what they were working on. The odds of that many strange deaths in that kind of profession seem..well…odd.
Mutant Poodle @ 60
Not yet prepping. Still finishing papers and stuff. And blogging of course! Going to see Spiderman 3 tomorrow and then I will get serious about studying.
TeddySanFran @ 59
Theodore B. Olson! we will never confirm you for anything ever never ever!
DiFi on the Wong Yang case, re Harriett’s interest.
Stephen Parrish, CPA says
May 5th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Mr. Parrish:
(Oft) Any idea how Wolfowitz’s girlfriend gets her salary tax-free?
Isn’t she domiciled in the U.S.?
I gotta say, the Miers SCOTUS nomination is looking more and more suspicious alla time.
conniptionfit @ 40
High ranking DOJ employees sign executive agreements. They CANNOT jiust go tel Congress whatever they feel like in response to a request for information. They have to get whatever they are going to say cleared.
You submit your proposed stement in writng for review nad they are supposed to clear (or deny) all or partds of it within 45 days.
Under this Admin. it’s been running mor elike a year to two years instead of 45 days.
That’s why the fired USAs needed subpeonas. That’s why Fitz had to tell Waxman that he had “been reminded” that he couldn’t just talk to Waxman in repsonse to request for information.
Comey agreed to talk with them in exchange for a subpeona that made it legal for him to answer questions. I doubt he did any on the record but not pursuant to subpeona sharing. It would not be logical.
SnarKassandra @ 38
Cassie –
I missed where in Texas you live — I’m in Dallas, mourning the Mavs’ empty-jersey showing in the first round.
Eli @ 47
They usually give you at least a couple months notice so you can find another job and make it look to the outside world like you wanted to leave.
FWIW, morality always occurs in a historical context. I love Abraham Lincoln, (and I don’t think it’s possible to overestimate his moral accomplishments) but he and most other abolishionists* were, what we would call today, “white supremacists.” They were in favor of abolishing slavery, but not abolishing legalized white supremacy. Many were not in favor of the ex-slaves voting and they wanted them segregated away from European Americans.
Based on what I know now, I don’t see anyone except Comey having the sand to stand up to the WH.
*AFAIK, Lincoln was never considered an “abolitionist.” Also like a lot of people, his thinking on the issue evolved. Finally, I’m no Lincoln scholar, so I throw these opinions out with all humility.
Other Pat @ 70
I am not allowed to say the name of the town but we are south of Dallas.
John Casper @ 50
SOmehow, I don’t think Lockheed MArtin will be very happy if we do that. Better to express it here where he can find it
howdy firedogs – how y’all doing’ !
hmmmm ummm ummm . . .Ms Loosheadprop and James Comey ?!?!
double delish !!!
and lots of groovy firedogs on board – yummy
so before I go savor the post – am I seeing he was asked to leave ??? and am I gonna find out just whhhyyy he didn’t say anything
off to read – brb
It is sad, that over the past thirty years or so, the Republican party has polluted the American social structure to such extent that any Republican is guilty until proven innocent. LHP has made a strong case for Comey being a good guy, however, can any political appointee in the Republican govt be clean? How to undo the damage???
Hope Wednesday’s storm wasn’t too bad for you guys. It’s been amazing to see split trees everywhere.
Excellent point.
Bob Schacht @ 61
WAXMAN has some singing bonuses available, I bet
I seem to remember that Comey has five children to put through college, and his wife doesn’t work outside the home so he would be in a perfect position to be swayed to join the private sector and a huge salary. Who could blame him?
However, this may have been the Rove way of getting rid of him the quiet way. Heck, one of my former bosses used to do that regularly. If the competition hired someone really good, and there were no openings for us and we couldn’t hire them, she made darn sure those people got job offers from other companies in other parts of the country. My former boss had been in the same business for many years and had networked her butt off. She knew many, many people, and helped our bottom line by enticing away people she didn’t want to compete with.
It would not surprise me at all of Lockheed (defense contractor) was asked by someone in the WH to offer Comey a job.
Eli @ 51
Sampson Tries to Convert Yang, and then He Tries to Oust Her
by emptywheel
I’ve been meaning to write this post for a while. But now that Adam Cohen has revealed more details about Harriet Miers’ close attention to the departure of Debra Wong Yang, I’m going to do it now–mostly from memory (all my USA Purge documents are on my computer at home, and though this thread is on TPM, it doesn’t include the whole thread). Cohen reports that Miers was asking about ousting Yang “as late as mid-September,” just one month before she resigned.
Ms. Yang was investigating Jerry Lewis, who was chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Ms. Lam and most of the other purged prosecutors were fired on Dec. 7. Ms. Yang, in a fortuitously timed exit, resigned in mid-October.
Ms. Yang says she left for personal reasons, but there is growing evidence that the White House was intent on removing her. Kyle Sampson, the Justice Department staff member in charge of the firings, told investigators last month in still-secret testimony that Harriet Miers, the White House counsel at the time, had asked him more than once about Ms. Yang. He testified, according to Congressional sources, that as late as mid-September, Ms. Miers wanted to know whether Ms. Yang could be made to resign. Mr. Sampson reportedly recalled that Ms. Miers was focused on just two United States attorneys: Ms. Yang and Bud Cummins, the Arkansas prosecutor who was later fired to make room for Tim Griffin, a Republican political operative and Karl Rove protg.
Given that timing, folks should look more closely at an August 9, 2006 email thread between Sampson and Yang. The email starts with something I’m very familiar with from having worked in a Mormon company in UT for two years–a half joking attempt to convert Yang (it was bad enough in UT, but in a federal government job? I’m sure this violated some laws). It appears that Sampson had told Yang something that often surprises those unfamiliar with Mormons–that a huge number of Samoans and Tongans are Mormons. Her reference to that leads Sampson to say he’ll send some missionaries over to her house (Yang turned what may have been an uncomfortable conversation into a joke, asking for attractive missionaries, ones who were good skiiers).
Aside from the overt religious content, the rest of the conversation relates to John McKay’s candidacy for a judgeship and another USA’s candidacy to serve as acting director of BATF. Yang appears to be very much an insider here, particularly with her reference to the Federalist Society as a qualification. And then there’s this one line:
PS: will call some corp folks regarding myself later this month and will share other info.
In the context of the two other discussions about moving USAs around internally, this reference seems to be a clear reference to her own job search. She and Sampson were discussing her departure, well before she had actually started to search. I’d say there’s nothing nefarious about it, but for two things. First, it has the same tone of informing DOJ as to the schedule. And then you throw in the fact that Miers was already asking Sampson about getting rid of Yang, and it seems likely that her warned her she needed to leave.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this–but this certainly seems to be evidence that Yang kept Sampson apprised of her job search even as Harriet hassled him to get rid of her.
LLinkink
SnarKassandra @ 45
My favorite is Jesucita en Chihuahua. Polkas and pinatas and pico de gallo and pulque!
Toque la guitarra handole! [Insert here Mexican equivalent of “Yeee-haaa!”] (Where’s El Gato when you need him??? Probably out partying.)
Bob in HI
looseheadprop @ 58
What a nightmare.
Would the Estrada that got blocked by Schumer be the same one that works for Gibson, Dunn also? Along with Eugene Scalia?
They do have a veritable who’s, who from the government working for them.
http://www.gibsondunn.com/fsto…..ovtExp.pdf
TeddySanFran @ 59
she is drinking the koolaid. : (
What was Wales working on when he was murdered? McKay was passionate about finding the killer, but nobody from DC came to the anniversary of the killing.
Sounds like maybe Darkside stuff.
conniptionfit @ 57
As Comey said during his testimony, if they really were litmus testing new hires in the USAOs well how DO you put that genie back in the bottle?
It also means that all the good. decent honest new baby lawyers who got hired on merit will NOT have a valuable line on their resume b/c folks will just assume that if you began during the Shrub Admin you must have been a bottom of the barrel, no talent hack.
This is really bad. Where does DOJ go to get its reputation back?
It’s not the same Estrada, by the way. Sorry.
TeddySanFran @ 59
And the man who helped win the Supreme Court coronation of Shrub in Nov 2000
TeddySanFran
Of course she knew. Heck, she’d probably had many phone conversations and maybe some face to face meetings with GD&C during the investigation. That’s most likely how they enticed her away-a little at a time. Comments like “we need people as through and detailed as you, Debra.” Or, “someday after your federal career is over, you’re going to make a fortune at some law firm” etc…
Just a guess. GD&C would have made a point of learning all they could about her, to tailor their offer.
I appreciated you bringing this up on the thread with the live blogging. I raised the issue earlier today and someone responded that it was the red eye from CA to DC.
IMVHO, it might have been because so many WH people were calling all his friends asking him to “calibrate” his testimony in way that would be less unfavorable to Bush.
OT, watching some of his testimony, I don’t see a guy like Comey really enjoying working for Lockheed Martin. It’s clearly important to him to be in his own words, “one of the good guys.” Lockheed Martin shareholders, board members and execs aren’t interested in that. They worship at the altar of shareholder value and Comey had better pay big dividends or they will find someone else who will. lhp, I thought your idea of a move back to DOJ made a lot of sense.
TheOtherWA @ 80
I’ve heard others make this argument but I don’t buy it. Comey could have had whatever high dollar job he wanted at any time and is on record saying he made the decision not to take any of them along the way because when you work for the justice department you get to be the guy in the white hat who does what he believes in. That he and his family had made the decision that it was worth the financial sacrifice to have that. Hence the “I miss the department terribly” rings doubly poignant.
selise @ 62
The Patriot ACt
looseheadprop @ 71
Unless you’re Carol Lam, who they couldn’t get rid of fast enough…
Steve @ 76
They asked him that at the hearing. He said it will take a long time to put that genie back in the bottle, and that he’s not sure how it can be done, other than time. He didn’t mention a change in administration, but that may have been what he meant by ‘time’.
Bob in HI
Debra Wong Yang…said she turned down a more lucrative offer from another firm to take the job at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher.
Better than a $1.5 million “signing bonus”?
Now that, ladies and gentlemen, must be one heck of a good lawyer.
(cough)bullshit(cough)
Eli @ 16
selise @ 62
WHat he said to that group of lawyers, was that he was told that there existed evidence, that he was not cleared to see himself, which showed that Padilla was the going to set in amotion a plan that would kill thousands of Americans.
That if Padilla could get word out to his confedrate, he would give them the signal to set the plan in motion.
This was not so far fetched because that is what Sheih Abdul Rachman had done. He used his lawyer, Lynne Stewart, to get messages out to his network of jihadists and they went into action when he said so.
That’s why Lynn Stewart was convicted.
It is possible that Padilla’s imminent plot to blow up americans was no more real than Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
The point is, Comey had no way of being sure they were lying. They said they had evidence but that he was not cleared to view it.
It would have been unlawful and grounds for dismissal for cause if Comey had been insubordiante under the circumstances as they stood at the time.
He had not one shred of proof that they were lying to him.
Prosecute the
sh*tbejesus out of the people responsible. Make an example of them using Administrative law and all means at our disposal. The DOJ is a legal and ethical meritocracy. If you want to work there, you have to as Comey said, be able to talk to people of “all stripes” all over this diverse country. Thanks to FDL and other liberal blogs, I now understand that the DOJ is the rear guard of the Republic. In a legal sense it is a “hold this ground at all costs” division.looseheadprop @ 52
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01883.html
This bonus system refers to Supreme Court clerks but it exists for other new hires that I am personally familiar with.
jayt @ 67
Senior Employees of the World Bank are considered to have Diplomatic status, and Diplomats aren’t taxed (apparently).
Jane Hamsher @92
I have no doubt he loved being at DOJ and misses it. But I also think the idea of a really nice salary looked good to Comey, and no one should fault him for that, if true. I’m just saying the WH must have been extremely happy to see him go, from the sounds of it and seeing how active they got after Comey left, so maybe they helped behind the scenes to hurry him along.
Eli @ 94
Maybe because they couldn’t turn her?
Great reading LHP & all commenters. What a coup.
It’s been surprising to find out that Ashcroft wasn’t as totally in the tank as I thought. As bad as we imagined he was, and there was plenty of bad, (Padilla, oh my) it turns out he wasn’t bad enough for the Bushies. Unluckily for them Gonzo was.
I did make a mental note at the time that taking himself out of the Palme case was a stand up thing to do and I didn’t expect it. Would Gonzo have done similar? Stupid question I know.
It’s time to impeach Gonzo. It’s the only thing to do and I am amazed it has not been mentioned that I know of. The provable lies are so numerous that it would be a piece of cake. Josh says Bush can’t fire Gonzo. He can’t afford an impeachment either.
dakine01 @ 103
Well, that’s probably true of all the fired USAs except Ryan. But some of those e-mails in one of the early document dumps made it pretty clear that they *really* hated Lam. And, to a lesser extent, McKay and Charlton.
What does this mean?
John Casper @ 78
Comey did not visit the trial AFAIK. You cannot imagine that it was from lack of interest.
I would be amazed if Comey did not spend his time feverishly hitting “refresh” (just like the rest of us) during MArcy’s live blogging of the trial.
It’s merely a metter of directing him to a particular thread to check out the thank yous
Eli @ 106
That’s cuz it appears that the people Lam was going after were all holding keys to everything. Dukie boy and jerry Lewis both tie to MZM(?), Brent Wilkes, Porter Goss and all sorts of others.
I read somewhere where there aren’t enough votes to impeach Gonzo, so the investigations will have to uncover more dirt…though anything short of catching Gonzo with a pig on the floor of the Senate with a check in his pocket from Osama, you won’t convince Hatch.
As a lifelong Democrat, in a perverse way I see an upstanding US attorney like Comey being thrown overboard as a blessing! If these Neo-Con nitwits let these loyal, honor driven men do their jobs, the Republicans would always prevail with independent voters. Men who speak truth to power are always (hopefully) admired in this country.”Extremism in the pursuit of political gain is folly.”
AnnieW @ 110
Why would Hatch be bothered by that? He’d probably lay down on the pig and cash the check.
I don’t know a lot about Lockheed Martin. I do know that they now have the contract to run Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque.
I don’t have much good to say about the nature of the work done at the National Laboratories in NM. I have a predisposition to not like the people who work there.
However, I have done volunteer work with people who work there, and I was impressed with the face they have tried to put on with the community, essentially paying people to interface with the community, to promote their interest in a diverse workforce, funding non-profit projects, etc.
I am not sure what type of work Comey does for LM.
AnnieW @ 84
Yes he would be. And here’s a little trivia tidbit. Estrada was in Fitz’s General Crimes Class (at a USA’s Office you calculate things on the incomming class as opposed to a graduating class like in college. All new AUSAs start in the Geral Crimes Unit where they learn how to be prosecutors)
looseheadprop @ 98
thanks for the reply… but sorry, to me – that just doesn’t cut it. he had not one shred of proof that they were telling him the truth (and it was clear they were a pack of liars by then).
here’s a bit from his presser in 2004:
everything you’ve told me about comey convinces me that he is absolutely uncorruptable for personal gain. but do i trust him to protect the constitution and my rights? not even a little bit.
i wish there was a way for me to come to a different conclusion.
TeddySanFran @ 112
And give it a reach-around, which he seems so expert at doing. Based on how he was massaging both Abu and Sampson.
AnnieW @ 88
Miguel Estrada who was nomiated for the Appellate court ewas working at Gibson Dunne at the time of his nomination. I don’t know if he is there still.
ccmask @ 104
No kidding! You all are totally impressive.
SnarKassandra @ 107
“Ashcroft did not want to have to stand up to the WH if there was going to be a cover up attempt. He was supposedly relieved to hear that “someone” was going to force Comey down the White House’s throat”.
That’s what I mean.
Fine post, LHP.
Signing bonuses are definitely part of the legal culture out here. I can recall seeing stories in the late 90s of tensions at some firms when currently employed attorneys saw the large signing bonus new graduates were getting.
bg @ 113
He is the General Counsel, I believe.
What kind of lawyers are the ones that write here? How many kinds are there?
selise @ 115
I have to agree that this is beyond lame. Comey went along with denying an American citizen basic Constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, and this state of affairs continued for 3 1/2 years. Are you saying that there are no lawyers out there who aren’t security risks? That there was no way to see Padilla was accorded his basic rights? And that Comey should get a pass on this?
I posted this earlier near the end of the Comey liveblog thread #2, in response to LHP’s list of possible reasons (on that thread) for Comey’s departure.
Thoughts, LHP?
Rapier at 105, “It’s been surprising to find out that Ashcroft wasn’t as totally in the tank as I thought.”
I respectfully disagree. Ashcroft was a loyal Bushie, who like Condi Rice was warned about an attack by Bin Laden in July 2001. He has repeated what Condi later said, “No one could have anticiapted the attacks.”
As a witness before the 9-11 Commission Ashcroft was the least cooperative witness.
I will say that I do know some retired people from Sandia Natl Lab who are really great people. And the people I worked with in the community were also super. So I should not leave my critique without stating that there are a lot of fine people who probably are working there.
However, the interest in science and the quality of people who worked in places like Los Alamos after the bomb and into the 1980s are a breed apart from the technocrats in the trenches of the military complex of this century.
selise @ 115
I understand what you are saying. But bear with me foa second.
I know a number of people who did counter terroism investigations both before and after 9-11. Pre-9-11 almost no one believed them (notable exceptions AMry Jo White, Dick Clark and Bill Clinton). Most people thought they were paranoids seeing bombs behind evey sand dune in the Middle East.
This was because, unlike other crimal cases where they could discuss Grand Jury material with their colleagues in the Office, the counterterrisim work reequired them to keep the info secret even within the confines of the USAO.
Tha kind of isolation breeds a kind of tunnel vision. You have no way of knowing (util a building blows up and then it is too late) if THIS investigation is THE case that will save thousands of lives or whether it is a dud.
And you can never bring yourself not to err on the side of caution.
Eli @ 106
Could any of the people have gotten the USA appointment if they were totally clean? It’s like any criminal enterprise that asks for more and more unethical and possibly criminal behavior of a member individual. How far was each willing to go?
Was David Iglesias involved in pulling the corruption investigation away for Patricia Madrid when she was the NM Atty Gen.? Did he get “religion” when asked to indict Dems. prior to the election? Was his come to Jesus moment motivated by ethics or fear and self-preservation? I’ll have to know a lot more before patting any of the “seven” on the back.
SnarKassandra @ 122
Lots of ways to answer that one . . .
Prosecutors and defense attorneys. Public (i.e. govt) lawyers and private lawyers. Corporate lawyers and personal lawyers. Lawyers also specialize in various branches of the law — civil rights, criminal law, patent law, environmental law, international law, etc.
Around here, my sense is that we’ve got a pretty good mix of specialties and legal backgrounds, led (of course) by former prosecutor Christy Hardin Smith.
Peterr @ 120
Here you hear about guaranteed bonuses as part of the first year compensation packegae, but you don’t get it upon signing. It is a year end bonus that has it’s amount set in advance
Corry342 @ 101
I haven’t had an opportunity to look for an answer to your question; pending a chance to conduct additional research, I’m guessing that her salary might be tax-exempt, possibly because of a tax treaty that I haven’t yet read, since I see nothing in Internal Revenue Code Sections 101 through 139A that exempts her salary from taxation if she’s living in the United States.
TeddySanFran @ 68
Which makes Alito and Roberts nominations suspicious.
Lincoln tacked on the abolition of slavery at a rather late (albeit opportune and fortuitous) date during the course of the American Civil War. His conviction of the principal of ending slavery is certainly questionable. He has been given a major pass via historical revisionism.
But, look at the way they worship that modern day SOB Reagan. Reagan’s terrible history is recent enough to remember, yet he is the man whom all the Republican Presidential candidates aspire to resemble for the voters.
Its all about the media.
LHP – In relation to your comment about not being aware of lucrative signing bonuses for lawyers. If I am correct, you meant in relation to seasoned lawyers, not to first year lawyers or those entering private practice after judicial clerkships. If that is what you meant, that sure comports with my experience. There have been up front disbursements, signing bonuses or whatever you want to call them, for years among very large civil firms. I wasn’t aware they had reached as high as $200,000, but I am not surprised; The biggest I was ever aware of was $50,000. At any rate, this has been around for a while for the very top students coming out of law schools or clerkships; and is really more of “gotcha” game among the arrogant power brokers at the largest civil firms. They all want to take the recruit away from their competitor. NEVER have I heard much of this going on with seasoned lawyers because they are rewarded via the construct of their partnership agreement; no need for a bonus , that only goes for entry level salary employees, not partners. It is my (and direct personal experience) experience that, quite to the contrary, partners coming in often have to agree to a “buy in”; in short, they pay for this priviledge. 1.5 mil in LA, AND a walk in instead of buy in for partnership rights? This is a joke and anybody who has been a managing partner, or a full general partner at a high tech law firm knows full well this is a joke. Beyond incredible would be an understatement.
looseheadprop @ 130
I think in the general media, this got called a signing bonus, regardless of how it was paid out. The term “signing bonus” was coined as a way of making this analogous to many high-paid athletes — not as a strict legal term, despite the context of the legal community.
SnarKassandra @ 122
Lawyers like doctors have specialized areas of practice. There are patent lawyers, divorce lawyers, real estate lawyers, lawyers who do estte planning (wills and trusts), tax lawyers, personal injury lawyers, tranactional lawyers, ERISA lawyrs…… the list goes on and on.
I am a litigator (mostly federal court) and also do investigations and monitorships as an independant private sector inspector general. I am a former prosecutor. Christy is also a former prosecutor.
Peterr @ 129
Ev en within Gov’t there are furtehr delineations between criminal and civil lawyers. As well as the types with the SEC and must of the Fed agencies and departments have lawyers.
Which are the kind that I had to have when we went to court for my brother to be my guardian?
looseheadprop @ 127
that just sounds too much like cheney’s “one percent doctrine” to me.
i’m not saying that he’s not a good person, committed to doing the right thing for the country (and not for personal gain like the rove bots in the DOJ)…
what i’m saying is that i don’t want him in a position of being responsible for defending the constitution and my rights – i want him to stay the heck away from being AG.
So, what’s the plan to get someone on the H committee to ask Comey “why did you leave DOJ?”
Hugh
I’m saying that Comey got punked. Lied to and manipulated and that it is easy for the rest of us to sit around an Monday Morning Quarterback this.
I could not walk a mile in his shoes. He is honest and decnet and braver than I would have believed possible. That does not mean he is infallible. Nobody is.
So, why wasn’t he asked the simple question “Why did you leave?”
bmaz @ 134
Profit per partner at GD&C = $1.75 million in 2006
hackworth @ 133
Well, I’m guessing you probably didn’t go to a school in the south as they tend to be very specific in the facts that Lincoln was not particularly interested in ending slavery when the war began and that the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery anywhere but in the rebeliious states.
iirc Christy Hardin Smith is both a former state prosecutor and a former defense attorney
looseheadprop @ 141
i don’t think i could walk across the street in his shoes – i’ve been too easily manipulated in the past, so i have sympathy for the guy. but all this talk about wishing him as a future AG freaked me out.
TeddySanFran @ 145
From the “about us” link, right here at FDL:
hackworth @ 133
To me, the most interesting Lincoln insight in Doris K. Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” was the “Emancipation Proclamation.” Unlike “W”, Lincoln thought the Constitution was more than a “goddamn piece of paper”. Slavery was legal and Constitutional; and, until GWB, a President couldn’t change the Constitution. His thinking of how to do it is interesting.
Peterr @ 147
I think I like Christy just from reading that, but I am never here when she is posting.
SnarKassandra @ 138
Likely someone who specializes in “family law” or something by a similar name.
Re: Madrid and Iglesias. I don’t think Iglesias pulled any punches on behalf of Madrid. The lawyers/judges I know have spoken very highly of him, let’s just say most of the judges here at all levels are of the Democratic persuasion. And I am not familiar with many R lawyers.
Madrid is not known for her high standards/intellect, and you can apply the same sources as above for interpretation of that. She has currently signed on with some DC firm in which she is now traveling around the country working on behalf of the corporations she once opposed as AG.
IANAL. There was some kind of hinky business that happened with Madrid and witnesses in a corruption case (legitimate against the former NM Treasurer, current treasurer, and others–all Democrats) that the USA’s office (Iglesias) prosecuted and re-prosecuted (after losing big the first time out) prior to the election. This is probably why the office was too busy to finish the other Democrats/corruption case that Dominici and Wilson were pushing at the time of the phone calls.
It is too long to go into here. But Madrid was accused of letting these people off the hook early on (prior to Federal charges) ostensibly because they were Democrats. After the first federal prosecution failed, she gave some kind of immunity in the state case to some of the witnesses in the federal case, and this immunity may have affected the second effort to get the guilty parties in the federal case. I don’t know the legal elements.
But during the campaign this was all on-going. So there were campaign ads against Madrid for the ostensible crony element.
Sometimes lately, I am thinking someone is trying to ‘pull our leg’.
Steve @ 148 says:
That’s just it, the Proclamation only ended slavery in the rebelious states where it had basically no impact until they were conquored and occupied. The slave holding state that remained in the union were allowed to keep slaves until the passage of the 14th? amendment. I’m guessing on the number but it was after the end of the war that KY, MO, DE, MD, WV quit having slaves.
SnarKassandra @ 149
Christy generally handles the morning threads, while you are in school, but drop by first thing on a Saturday morning for one of her regular “Pull Up a Chair” threads, introduce yourself, and tell her that yourself.
Peterr @ 154
OK. But only if I have to get up early on a Saturday.
Peterr @ 124
Peterr,
I certainly can think of a million reasons why he might, in moments of selfishness and fatigue, wanted to step down.
I just never bought the need the money excuse (though, if you have to go anyway you might as well multi task and make the money)
I have always wondered what exactly precipitated his departure. Everything about it was odd, just off. Folks I spoke to about it at the time agreed that the whole way it was handled seemed odd.
In fact, an FBI agent buddy of mine was the one who turned me on to the farwell speech being on the net and how odd that was.
I have been trying to decypher it ever since. SnarKassandra @ 138
Thst lawyer may have had a “family law” pracitce which can include dicorce, guardianships, adoptions and some truts and estates work
I got my first Zed !!!!!!!!
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..s-enemies/
selise @ 139
Then we agree to disagree.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 152
Details? In what way?
TeddySF@143 – Exactly. Now, that is the average I would assume, some partners get less, some more; depending on the nature of their partnership share and their yearly income and hours billed. But usually an incoming partner has to “buy in” to get this amazing money; usually not in the form of cash, but in reduced partnership bonuses for a set time. The buy in provisions for lateral partner joining such a firm are often waived if the incoming partner has a lot of accounts receivable they are bringing with them, or a big client book that will be valuable. Yang had NONE of this; yet the buy in was waived, she was given a 1.5 mil “signing bonus” and off she skips down the yellow brick road to collect her giant partnership distribution. We might also keep in miund that Yang’s real worth would be on criminal defense, but she won’t be able to do much of this for a couple of years due to inherent conflict appearances from her governmental prosecutorial work. This story reeks.
Loo Hoo @ 132
As the BushCo administration comes apart at the seams, with more slime exposed every day, do you think Alito and Roberts are having any second thoughts about whatever assurances they professed at the time of their confirmation?
Bob in HI
Off topic, but somewhat related: this is a kind of cross-post from a TPM Muckraker thread (see http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003157.php) on Bradley Schlozman’s phony voter fraud indictments in Missouri. Thought it might be of interest here as well, and maybe someone can shed additional light on it. Also, my comment there (under a different handle) is stuck in moderation, and in the meantime I hope to get more feedback. (Apologies in advance for what may be ugly formatting.)
Anyway, what sparked my interest was the claim that the indictments in Missouri of four voter registration workers just 5 days before the 2006 elections was approved by “officials in the department’s Public Integrity Section.” I found it somewhat hard to think that the Public Integrity I was familiar with — i.e., during Bush’s first term — would sign off on such a thing given the general policy of not bringing indictments so close to an election, among other things, absent turnover leading to the placement of hacks at Public Integrity.
paul lukasiak, who if I remember correctly comments here, noted that Public Integrity has a new chief (previous chief Noel Hillman, if you recall, was appointed to the bench). His name is Edward Nucci. I came up with these links on him which seem to give a rough recent chronology of his career:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sou…..ily72.html
http://memphis.fbi.gov/dojpres…..061306.htm
http://www.marchforjustice.com/8.11.02.fbi.php
His comments from the last link led me to think that Nucci might be more in the mold of a “loyal Bushie”, to the extent that he seemed to be much more aggressively defensive about how the Bush admin’s antiterrorism investigation methods are disparately and unfairly affecting Muslims and racial minorities:
—–
“Many things that I heard tonight I take issue with, if not offense,”said Edward Nucci, of the U.S. Attorney’s office. “I don’t think it helps advance our understanding of each others concerns,” he said, responding to the issues raised by the panel and community of racial profiling, institutional racism and the U.S. Attorney’s office being labeled as racist.
“Concepts like dual process, equal protection, reasonableness, they vary in context,” and should be taken into consideration, Mr. Nucci said, dismissing the earlier assertion of Mr. Rameu concerning the profiling and targeting of non-Whites, Arabs and Muslims.
—-
Granted, his comments here are brief, so it may be unfair to draw any conclusions from them, but the FBI agent quoted later seemed to be somewhat more conciliatory, which shows to me that he didn’t have to be so aggressive about his defense of the investigative methods.
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts or insight into Nucci, and his relationship, if any, to Schlozman and the Missouri voting fraud business, would be much appreciated. And paul, if you’re reading this, my response is still stuck in moderation at TPM Muckraker!
bg @ 151..
“Re: Madrid and Iglesias. I don’t think Iglesias pulled any punches on behalf of Madrid.”
I know nothing about NM politics or Madrid. I had heard that the removal, by the Feds of the (Courthouse construction)? corruption investigation, from the Madrid’s office was an issue in the campaign. My question, if the above is basically true, was Iglesias involved and if so was it politically motivated.
SnarKassandra @ 138
Was that a lawyer or a judge? A guardian ad litem? Family law has a few other wrinkles.
Bob in HI
SnarKassandra @ 149
Oh, just sign on a little earlier and you’ll catch her – especially on weekends…
btw, we’re going to have some coverage of the Padilla case coming up – we’ll be introducing that soon.
dakine01 @ 153
That’s just it, the Proclamation only ended slavery in the rebelious states where it had basically no impact until they were conquored and occupied. The slave holding state that remained in the union were allowed to keep slaves until the passage of the 14th? amendment. I’m guessing on the number but it was after the end of the war that KY, MO, DE, MD, WV quit having slaves.
You need to read the book; but that is the point. Lincoln couldn’t abolish the Constitutional right to own slaves. He tried to convince the “Union Border States to free slaves and be compensated by the federal government. They refused. Lincoln was left with what he thought was the only Constitutional means and that was to free the slaves in the seceded states only. He did this as the commander in chief. The Southern Slaves were major contribution to the Southern war effort and freeing them was a military “move” not a unilateral constitutional move.
Steve, I really don’t know where the state AG’s (Madrid office) was WRT the NM State Treasurers’ (past and present, two of them) corruption case.
Both the State and the Feds had charges in that case, I believe, though I do not recall that any court action has happened vis a vis the state case, to date.
As far as I know, the Feds were the only ones prosecuting the courthouse corruption case, which is the case Dominici and Wilson were pushing.
The indictments came down in the courthouse case last month. I think all the charges are against Democrats, the most notorious being the former long-time State Senate’s Pro Tem, who was also recently the former president of a state university (and said to have been given the appointment by Richardson to get him out of Santa Fe, but apparently not out of the headlines for a minute.) He has been reportedly corrupt for a very long time, long ago having sold out his roots to Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers.
Oh LHP, I love your posts, and I love your belief in the integrity of key players in the DOJ. So hope you’re right.
I do believe! I do believe! I do believe!
bg @ 168..
As far as I know, the Feds were the only ones prosecuting the courthouse corruption case, which is the case Dominici and Wilson were pushing.
That is my question. It is my understanding that initially both the State and the Feds were involved; then the Feds pulled the case away from the State Atty Gen’s office. Heather Wilson then beat Madrid over the head with the fact that Madrid wasn’t doing anything about the corruption case. But she couldn’t because the Feds’ had assumed total control. (This may be total bs on my part; but it fits a larger pattern.)
Oklahoma kiddo @ 152
:>)
Steve: “It is my understanding that initially both the State and the Feds were involved; then the Feds pulled the case away from the State Atty Gen’s office. Heather Wilson then beat Madrid over the head with the fact that Madrid wasn’t doing anything about the corruption case.”
Yes this is familiar. Madrid still had some kind of dog in the fight, as she did offer some kind of deal to some of the witnesses after the first federal case was lost. I don’t know how the feds then went on to try the case again, getting a single conviction from many charges.
There was some blame placed on Madrid after the 2nd trial, that the feds lost some legal wedge, related to the witnesses that Madrid was said to have compromised with her offer.
SnarKassandra @ 122
Snarkassandra,
Balkinization
is an interesting blog written by a group of lawyers, I believe they’re law professors.
It’s not boring at all, and I always learn something. (I am most definitely not a lawyer!)
I remember reading something, maybe a year or so ago when the likelihood of Fitz being removed as he got closer to the WH was in the air, that made me think that Comey wasn’t very popular with the Bushies because of the way he structured Fitz’s parameters for his investigation and that he was pretty much untouchable until the onvestigation was concluded.
I can’t remember where I read it but the impression I got reading between the lines was that Comey had been forced out of DoJ (so obviously the article came out after Comey’s departure).
I don’t have access to Lexis-Nexis so I can’t do a dedicated search for the source; the main article was on Fitz.
Great thoughts, LHP. Thanks.
I keep having this recurring, niggling feeling that Rove is an expert at ensnaring honest Republicans (and others) with their own integrity — setting a trap that only well-meaning people would ever enter — and then he’s got them.
With a few dead prosecutors along the way for emphasis.
Even in the hinterlands of EPUdom: LHP, your insight and perspective on these issues is so valuable; we’re incredibly lucky to have you.
About Mr. Comey and his colleague, Mr. Fitzgerald: They’ve been candles in the dark, those two. My gratitude to both of them is deeper than I can say; I am surely not alone in this. I hope, as you suggest, that Mr. Comey understands that the principles he kept to at the DOJ are real to people like me, even if he saw little evidence of that during his time in the Bush administration. I’m grateful beyond words for his probity.
And re Jose Padilla: I don’t believe Mr. Comey will ever forget or minimize his part in the man’s terrible abuse. You mentioned Abdul Rachman, above: Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted that case, did he not?
I know I’m way epu’d, lhp, but wanted to leave a note here anyway. I am so glad you write your insights down and let us read them. I am horrified at what is being revealed about DOJ. My only federal experience was as a clerk, but I have always taken the fundamental integrity of the institution for granted. Sure, people make mistakes, but the arc always bent toward justice. Now that is in doubt for as long as it takes to weed out the hacks after the Bushies finally leave. And what if we get someone like Giuliani appointing more hacks? It is just appalling. Keep writing.
And to James Comey, if you come this way, just this: thank you.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
Mary Jo White would also be a great choice for AG.
SnarKassandra @ 122
Lotsa different flavors. I specialize in international tax. More specifically, I work in an arcane little sub-specialty called “transfer pricing” (Internal Revenue Code Section 482), which has to do with ensuring that multinationals report the right amount of income in each of the various jurisdictions in which they operate.
Earlier in my career, I worked for the IRS, litigating cases in the U.S. Tax Court and serving as the legal advisor to large case audit teams.
It seems to be the group opinion that having Comey’s farewell speech on the ‘net is unusual. But, if you google “doj farewell speech,” many such speeches come up. What am I not understanding?
epu’d kind of on purpose
lhp – I can understand your point about Comey and Padilla during round I, when Comey was USA. From the rumors there was some distinct concern about a suitcase bomb plot for NYC. If he made that speech, well, good for him.
I have a hard time believing that throughout all of 2002/3, with his connections and the counterterrorism offices in NYC, he never got any of the word of what FBI and even some CIA agents were apparently speaking about pretty freely within their circles:
That Zubaydah was being tortured because Bush had made an off the cuff remark about how important he was and they had to get something important out of him;
that they all knew almost immediately after catching him that he was not important as they thought and that his name kept coming up in sigint bc he was in the nature of a travel agent and he had no real operational connections and his value was primarily in the evidence they took when they captured him; that he was crazy – certifiably crackers – with several alternate personas that he diaried to himself, etc. and that even he said, in his tortured and crazy state, that Padilla never actually took an al-Qaeda oath;
that he made all kinds of false and unreliable statements to them, primarly to get the torture to stop bc he had nothing of value to give them; and.
that even crazy tortured guy thought Padilla was stupid(simple) and crazy and Padilla’s plan, if he had one, would have involved swinging buckets over his head really fast to simulate a centrifuge.
I also find it hard to believe that in those two years he let an American citizen be disappeared by the govt he never got wind of any abusive activities involved in how Padilla was being handled, or that those abuses were continuing – not just for the short run panic on the possible attack, but for days and weeks and months and by then years after.
But let’s say he didn’t. Still, his Padilla presser was AFTER he had been for months in his DAG job, with clearances. In his own words, that statement was based on a months long effort to review and declassify all the info possible and involved input from DOJ, DOD, FBI and other intel.
We now know that a month before Comey’s presser, DOD issued a report that Padilla’s treatement in the S. Car brig violated all kinds of Geneva COnvention standards. So in that setting and hot on the heels of the DOD report that decried the Geneva Conventions abuses being visited on Padilla in his detention, Comey stands up and says:
emph added
I’m missing the parts about being punked. To be honest, I can’t read that part about how we, the people, have to understand that the President was doing “essential” things with Padilla, without hearing it come out in Bush’s insipid tones “wut the murican peeple have to understand is …”
Still, the presser is a long long list of untruths, despite Comey’s certifications that it is based on an exhaustive review and is remarkable for its “candor.” Not just the original, but the continued detention, by then he had to know it involved this shackled man being abused daily; every night, every next night, every next morning; with no intelligence purpose whatsoever left. Just abuse for abuse’s sake.
I believe in the death penalty and I believe in shooting rabid dogs. I don’t believe in glamorizing someone who wants to take those dogs, tie them to a stake and torture them every day for years and I really don’t believe in putting lipstick on it and selling it as a legal and necessary course. Not even in the heat of the moment, but months and years after.
After Comey’s investigation as DAG, he stands before the country and says:
I personally believe that if you stand up before your client and lie to them, even if you don’t know it for a lie at the time, when you discover it was a lie – you have a duty to stand up and say so. I haven’t ever heard that from Comey – any pulic acknowledgment that anything he said was untrue.
Even if you believed every word he said and didn’t think it went incredibly beyond the pale in gushing over how wonderful Bush had been to make the decision to hold, and continue to hold, Padilla in torture detention, there is the plain and simple matter of what he was willing to do to the rule of law – not in the hours and days and weeks of panic, but after years in which the “threat” had been laid to rest. The way in which he was willing to dare Justice to ever find the men who continued a pattern of abuse and torture and willing to take away this country’s soul to do that. No wonder they draped Justice – they were all back there raping her behind the curtain and wanting to still present the slick smiling Dobsonite face to the world.
Scott Turow was one of the few who immediately stood up and called Comey on it, but he did it well enought to count for many:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Jun11.html
Turow raised several other points that I haven’t (including that the Padilla presser was stage managed to take place as the Sup Ct was deciding what to do with the case)(and btw they decided that they could not hear the appeal from the Second Cir’s determination that Padilla must be released, bc venue lay in the 4th -s.car insted of nyc)
Comey also doesn’t seem the least bit concerned that because of his handling of the Padilla case, we now have case law from Florida that says it is ok for someone to be arrested (or worse) based soley upon tortured statements.
And it’s not as if Padilla stands in a vacuum. Look at the declarations he filed in the Arar lawsuit, to prevent that man from ever having justice and to protect Ashcroft and Thompson and others who deliberately disappeared a man into Syrian proxy torture.
Despite the clear and unequivocal mounds of evidence that at LEAST 1/3 of the people shipped through GITMO had absolutely no relationship with al-qaeda or the Taliban or mujahideen, do you ever see ANY prior DOJ officials, like Comey, with clearances, step up and say what is happening there is wrong? Not one. Not a voice, not a whisper, not a mime routine.
And after Comey left for Lockheed, he joined with Thompson and Goldsmith and Philbin to support Haynes for the 4th Circuit. If it weren’t bad enough that they were supporting Haynes with the torture and horrific management and Abu Ghraib and GITMO related results of his tenure (I swear it seemed the letter read something like – hey, other folks wanted to do more torture and Haynes actually thought they should think about some of it and he does real purty paper work); Comey went to bat for Haynes AFTER Haynes had clearly fibbed to the Judiciary Committee about the interrogation standards approval process. Haynes looked the Senate committee in the eye and told them that he had included all JAG offices in the process
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001524.php
So with Leahy was having apoplexy and even Lindsay Graham saying that lying to the Judiciary committee wasn’t a great qualification for the 4th Cir, Comey and his pals gushed over Haynes. I’m guessing he thought Haynes performance was also remarkable for its “candor.”
And there’s a fair amount more. I think Comey will go to bat for “his” guys. The problem is, I think he will go to bat for “his” guys no matter what they do and he does not balk at very sad and very disturbing things if it helps “his”guys get ahead and protects them from consequences for their actions.
Brave enough to take on a mafia criminal who held someone in a prison and tortured them? I buy that. Brave enough to make “his guys” bear consequences when they do the same thing? I haven’t seen any evidence of that and he seems to be able in conscious to be first in line to hand over a victim for the basement torture and equally willing to stand by the door to the basement and tell people that only “essential” activities are taking place and btw, have a Bush lapel pin.
I watched, with a sick feeling, how slick he was in the Padilla presser. I watched, with the same sick feeling, how slickly he expressed touching concern for Biskupic while never even mentioning the woman who was sent to prison on a prosecutorial whim. The “good guy” for Comey will always be his guys – never the men and women who try to defend victims from “his guys.” And its not enough for him to protect them, he very much wants to have them called good guys, even while they torture and even while they lie.
I agree that you have a personal insight I do not have, but I would find it very sad and not a little disturbing if the bar for AG were set at that standard.
And it’s not that I don’t respect your knowledge and personal experience and plain and rare decency. I just have to say it because I have a definition of candor that is a bit different from what Comey seems to have adopted.
Laura Rozen has a post on this one.
jayt @ 96
White-collar defense and internal-investigation work is a huge growth area for the national law firms. Gibson Dunn was very late to the party. Gibson Dunn also has a miserable track record on diversity in hiring. Debra Yang was an absolute must-get for them. They did what they had to to get her.
Thanks, Mary4.
All the romanticizing over guys who are — let’s face it — The Establishment has begun to make me sick.
I agree with lolo. Comey did look stressed and something more than that. We need stronger protections for those honorable enough to tell the truth about the Bush mafia Crime Family including our Congresspersons, who should have Secret Service protection whatever it costs.
The fact that out of 100 Senators, two republicans with knowledge of bush senior crimes died in separate plane crashes less than 24 hours apart before they would possibly be asked to testify in Iran-Contra ( Sen. Tower and Mrs. Kerry’s first husband, Sen. Heinz) as well as the other Congressional plane crashes, auto crashes and other suspicious deaths (the Dems main Social Security expert just before bush tried to destroy SS) shows that we must offer real protections to witnesses and prosecutors from bushinc and their puppetmaster financial elites and Israel.
Mary4 @ 181
thank you for the additional background.
it’s even worse than i thought.
Was Comey’s cushy position in the private sector “arranged” for him the way Ms. Yang’s was at the law firm defending the Republican she was prosecuting?
Mary4
You know I repsect greatly. But the world is nt nearly as simple as you make it out to be and your analysis, while incredibly thorough displays the classic fault of al monday mornug quarterbacking.
Decisions that seem so clear now, made from the comfort of your armchair, are vry different from those made when there were other competing things going on, when information was incomplete, when there were too many balls up in the air.
You are very right about one thing, Jose Padilla was a rbid dog and if swinging a bucket of fisionable material over his head to create a centrafuge so he cold make a dirty bomb, I think he would have done so.
That does not excuse the damage that has been done to the rule of law. Nothing does.
But, I don’t think a) you appreciate the legal and procedural limits on his power once Padilla was laready in custody. To drop a case after that point required a lot of peole to sign off and without clear exculpatory proof, it would be hard to get that to happen.
b) I don’t think you understand the climate he was living in. Rove’s great genius was toget preople to doubt their own judgement. It only works on decent people.
They create a climate where if you think you want to act in contravention of the Admin., that they had you convinced it was just your own pride and belief taht you knew better than your bosses. They also stack the meetings so that you are the only one decenting, and so if not quite convince you that you are wrong, make you hestitate and put your own opinion to the side because how could evey other person in the room see things differntly if you are right? So, absent clear proof that you are right, you hestitate–again.
It explains why Powell got punked into going to the UN and telling that fantasy story.
They isolate you from people who would support your view, or they distract you with other genuine emergencys where you have a clear decision and can act for the good.
In your life, if you have several decisions in front of you and these 3 over here, you know exactly what you think and can act on them today and dod soemthing good today. Then there are those other decisions where you are not sure what the best path is. Other people, people who claim to know more than you and who you regard as authority figures, tell you that you are dead wrong and don’t understand, they also limit your ability to talk things over with the folks in your life who have heretofore provided prespective and gut check. What tends to happen? you hesitate to make a fuss, because you are doubting your self, you are not sure you are right.
Do you have guilt afterwards? yeah.
If you have never had that experience, you have lived a far more charmed life than I.
You know, before I became a rugby referee, I was very critical of many of the folks that reffed the games I played in. Then I tried to do it myself. It was so much harder than I ever could have imagined.
It’s not just the pressure of making the decision in real time (which you have taken into account) lots of folks on the sifdelines of the game can make the correct call in real time, so why can’t the ref?
It’s the sprinting, it’s the pressures of game management, not just diagnoses and whistleing, it’s the need to try to think ahead so as to be in position for the next phase of play, and then there is timekeeping.
I used to be closto infallible making correct calls from the sidelines, and my scores on the referees written exams should have qualified me for a very high slot, but I was a terrible referee. Why? There is so much more to the on the feild experience.
It’s not that I cracked under pressure. It’s more that I was distracted from analyzing things clearly in real time because I had so much esle going on.
I know this explaination is not adaquate, but if you could spend even a week trying to do what he was called upon to do, I thihnk you opinion would change dramtically.
One last thing, mary you are clearly a person who questions authority and does not hold authority figures in awe.
Like lots of Irish Catholics (but, by no means all) everything about his public demeanor make clear that Comey believes in authority figures and in repsect for the office even when there is no respect for the office holder.
Just like the Constitution is mor ehtan just a piece of paper, the office of the president is more than Shrubya. It may be an old fashioned world view, but I understand it on a gut level.
It’s easy to sit on the nice safe sidelines and criticize. It pains me when people sit and take shots at a guy who did so well, under such difficult circumstance, because he didn;t do even better.
We didn’t stop Shrub from doing anything. Comey stopped him from doing a lot of things. And he did it without any help or support from us.
Corry342 @ 101
Its not just “senior employees”. All employees at the Fund and the Bank are paid tax-free.
looseheadprop,
You seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say Comey’s position as the US attorney for Southern New York is nearly autonomous and one of the highest in the Justice Department. On the other, you think he will forget the fundamentals of the Constitution as soon as a father figure presents him with a difficult case. I thought he was chosen the USA for the SDNY precisely because he couldn’t be intimidated.
The same I should point out can be said for your example of Colin Powell he was the Secretary of State and a former general not a mid level functionary. He was just potentially at odds with a small handful of the top players of which he was one.
Powell and Comey can’t be both the top guy and not the top guy. They can’t both be tough guys and ready to roll over for anyone.
my thoughts exactly
why did comey leave the doj?
and
wow, this man would be one hell of a great leader for doj.
just the way he talked about getting out into the field,
about the violent crimes initiative,
about listening to employees,
about being “turned around” by the arguments of a subordinate,
about the pride he and other doj folks take in their work
about the satisfaction of helping others.
we should be so lucky as to have comey for ag.
but in this administration,
it would take more than luck,
it would take an act of god or nature.
I know I’m long EPU’d, but thanks to desertwind, Mary 4, and Hugh for questioning all the uncritical adulation which appears on this site. What’s wrong with a Democratic Attorney General when we win the election in 2008? We are not so bankrupt of talent that we have to turn to Republicans. O.K. a bit of bi-partisanship on the cabinet would be alright (Sec. of Transportation) but not Attorney General. There are too many philosophical points of difference between FDL and Comey (or Fitzgerald): try abortion for starters.
#181 -mary4
and
#188 looseheadprop
one thing i think is important to take into consideration in evaluating comey as dag re padilla is
when you are working in a corrupt and dangerous environment,
you must never, ever take on all the bad guys at once.
if comey was dealing with fitzgerald/plame, and with other matters we don’t know about, and with trying to save the doj from greater white house influence,
he may have had to take a pass on the padilla matter.
you can label that “giving in” if you choose,
but to me
it is just using common sense and wisdom to “stay alive and effective” in a treacherous environment.
equally, one could fault fitzgerald for having let rove off,
but to me it was very wise, in a matter involving the office of the president,
to make sure you had a simple, clean, and bullet-proof case.
that’s what fitzgerald did.
i would guess that fitzgerald re rove
and
comey re padilla
would be delighted to take another crack at those cases.
it would have been brave and morally upstanding to comment publicly on padilla or to indict rove,
but doing so would have put at risk some much needed smaller success against the white house’s corrupt influence on american government.
before you take an absolutist position on comey re padilla,
consider that the comey/fitzgerald attack on the bush white house vis-a-vis plame’s outing was the beginning of the end for bush/rove/cheney corruption.
that little sapper venture against bush corruption blew just enough of a hole in the dam to let truth come trickling thru.
and now truth is pouring thru an ever widening breach.
that’s some accomplishment.
playing a game of moral all or nothing with the bush gang is not smart strategy;
only our american fantasy heroes like superman could have gotten away with that.
Remember the Shivo era ? Remember all the veiled and not so veiled threats from repub. elites to activist judges? Read a lot of good judges left because they were afraid. Now we see why. Why maybe explains bags under eyes. Timmeh and Scooter going to the court house on crutches.