How many top DoJ resignations now?

On December 7, 2006 the Bush Department of Justice (DoJ) fired eight U. S. Attorneys in a single day, stating that it was for performance reasons. This Pearl Harbor Day purge was unique in the history of the DoJ. The Washington, D.C. media made a one-day story of it, and moved on to more interesting things, like the latest from Nicole Richie or Lindsay Lohen.

The unique event and the failure of the Bush administration to provide a satisfying explanation for it must have bugged Josh Marshall, because he didn't let the issue go. Josh's refusal to let the issue go has led the Congress to look more closely at the DoJ and also to a series of interesting stories out of the Department of Justice this year. Let's look at some of the stories that have resulted from Josh Marshall's curiosity and refusal to let a good story be ignored.

Of particular interest was (and continues to be) the U.S. Attorney for San Diego, CA who had successfully investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (for longer than any other Congressman has ever been imprisoned) and continued to investigate Cunningham's briber, Brent Wilkes as well as the Number three ranking CIA executive, "Dusty" Foggo. Carol Lam's firing has all the appearance of being an effort by the Bush administration at Obstruction of Justice.

Next we learn that the U.S. Attorney from Los Angeles, Debra Yang, had been on the list to be fired, but resigned in late November to take a Partnership at the Republican law firm which was defending Rep. Jerry Lewis as he was being investigated by (oops) U.S, Attorney Debra Yang. The partnership came along with a $1.5 million signing bonus. There is a saying in Latin America. "Plata o plomo." Silver or lead. It looks very much as though Debra Yang, a 47 year-old divorced mother of two young children was given the option of taking the signing bonus or being fired on Pearl Harbor Day with the rest.

News reports state that Rep. Jerry Lewis has decided to retire rather than run for a 16th tern, although his office denies that he has made such a decision.

Another U.S. Attorney, Paul Charlton of Arizona, was fired because he was investigating a crooked land deal by Republican Rep. Rick Renzi. While the investigation into Rep. Renzi has been slow-walked since U.S. Attorney Charlton was fired, Rep. Renzi has just recently announced that he is not going to run for reelection in 2008. That is one short step short of a guilty plea.

Two more of the Pearl Harbor Day purge, David Iglesias, fired U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, and John McKay, fired U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, present a good case that they were fired for refusing to bring flimsy indictments against Democrats that would influence an up-coming election.

The cases of Iglesias and McKay show what happened when the DoJ tried to order ethical attorneys to bring politically-motivated cases to influence elections so the Republicans could win. They refused and were fired. Then there is the unethical U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Steve Biscupic, who was on the list to be purged on Pearl Harbor Day until he brought corruption charges against Georgia Thompson who worked as a civil servant for the State of Wisconsin. This case was so weak that the Appeals Court threw it out at the end of oral argument and chastised the U.S. Attorney for even bringing it. See also NY Times gets it right! See editorial today.. Ms. Thompson was accused of a crime that had not occurred and was convicted with no evidence. But that didn't matter to U.S. Attorney Biskupic. He created an issue the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin could use to attack the Democratic incumbent, and Biskupic kept his job when ethical attorney's were being fired. [Biskupic remains as a U.S. Attorney today.]

There are more situations which deserve close investigation, but the real set of problems all go back to the politisation and mismanagement of the Department of Justice. See my earlier article The deeper problem revealed by the US attorney Purge.

It should be no surprise when Paul Kiel at talking points memo muckraker lists the recent top level resignations from the Department of Justice.

"1) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, today.
2) Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced his resignation May 14th.
3) Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer (the Department's #3) announced that he was withdrawing his nomination for the position June 22nd.
4) Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, resigned March 13th.
5) Department White House liaison Monica Goodling resigned April 6th.
6) Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, resigned June 15th.
7) Executive Director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys Michael Battle, announced his resignation in mid-February.
8) Bradley Schlozman, an attorney in the Counsel to the Director staff at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, formerly the U.S. attorney for Kansas City and a former acting assistant attorney for the Civil Rights Division, resigned mid August.

And, finally, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Wan Kim was another notable resignation (on August 23rd), although Kim's troubles were unrelated to the firings scandal.

High personnel turnover is a symptom of a poorly run organization. It is an especially bad sign when the guys at the top are all leaving at once. This isn't politics so much as it is bad management and an attempt to politicize the DoJ. And, like Alberto Gonzales himself, the major problems of the DoJ have come out of the White House.

Gonzales took over as Attorney General on February 3, 2005. It has taken him two years and seven months to literally destroy that organization and its reputation.

It is really strange that no one in the Washington D.C. press corps was curious about the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney Purge like Josh Marshall was.

Fired US attys say criminal cases will result from the firings.

David Iglesias, fired U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, and John McKay, fired U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, tell the Seattle Times that there may be criminal charges resulting from the Pearl Harbor Day Massacre of U.S. Attorneys. They also said that:

...they believe White House political operative Karl Rove and his aides instigated the dismissals and ultimately decided who among the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys should be fired.

This is a story that has a long way left to go.

My opinion - Attorney General Gonzales may well not be much of a manager. Lawyers often aren't. But contrary to the impression he left in his Senate testimony, he is a very intelligent man. He is, in fact, both intelligent enough and well-enough trained as a lawyer that he could plausibly present a story to the Senate in which the White House was totally unconnected to the real hand Rove and his staff had in the U.S. Attorney Purge. All Alberto G. had to do to present such a story was to appear to be a totally detached figurehead playing as leader while simply not understanding what was really going on. This would be play-acting worthy of an Oscar at the least, but Alberto is fully capable of such a performance.

If that is what is going on, it will only last as long as every knowledgeable person closely involved sticks to the pre-planned story. That is the real significance of Monica Goodling. She is quite young, not really old enough to realize the risks she was running. She is just now becoming aware that her entire future many be sacrificed so that the principle individuals she is being asked to protect can keep their power.She has got to be asking herself if it is worth the candle, and the people depending on her to stick to the story have to be feeling highly uncertain about her. The pressures on her from both sides have to be tremendous.

If, as Mckay and Iglesias say, this moves on the criminal cases, the pressure on Monica Goodling will get even greater, which is why her attorneys are trying to get immunity for her from Congress.

As I say, this story has a way to go.

Voter Fraud? The Republicans lie to suppress Democratic votes

Here is something the Washington Post got correct. (Obviously not written by Fred Hiatt.) It is an editorial published today. First, remember that the US attorney for Washington State, John McKay, was fired because he failed to bring indictments against Democrats for voter fraud in the extremely narrow (under 100 votes) win by the Democratic candidate for Governor.

Allegations of voter fraud -- someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote -- have been pushed in recent years by partisans seeking to justify proof-of-citizenship and other restrictive ID requirements as a condition of voting. Scare stories abound on the Internet and on editorial pages, and they quickly become accepted wisdom.

But the notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch. Where fraud exists, of course, it should be prosecuted and punished. (And politicians have been stuffing ballot boxes and buying votes since senators wore togas; Lyndon Johnson won a 1948 Senate race after his partisans famously "found" a box of votes well after the election.) Yet evidence of actual fraud by individual voters is painfully skimpy.

Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, "not dead yet."

Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names." After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.

Yet the stories have taken on the character of urban myth. Alarmingly, the Supreme Court suggested in a ruling last year ( Purcell v. Gonzalez) that fear of fraud might in some circumstances justify laws that have the consequence of disenfranchising voters. But it's already happening -- those chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans.[Editor - Highlighting is mine.]

Remember, this is individual voter fraud being discussed in this editorial. The Republican allegations of individual voter fraud is primarily a set of allegations to be used to justify installing rules to require forms of identification not usually carried by many non-Republican voters. These rules are primarily intended to suppress the total vote by non-Republicans.