Rove's misdeeds are catching up to him

Is Karl Rove going to skate on paying for his crimes? Maybe not. dday reports how the net is closing in around him.

CLOSING IN... Karl Rove has been extremely slippery with what he was able to get away with while in service at the White House, but over the past couple weeks events have probably made him gulp and pull the collar away from his neck a couple times. Same with his former bosses.

dday then goes on to detail some of Rove's currently pressing problems:

• Most recently we have have Scott McClellan revealing that Bush and Cheney gave the go-ahead to Scooter Libby to selectively leak contents of the 2002 Iraq NIE. It was this release of the classified NIE that resulted in revealing the identity of an active CIA agent, Valerie Plame. This leads to the next item:


• U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (The federal Prosecutor in the Plame case) might be ready to talk about allegations that Rove was working to get him fired before he could prosecute Tony Rezko.


• Then there is the pressure growing on Rove for answers regarding his role in the railroading of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.


• The railroading of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman is rapidly unravelling, and all indicatrions are the Karl Rove was in the center of that action.

The dday article gives details of each of those investigations. Here is how he wraps his article up:

This leads back to Rove - the Siegelman case, the politicization of US Attorney positions, firing prosecutors who wouldn't play ball, leaking classified information in the Plame case. Rove is a slippery creature. But there are a lot of investigations all happening at once.

If dday is right, it's about damned time.

Hunter S. Thompson would have understood what is going on now

As we watch the federal reserve desperately trying to save the financial markets, we get this report from Greg Palast.

While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours.

So? Is there a connection? Palast thinks so.

How? Follow the money.

The press has swallowed Wall Street’s line that millions of US families are about to lose their homes because they bought homes they couldn’t afford or took loans too big for their wallets. Ba-LON-ey. That’s blaming the victim.

Here’s what happened. Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and its variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’

Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 monthly payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. The Grinnings move into their Toyota.

Now, what kind of American is ‘sub-prime.’ Guess. No peeking. Here’s a hint: 73% of HIGH INCOME Black and Hispanic borrowers were given sub-prime loans versus 17% of similar-income Whites. Dark-skinned borrowers aren’t stupid – they had no choice. They were ‘steered’ as it’s called in the mortgage sharking business.

‘Steering,’ sub-prime loans with usurious kickers, fake inducements to over-borrow, called ‘fraudulent conveyance’ or ‘predatory lending’ under US law, were almost completely forbidden in the olden days (Clinton Administration and earlier) by federal regulators and state laws as nothing more than fancy loan-sharking.

But when the Bush regime took over, Countrywide and its banking brethren were told to party hearty – it was OK now to steer’m, fake’m, charge’m and take’m.

But there was this annoying party-pooper. The Attorney General of New York, Eliot Spitzer, who sued these guys to a fare-thee-well. Or tried to.

Instead of regulating the banks that had run amok, Bush’s regulators went on the warpath against Spitzer and states attempting to stop predatory practices. Making an unprecedented use of the legal power of “federal pre-emption,” Bush-bots ordered the states to NOT enforce their consumer protection laws.

Indeed, the feds actually filed a lawsuit to block Spitzer’s investigation of ugly racial mortgage steering. Bush’s banking buddies were especially steamed that Spitzer hammered bank practices across the nation using New York State laws.

Spitzer not only took on Countrywide, he took on their predatory enablers in the investment banking community. Behind Countrywide was the Mother Shark, its funder and now owner, Bank of America.

Is that realistic? Consider my previous post Elliot Spitzer; Prostitutes; Why is the DoJ involved?. It really wasn't reasonable for the Department of Justice to focus on Elliot Spitzer, but we know from the US Attorney Purge that this administration has used the criminal law to silence its critics. Why would the Bush administration be so adamant about fleecing mortgage-holders? Because that's the only place left that there has been any money for over two decades. Quoted in my earlier post "What's happened to America? Over half a century of war and the conservative movement.":

In just the past seven years, US household debt almost doubled and federal debt soared by near two-thirds, rocketing by a combined $10.5 Trillion. The total combined debt of households ($14.4 Trillion) and the federal government ($9.2 Trillion) is now 168% of GDP, far higher even than in the brief spike during World War II. All other levels and ratios of debt also have soared far beyond any past precedent.

Yet, this record-shattering explosion of debt stimulus created the weakest seven year job growth (4.4%) and one of the weakest periods of real GDP growth (18.1%) since the Depression: less than 6 million new jobs ($1.8 million of debt per job) and a mere $4 Trillion increase in GDP.
This period began with the collapse of Wall Street's stock market bubble from the late 1990s and ends now with the collapse of Wall Street's housing and other debt bubbles. That such massive mortgage and consumer borrowing, tax cuts and war spending produced such remarkably weak real economic results suggests the months and years ahead could be quite difficult.

Yet, along with Fed rate cuts for cheaper debt, the only policies seriously considered by this year's crop of Wall Street-funded political candidates is more short-term household and federal debt "stimulus." Locked into a failed, 30-year-old ideology of deregulation and debt, there is no option to compete with the remarkably effective industrial and trade policies pursued by China and others.

2008 will be the ninth consecutive year the US economy grows slower than the world's growth while China grows more than three times faster. In the past seven years of sluggish growth, the US accumulated Manufacturing trade deficits (production shortfalls) of over -$3 Trillion with full Current Account trade losses of -$4.3 Trillion; more than the entire nominal growth of GDP.

This is what the Wall Street Republican financed Reagan Revolution has brought America to. Financial collapse and Department of Justice prosecutions of political opponents who expose the failure of the conservative politicians and the Wall Street crooks bankers who have caused the collapse.

Palast makes the connection between the bailout for Wall Street and Elliot Spitzer here:

When the housing bubble burst and the paint flaked off, investors were left with the poop and the bankers were left with bonuses. Countrywide’s top man, Angelo Mozilo, will ‘earn’ a $77 million buy-out bonus this year on top of the $656 million - over half a billion dollars – he pulled in from 1998 through 2007.

But there were rumblings that the party would soon be over. Angry regulators, burned investors and the weight of millions of homes about to be boarded up were causing the sharks to sink. Countrywide’s stock was down 50%, and Citigroup was off 38%, not pleasing to the Gulf sheiks who now control its biggest share blocks.

Then, on Wednesday of this week, the unthinkable happened. Carlyle Capital went bankrupt. Who? That’s Carlyle as in Carlyle Group. James Baker, Senior Counsel. Notable partners, former and past: George Bush, the Bin Laden family and more dictators, potentates, pirates and presidents than you can count.

The Fed had to act. Bernanke opened the vault and dumped $200 billion on the poor little suffering bankers. They got the public treasure – and got to keep the Grinning’s house. There was no ‘quid’ of a foreclosure moratorium for the ‘pro quo’ of public bailout. Not one family was saved – but not one banker was left behind.

Every mortgage sharking operation shot up in value. Mozilo’s Countrywide stock rose 17% in one day. The Citi sheiks saw their company’s stock rise $10 billion in an afternoon.

And that very same day the bail-out was decided – what a coinkydink! – the man called, ‘The Sheriff of Wall Street’ was cuffed. Spitzer was silenced.

Do I believe the banks called Justice and said, “Take him down today!” Naw, that’s not how the system works. But the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.

And Hunter S. Thompson? He described where we are now in his slogan "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." That's where we are now.

U.S. Attorney Yglesias - I was fired for political reasons

David Yglesias, former U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, is publishing a book on how he was fired. Here is an early report from McClatchy News on what he has to say:

WASHINGTON — A longtime protege of President Bush told former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that he was fired for political reasons and that he shouldn't fight his ouster, Iglesias says in a new book.

"This is political," Iglesias recalls Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton telling him shortly after he was ousted. "If I were you, I'd just go quietly."

Iglesias, a former U.S. attorney in New Mexico, is one of nine federal prosecutors whose firings triggered a yearlong controversy at the Justice Department and led to the resignations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and 11 other Justice Department officials.

The book will be published in June, to be titled "In Justice."

Here is why Carol Lam was removed as U.S. Attorney, San Diego

Nov 26, 2007 - The most recent analysis of record from the Wilkes trial gives Emptywheel a lot to discuss. This came from the transcripts and subpoenas in the Wilkes case. Emptywheel at the Next Hurrah has been tracking the story. Below are earlier posts in time sequence.

The traditional media will not be discussing this because the CIA, the Department of Justice and the White House all don't want it publicized.

Apr 27, 2007 - About that FBI Special Agent In Charge. FBI Special Agent in Charge Dzwilewski commented on what happened to cause Carol Lam's dismissal and the manner it which it was done. Six weeks later he retired. Asked if there was any pressure to resign, Dzwilewski said: “I can't speak for what's behind all that, what's the driving force behind this or the rationale. I guarantee politics is involved.”

May 08, 2007 - The Foggo-Wilkes Leaks.

May 11, 2007 - Emptywheel looks at the Leaks. About that DOJ Leak.

Aug 09, 2007 - In The Leak Wars: Revisiting the Pre-Indictment Leaks. EmptyWheel looks more deeply into the alleged media leaks and the connection to the trial of Kontogiannis.

Aug o8, 2007 - Carol Lam did not know why she was dismissed, even after she left. But Elston at DoJ accused her of leaking the reasons she was removed to the press. The Leak Wars: Elston Accuses Lam IN actual practice, Lam was fired because she was threatening to indict Foggo, the third ranking man at CIA and Kontogianis, an individual who the CIA was protecting because he had been laundering money they were using for operations.

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.

DoJ official policy: Voting mistakes are federal crimes

Not sure you are eligible to vote after moving to a new address? Don't even try to register! If you get it wrong, the Republican Party's so-called 'Department of Justice' will prosecute you for any error, no matter what your intentions.

In fact, they will prosecute you even if you just register improperly and don't vote. Oh, and it is a crime to be registered twice, so if the voter administrators from your previous place of registration fail to cancel your registration, YOU will be prosecuted for vote fraud. It's all about suppressing Democratic voter turnout stopping Vote Fraud.

Bush and AG Gonzales fired former U.S. attorneys David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Seattle because they failed to respond to pressure from local Republican politicians to bring federal cases in alleged Democratic instances of voter fraud. That failure was especially heinous since both U.S. Attorneys actually had the gall to not bring such dubious cases to trial right before an election so that the election would be influenced. Those U.S. Attorneys actually tried to follow the guidelines written in the Justice Department's election crimes manual!

Of course they deserved to be fired! They weren't U.S. Attorneys! They were Republican Attorneys tasked with winning elections for Republican candidates! How DARE they refuse to bring political prosecutions and even act in accordance to their written guideline! Who were they working for? The American People or the Republican Party?

The Department of Justice has solved the problem of those pesky guidelines Iglesias and McKay were fired for following. They have rewritten the guidelines and eliminated those instructions. TPM Muckraker has the story. The instructions now say that every minor registration or voting error will be prosecuted, no matter what the registrant's or voter's intent was, or even who was at fault in the case of administrative error. From now on, all likely Democratic voters who can possibly be indicted errors in the process will be prosecuted, even if they are not related to any conspiracy to change an election.

No surprise there. The Republicans have been desperately searching for proof of Democratic conspiracies to steal elections and have not been successful.

We can expect a sharp increase in federal cases of voter fraud to be brought in late September and October of 2008 as Republican U.S. Attorneys like U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic's desperate attempt to keep his job.

---

See also

• Victim of Republican political prosecution demands reimbursement for costs
  June 17, 2007
• US attorney Biscupic (Eastern Wi.) again reversed by Appeals Court - can't convict for no crime.
  April 25, 2007
• White House working to limit voter turnout.
  April 19, 2007
• Georgia Thompson was convicted by right-wing media
  April 13, 2007
• NY Times gets it right! See editorial today.
  April 09, 2007
• Wisconsin US attorney rammed through fake corruption case of Democrat before last Governor's election.
  April 06, 2007

Details on Randy "Duke" Cunningham's corruption and that of the Republican Party

How crooked was Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the most corrupt Congressman ever imprisoned? What did Brent Wilkes, Mitchell Wade, and the Greek mystery man, Thomas Kontogiannis, get for their bribes? Cunningham has been talking to the FBI and other feds from his prison cell in Tuscon where he is serving the longest prison sentence ever given to a sitting Congressman. The San Diego Union Tribune has just published a story with some of the bigger answers. George E. Condon Jr. and Marcus Stern of COPLEY NEWS SERVICE reported on two days of FBI interviews with Cunningham in February, 2007. The currently indicted Brent Wilkes, who is currently awaiting trial for bribery charges will be less than happy at the information.

Here are some highlights from the story:

Cunningham was able to promote defense contracts for favored companies through the use of legislative “earmarks,” provisions lawmakers could slip anonymously into spending bills without debate, discussion or disclosure that benefit interests in their districts or their political supporters Wilkes has said a $100,000 payment he made to Cunningham in 2000, was not a bribe, but instead was to purchase Cunningham's river yacht, the Kelly C.

“Cunningham said that there was never a sale,” said the FBI report. “Cunningham stated that he and Wilkes created the cover story of a boat sale to explain, if anyone ever found out and asked, his receipt of $100,000 from Wilkes.” Cunningham told investigators that Wilkes fully understood that there would be “no actual change in ownership” of the yacht. The two men agreed to divide the $100,000 into two checks because both “felt that the smaller checks might be less noticeable.”

The documents show that Cunningham had first asked Wilkes for $550,000.

“Wilkes said no to the $550,000 but then countered with an offer of $100,000 if Cunningham would ensure that the support and earmarks would continue to happen. Cunningham promised Wilkes that he would 'fight like hell' for Wilkes/ADCS.”

The FBI report made the point that Cunningham was clear about the quid pro quo:

“Cunningham stated that, by 2000, he had already been receiving numerous benefits from Wilkes that included such things as vacation trips, liquor, cash/maintenance money. According to Cunningham, in return for these benefits, he had been helping Wilkes/ADCS in their efforts to secure government contracts.”

This also sheds light on two other individuals known to be involved with bribing Cunnigham.

His [Cunningham's] admissions to the investigators – who were from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. attorneys' office and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service – also shed light on the actions of others implicated in the scandal.

They include Mitchell Wade, president of MZM, Inc. in Washington, who pleaded guilty in the case but has not yet been sentenced, and Thomas Kontogiannis, a New York developer accused of laundering the bribe money.

Kontogiannis pleaded guilty to providing $1.1 million in mortgages to Cunningham for a Rancho Santa Fe mansion, even though he knew the house was purchased with proceeds from illegal activity. The plea was made in February but was not made public until last month. [Snip]

Cunningham was well placed steer military intelligence contracts to Wilkes and Wade because he was on the House defense appropriations subcommittee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

The story also provides more information on what the mystery man, Kontogionnis, did and what he was after from Cunningham. This further information comes from a 75-page affidavit filed by the FBI in support of a search warrant.

The FBI stated that:

• More than $1 million in bribes were laundered by being sent to Kontogiannis instead of going directly to Cunningham. Investigators identified at least 70 separate bank accounts maintained by Kontogiannis at only one bank.
• Despite all his many businesses, Kontogiannis has not filed a tax return since 2001.
• For the first time, investigators shed light on what Kontogiannis expected to get from Cunningham – help on a potential sale of fighter jets to his native Greece.

This was part of what the Department of Justice and President Bush were covering up when they fired Carol lam. The two following links provide more details and links.

• What is happening with the investigation into firing of Carol Lam, USA San Diego?
• CIA official, contractor, face new corruption indictments

Connections to the U.S. Attorney Purge

Today’s story tells of how and why Cunningham was bribed, but reading between the lines it suggests some of the links to the firing of San Diego U.S. Attorney, Carol Lam. U.S. Attorney Lam successfully prosecuted Cunningham, and as she was leaving her job after being fired, indicted two of the bribers, Wade and Wilkes, as well as the number three official at the CIA, Dusty Foggo. This story sheds a good deal of light into Wades and Wilkes.

This story sheds no real light into the case against the indicted CIA official, Dusty Foggo, however. The details of the connection of Foggo to this story seems to be concealed by the classified status of his work at the CIA, but the report that would declassify the relevant information is bottled up in Congress. See

• the indictments of Wade and Wilkes are being relatively actively pursued but
• the indictment of Dusty Foggo appears to be being slow-walked by the current U.S. Attorney in charge of his case.

Information on the "Foggo" part of the story is probably in the internal investigation of the House Intelligence Committee (on which Cunningham sat) which has been bottled up by the former House intel committee chairman, Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) and its current chairman, Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx). That report must have a good deal of additional information that supplements the currently reported information on the effects of bribing “Duke” Cunningham. [h/t to Laura Rozen.]

This story also sheds some light on how the related corruption investigations of Rep. Lewis (CA - R) and Rep. John Doolittle (CA - R) were sidetracked or slowed by the Republican politician through the Department of Justice and the White House. Besides the firing of U.S. Attorney for San Diego, Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney Debra Yang of Los Angeles (investigating Rep Lewis) was hired by Lewis' attorneys for an astounding $1.5 million up-front bonus and a partnership. Until Debra Yang took the offered bribe job, she was apparently on the list to also be fired on Pearl Harbor Day of 2007. This connection has not been adequately investigated or reported yet.

The broader corruption of the Republican Party

"Duke" Cunningham's corruption, while extreme, is not unique to the Republican Party. The only question remaining on William Jefferson (LA-D) is when the indictments will be filed. But Jefferson’s case is a single situation, one which has not brought out every defensive measure of the Democratic political party to which he professes allegiance. What is unique, and is demonstrated by the Cunningham case, is the list of extreme and frequently criminal measures the Republican Party has taken to bottle up and even derail the investigations and protect their own.

Rep. Daryll Issa (CA-R), also from San Diego, sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General complaining about U.S. Attorney Carol Lam in an effort to get her to back off the Cunningham investigation. The timing of his action suggests that it was triggered by U.S. Attorney’s indictment of Cunningham. Interestingly, Issa's letter was supported by Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis, Richard Pombo, John Doolittle, Duncan Hunter, and Bill Thomas, Republican politicians who were threatened by Lam-led investigations. There is little doubt that Issa's complaint was a factor in getting Carol Lam fired. Whether Issa also complained to the White House is not at this time known. He certainly worked to sidetrack investigations into his fellow Republicans.

A similar complaint from Sen. Pete Domenici (NM-R) to the Attorney General (and to the White House) led to the firing of U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias. (see also Domenici Says He Contacted Prosecutor.) Then there is the case of U.S. Attorney of Arizona Paul Charlton who was similarly removed as part of the Dec 7, 2006 firing. He was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona. Several other of the U.S. Attorney's fired on Peal Harbor Day, 2006 were involved in similar investigations of Republican corruption.

Clearly Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman was not similarly protected from the powers of the Republican-controlled U.S. Department of Justice.

Siegelman, a Democrat, was convicted last year of bribery and other charges. He began serving a seven-year prison sentence last month.

Democrats have long maintained that his prosecution was politically motivated, and recent allegations that White House officials were steering decisions at the Justice Department have added weight to the claims.

Last month, a GOP lawyer who once worked on the campaign of Republican Gov. Bob Riley signed a sworn affidavit saying she overheard conversations among campaign officials in 2002 suggesting that the White House was involved in Siegelman's prosecution. She has offered to testify to any investigative agency or in court.

Karl Rove has been directly connected to pushing the prosecution of Gov. Siegelman.

The documents in these cases all show that the Department of Justice under Alberto Gonzales was the action agency in the removals of the U.S. Attorneys, but it is clear that the White House (See also ”White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say “.) was very involved and certainly approved the actions, if not instigating them. There isn't much documentary proof of this, but that is because the White House has been very careful not to leave documentary evidence. This explains why over 50 top White House officials used emails provided by the Republican National Committee rather than the official White House emails which, by law, must be archived and cannot be destroyed. Since documentary evidence is so sparse, the key to finding out how involved the White House had been will be testimony by top White House officials. Recently resigned White House Counsel Harriet Miers certainly knows exactly how involved the White House was. That is why the White House has to fight to keep her from testifying. U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales and "Scooter" Libby are also likely to be able to provide the evidence that proves how crooked George Bush, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have been. That is the core of the battle against this White House, and that is what the Republican Party as an organization is corruptly attempting to prevent investigations of corrupt Republican Party politicians while pushing for selective prosecutions for purely political reasons against Democratic Party officials or for officials in Democratic administrations.

The testimony from Randy "Duke" Cunningham is going to be a real blow to the Republican Party. As corrupt as Cunningham was, the Republicans generally have provided a network of support to protect him and others like him. This goes far beyond just one man. It is the entire Republican Party. It has become a criminal enterprise rather than a political party.

---

Talking Points Memo provides links to

• The FBI report on the interview with Cunningham


• the 75 page FBI affidavit described above.


• The TPM Muckraker Duke Cunningham file


• The TPM Muckraker Wilkes file.

NY times: Gonzales lied - also Bush expansion of Executive Privilige Unconstitutional, wrong

I rarely link to or even read New York Times editorials because of their overreaching subscription wall. If they want me to read something, it should be on the net for free without a time limit. Today's editorial is apparently meant to be read, however, since it is not behind the wall. It can be read here.

So why bother? Well,it covers two very current situations. First is regarding the lies Alberto Gonzales told Congress in his position as Attorney General.

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wanted the USA Patriot Act renewed in the spring of 2005, he told the Senate, “There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse.” But The Washington Post reported yesterday that just six days earlier, the F.B.I. had sent Mr. Gonzales a report saying that it had obtained personal information it should not have.

Then further down the NY Times editors move on to Bush's demand that "Executive Privilege" be expanded to cover what Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove know about the potentially criminal behavior of Attorney General's office in the case of the purge of the U.S. attorneys.

Mr. Bush’s claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Mr. Bush — and even Mr. Gonzales — was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.

Even if Mr. Bush was directly involved, Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case, its major pronouncement on the subject, that the privilege does not apply if a president’s privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity. Congress has already identified many acts relating to the scandal that may have been illegal, including possible obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.

The White House argues that its insistence on the privilege is larger than this one case, that it is protecting the presidency from inappropriate demands from Congress. But the reverse is true. This White House has repeatedly made clear that it does not respect Congress’s constitutional role. If Congress backs down, it would not only be compromising an important investigation of Justice Department malfeasance. It would be doing serious damage to the balance of powers.

This is a pretty important statement for the newspaper of record to make on the day that Miers and Taylor are set to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify and yet have been directed by Bush not to testify. The Bush administration is an out-of-control runway Presidency making Unconstitutional demands of Congress and of the American people.

It is only the Republican Senators and Congressmen who are placing loyalty to their political party above loyalty to America and the Constitution which is holding up the totally necessary action of impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and as became very clear when his lies to Congress were just exposed, Alberto Gonzales.

It is the anti-Constitutional and anti-American behavior of the Republican politicians which is extremist, not the totally appropriate demands for impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. The behavior of these self-serving Republican politicians must be considered for retribution when the next election occurs in November 2008 (and later for those Senators not up for reelection until 2010 and 2012.

This New York Times editorial demonstrates the need to remove these cancers on the body of American government and politics as rapidly as possible.

---

See also:

• Gonzales lied under oath to the Senate
  posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

Victim of Republican political prosecution demands reimbursement for costs

Georgia Thompson, a state of Wisconsin employee who was falsely accused of corruption by Milwaukee U.S. Attorney, Steven Biskupic, has requested that that the state reimburse her $360.000 for the costs she incurred when Biskupic tried to throw the governor's race to the Republican candidate by faking a case and prosecuting Thompson for illegally steering a state contract to -- oops - the lowest bidder(??). This was a case that the Wisconsin Dane County District Attorney turned down because there was no evidence that any crime had been committed.

Ms. Thompson resigned when she was convicted, and was immediately sent to federal prison, where she spent four months while her case was on appeal. The Appeals Court looked at the case and immediately threw out the conviction due to a simple lack of evidence and the Appeals Court Judges were so incensed at the miscarriage of "Justice" that they took the extremely unusual action of dismissing the case from the bench at the end of oral arguments.

Ms. Thompson has been reinstated in her job with back-pay.

Doyle [Democratic governor of Wisconsin and the target of U.S. Attorney Biskupic's criminal action] against Ms. Thompson] aide Matt Canter said the governor supports the claim.

"It's actually the U.S. Department of Justice who should pay this, not Wisconsin taxpayers," Canter said. "But she is an innocent woman, and she shouldn't be caught up in this any longer."

In the claim, Hurley said the state should pay because the charges against her related to her job duties - duties the appeals court found she performed legally.

"Georgia Thompson's criminal prosecution, then, was wholly related to the proper discharge of her position within state employment," Hurley wrote.

This single case is the clearest evidence of the politicization of the federal government under Bush and Rove to try to create an American single-Party government which cannot be removed by democratic methods. Steven Biskupic had been on the firing list of U. S. Attorneys, the rest of whom were fired in the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney Purge. Immediately after this conviction of Georgia Harris became fodder for the Republican attack machine against Governor Doyle, Biskupic's name came off the firing list.

Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee.

Steve Benin provided an abbreviated list of other similar criminal actions in which the Department of Justice has been used to sway elections to the Republicans:

• Paul Krugman noted a couple of weeks ago, for example, that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued subpoenas as part of an investigation against Sen. Bob Menendez (D) shortly before last year’s election.
• In New Hampshire, Democrats want Congress to investigate whether prosecution of a Republican phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002 was intentionally delayed until after the presidential election two years later.
• Did the U.S. Attorney’s office in Pennsylvania intentionally target Bob Casey allies to undermine his Senate campaign against Rick Santorum?
• Why was the career U.S. Attorney in Guam removed in 2002 after he started investigating disgraced GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff?
• Why has Western Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, spent a disproportionate amount of her time launching public-corruption investigations against Democrats, while overlooking Republicans?
• In July 2005, the U.S. Attorney in Denver decided not to pursue a matter in which bouncers at a Bush event impersonated Secret Service agents to throw out three law-abiding ticket-holders because of their bumper sticker (the Denver Three controversy). Did politics dictate the decision?

These and many other similar criminal activities by the Bush administration have led to the investigation of the politicization of 20 federal agencies for the express purpose of creating a single-party non-democratic state of the United States.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales are working hard to implement Karl Rove's vision of a single party Republican dominated authoritarian regime. Steven Biskupic is one of the members of the new, destroyed American so-called Justice system.

Carol Lam, then Republican U.S. Attorney of San Diego, successfully prosecuted the single most corrupt Congressman ever to "grace" the halls of Congress, Randy "Duke" Cunningham. This case has also led to other indictments and has ended the similarly corrupt careers of Republican Representatives Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle. Carol Lam was then fired as U.S. Attorney December 7, 2006.

Biskupic has prosecuted an innocent person for the specific purpose of creating an issue that can be used by the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin to replace the otherwise well-respected Democrat, Doyle. Biskupic was pressured by the Department of Justice to do something to sway that election, as indicated by his position on the firing list of U. S. Attorneys, and as confirmed by his removal from that list after he convicted the innocent Georgia Thompson for a non-crime. That he did this was made perfectly clear by the Appeals Court who threw out the conviction. Biskupic is still the U. S. Attorney in Milwaukee under Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.

It looks to me like it could be time for a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican Party in the Federal government under the RICO statutes.

Can there be any doubt that the Republican Party is in fact a corrupt organization? All of the growing evidence says yes, and there are no countering defenses.

Office of Special Counsel investigating politization of Federal Civl Service

The U.S. Attorney purge was just the very tip of the program to totally politicize the federal government, using it to raise money and get Republicans elected everywhere. Once locked up, the machine that Rove was building would have left America as a one-party state in which elections mean nothing more than did the elections in the USSR or in Saddam's Iraq. Think Progress reports on the investigation now being conducted by the Office of Special Counsel into the politicization of the Federal Government.

Politicization of the federal government has been illegal for decades. The 1939 Hatch Act specifically prohibits partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property, including federal agencies. But in 2005, Ken Mehlman, formerly one of Bush’s top political advisers, outlined the White House’s strategy of utilizing government resources for partisan gain:

One of the things that can happen in Washington when you work in an agency is that you forget who sent you there. And it’s important to remind people that you’re George Bush people. … If there’s one empire I want built, it’s the George Bush empire. [One Party Country, p. 102]

With that imperial partisanship in mind, the Bush White House has engaged in an unprecedented quest to politicize the federal government, giving briefings and PowerPoint presentations everywhere from the Interior Department to NASA on how to secure Republican victories. Said one Interior Department manager, “We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results” (One Party Country, p. 103). Bush loyalists in federal agencies have also helped generate millions for favored political candidates.

This was - and is - a coup-de-etate conducted by the American right-wing extremist conservatives, both economic and religious. It is beginning to be exposed, but the exposure is mostly surface so far.

Republicans in DoJ still working to suppress votes

The major reason why the Pearl Harbor Day eight were fired was that many of them would not go along with the DoJ in attempting to bring spurious charges of voter fraud in efforts to cause large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters to avoid registering or voting their own interests.

Here is the latest, from the Charlotte Observer.

State, feds say rolls out of date, push changes; official says no need

DAVID INGRAM
dingram@charlotteobserver.com

RALEIGH --
State and federal officials are mounting two broad challenges to the way North Carolina maintains its voter rolls, charging widespread irregularities that include votes cast under the names of dead people.

The accusations attempt to call into question the accuracy of registration records and election returns from 2004 to the present.

So far, though, the officials have not made public any evidence of irregularities, and N.C. election officials argue that the state's maintenance of voter rolls is among the most careful and comprehensive programs in the country.

The dispute comes amid growing national attention to suspected voter fraud. The U.S. Justice Department has devoted more resources to that area -- a decision that voting advocates say could disproportionately affect minorities and the poor ahead of the 2008 election.

In a letter two months ago, the Justice Department said it was reviewing North Carolina's voter rolls and that it found irregularities in the number of people registered to vote. Similar reviews have led to lawsuits against election officials in seven other states, including Georgia.

The second broad challenge is from State Auditor Les Merritt, whose office began a review of the state's voter rolls in January.

His staff presented preliminary findings to the State Board of Elections last week. According to the board, Merritt's staff cited 24,821 invalid driver's license numbers in the voter registration database, 380 people who appear to have voted after their dates of death and others who were under age 18 when they voted.

Gary Bartlett, executive director of the elections board, responded Wednesday with a stinging 10-page letter declaring many of the findings invalid. He accused Merritt's office of misleading the elections board and of rejecting its help.

"(Y)our office appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the data that was reviewed or about the federal and State laws governing the voter registration process," Bartlett wrote in the letter, which he provided to lawmakers Thursday.

For example, Bartlett said, many of the people who appear to have voted after their dates of death voted absentee and then died prior to Election Day. At least some people under 18 who voted did so legally, Bartlett said, because state law allows 17-year-olds to vote in a primary election if they will be 18 the day of the general election.

Sort of like stove piping Intelligence data. All you have to do is cherry-pick the data that supports what you want everyone to believe while suppressing all data that shows that there is no real problem. This is clear Republican practice, and they sure haven't stopped.

Subpoenas sent to White House aides

The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and the Senate Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena to former top Karl Rove aide Sara Taylor. Think Progress provides the details.

CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin reports, “The White House has made clear it will cite executive privilege for conversations that took place within the White House on the U.S. attorney matter, and if the people with those conversations happen to have subsequently left the White House, that doesn’t matter. They’re still going to cite executive privilege, and these people are not going to be allowed to testify anytime soon, it appears, if the White House remains as it has been. … Even if they want to testify.”

This should be very interesting. Does Executive Privilege, something not even mentioned in the Constitution, extend this far?

Not if America is to continue as something resembling a democratic nation it sure doesn't.

The plot thickens....

More emails dumped on the Department of Justice scandal. This time they have Sara Taylor, one of Karl Rove's top aides, strategizing on how to get back at the Republicans who spoke homnestly to the Senators in the Senate Hearings on the U.S. Attorney purge.

These emails come from the RNC accounts used by top White House personnel to avoid leaving records that could be used against them. Guess that didn't work so well, did it?

It appears that Ms. Taylor was unhappy that many of the Republican witnesses at the Hearings were unwilling to pull a "Scooter" Libby and lie, committing Obstruction of Justice.

---

This is interesting. EmptyWheel discusses WHY these documents were dumped at this time.

When more voters vote, fewer Republicans are elected. Solution? Stop people from voting. Ask Republicans.

Republicans can't win elections unless they suppress voter turn-out. Don't take my word for it. Here is Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups saying exactly that. Go on over to Crooks and Liars and listen to him.

That's what the entire business of politicizing the Department of Justice has been about.

[ h/t to Digby.]

Good News for America! Rep. Jerry Lewis will NOT run for reelection in 2008!

America and California have been given some good news by the American traitor [*] Bob Novak! California Rep. Jerry Lewis will not run for reelection for a 16th term.

Lewis is one of at least six Republican House members from California who have faced ethical scrutiny, beginning when Duke Cunningham was sent to prison. Most recently, Rep. Ken Calvert, who was sponsored by Lewis for a coveted Appropriations Committee seat, is under attack. He replaced Rep. John Doolittle, another Californian who resigned from the committee because the Justice Department was investigating him.

Rep. Jerry Lewis was under investigation in the Abramoff scandal when the U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles who was investigating Rep. Lewis decided that the private sector paid better than working for the government. Ms. Yang received a really good offer from the Law Firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in their Los Angeles office.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is the law firm defending Rep. Jerry Lewis, the very Congressman Debra Yang was investigating for corruption. The job offer came with an upfront signing bonus of $1.5 million for Ms. Yang, who otherwise was on the Department of Justice firing list. Ms. Yang took the job in late November of 2004, somehow missing being fired during the Pearl Harbor Day U.S. Attorney mass firing which happened three weeks later.

---

[*] Bob Novak is the treasonous reporter who published CIA officer Valerie Plame's name and CIA affiliation in order to punish her husband Joe Wilson for daring to make George W. Bush admit that he was lying in the 2003 State of the Union Address when he stated that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake Uranium ore from Niger. [Bush's statement that he "should not have included that incident in the speech.] is political-speak for "I was lying and you caught me. Shame on you."

Rove nearly locked up US for Repubs - until the Iraq War interfered in Nov. 2006

Digby describes how Karl Rove was building a national political machine that would permanently give control of America to the conservative extremists. It involved depowering the Democrats completely, running a one-party government, fixing most close elections so that the Republicans stole them, using the Department of Justice to fix court case outcomes in cases of election fraud when Republicans got caught while at the same time bringing indictments against strong Democratic politicians just before elections, and using the power of the government to control what the press reported about government and elections.

It nearly worked, but the lack of success in the war in Iraq sidetracked the 2006 election. Since then the Congressional Hearings have begun to surface how crooked the Republicans have been. Still, most of Rove's crooked politics is still in place.

This article by Digby is especially worth reading.

What do career lawyers think of the politicizing of the DoJ and US attorneys?

Loosheadprop (LHP) from FireDogLake attended a panel discussion among a number of highly respected lawyers (both Democratic and Republican) of the way the Department of Justice has been politicized and how the job of U.S. Attorney has been damaged under the current administration. LHP states that he was unable to determine from the positions taken which lawyers were Republican and which were Democrats. They were ALL outraged!

Go read it. It'll give you some hope that the America Bush has been working so hard to destroy is still out here and will be recovered after Bush/Cheney/and family leave.

I found the following quite reassuring:

Alan Vinegrad, who spent 15 months as United States Attorney in the EDNY when he was appointed by the judges of that district after his predecessor resigned, moderated the program and did not pull any punches with his questions. He dove right into the issue of whether it is ever appropriate for a US Senator to have a role in complaining that a US Attorney is not taking care of a crime problem in his state.

On this, the panel was unanimous. There is NEVER EVER a right way for a Senator (or any other politician) to attempt to complain about an individual case. However, let's say the Senator felt that the US Attorney was not paying enough attention to a particular category of case. Well, in that circumstance, there would be a place for that Senator to complain–the Office of Legislative Affairs. OLA's job is to act as a buffer and to insulate United States Attorneys from political pressure. [Snip]

Alan Vinegrad asked another question that brought a unanimous response from the panel when he wanted to know what the criteria for selective removal of USAs [as opposed to the wholesale removal when a new president is sworn in] would be. They all agreed, there have been only two reasons:

-misconduct

-severe management problems.

That's it.

When I say misconduct, we are talking about things like a US Attorney getting indicted himself. When I say major management problems, I'm talking about an office in complete disarray, the financials don't match up, the career people are leaving in droves, the judges are complaining.

Prof. Briffault pointed out that the Congressional Research Service did a little audit and found that in the 25 years from 1982 until the beginning of 2006, only 10, yes 10 TOTAL US Attorneys were selectively removed.

I really am beginning to believe that once the Republicans are moved from any controlling position in the federal government that the nation will not trust them again for at least another generation, perhaps longer.

I strongly agree with LHP's final paragraphs:

I remember what the rule of law looked like. More importantly, I remember what it felt like. It made me proud to be an American. It made me proud to know that although there were scary bad men out there who wanted to hurt us, grownups–talented, smart, hardworking, sincere and honorable grownups–were in charge. It was their respect for the Constitution, for both the spirit and the letter of the law THAT made me feel safe.

As long as our system of Justice and our whole country is in the hands of the [current] Kiddie Kampers, no one will feel safe…because no one will be safe.

The Monica Goodling testimony as reported by FDL

As is becoming usual, we have gotten liveblogging of the Monica Goodling testimony through the good graces of Firedoglake.

• Monica Goodling testimony, Part XIX
  by EmptyWheel.


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VIII
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VII
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part VI
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part V
  EmptyWheel


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part IV
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part III
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part II
  Christy Hardin Smith


• Monica Goodling testimony, Part I
  Christy Hardin Smith

The American Center for Voting Rights has vanished without explanation.

The American Center for Voting Rights, an organization established to stop fraudulent voting, has disappeared. Here is what Richard L. Hasen at Slate wrote about it:

With no notice and little comment, ACVR—the only prominent nongovernmental organization claiming that voter fraud is a major problem, a problem warranting strict rules such as voter-ID laws— simply stopped appearing at government panels and conferences. Its Web domain name has suddenly expired, its reports are all gone (except where they have been preserved by its opponents), and its general counsel, Mark "Thor" Hearne, has cleansed his résumé of affiliation with the group. Hearne won't speak to the press about ACVR's demise. No other group has taken up the "voter fraud" mantra.

The death of ACVR says a lot about the Republican strategy of raising voter fraud as a crisis in American elections. Presidential adviser Karl Rove and his allies, who have been ghostbusting illusory dead and fictional voters since the contested 2000 election, apparently mounted a two-pronged attack. One part of that attack, at the heart of the current Justice Department scandals, involved getting the DoJ and various U.S. attorneys in battleground states to vigorously prosecute cases of voter fraud. That prong has failed. After exhaustive effort, the Department of Justice discovered virtually no polling-place voter fraud, and its efforts to fire the U.S. attorneys in battleground states who did not push the voter-fraud line enough has backfired. Even if Attorney General Gonzales declines to resign his position, his reputation has been irreparably damaged.

Now that we know at least nine U.S. Attorneys were "asked to resign" over the issue of not brining enough cases of voter fraud in courts, what happened? That is essentially 10% of the total 93 U.S. Attorneys.

But the second prong of this attack may have proven more successful. This involved using ACVR to give "think tank" academic cachet to the unproven idea that voter fraud is a major problem in elections. That cachet would be used to support the passage of onerous voter-identification laws that depress turnout among the poor, minorities, and the elderly—groups more likely to vote Democratic. Where the Bush administration may have failed to nail illegal voters, the effort to suppress minority voting has borne more fruit, as more states pass these laws, and courts begin to uphold them in the name of beating back waves of largely imaginary voter fraud.

Perhaps even with the demise of ACVR, the hard work—of giving credibility to a nonproblem—is done. The short organizational history of ACVR, chronicled indefatigably by Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog, shows that the group was founded just days before its representatives testified before a congressional committee hearing on election-administration issues chaired by then-Rep. (and now federal inmate) Bob Ney. The group was headed by Hearne, national election counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, and staffed with other Republican operatives, including Jim Dyke, a former RNC communications director.

Consisting of little more than a post-office box and some staffers who wrote reports and gave helpful quotes about the pervasive problems of voter fraud to the press, the group identified Democratic cities as hot spots for voter fraud, then pushed the line that "election integrity" required making it harder for people to vote. The group issued reports (PDF) on areas in the country of special concern, areas that coincidentally tended to be presidential battleground states. In many of these places, it now appears the White House was pressuring U.S. attorneys to bring more voter-fraud prosecutions.

It's pretty clear from the firings of the U.S. Attorneys followed by the resulting exposure of the politicization of the Department of Justice and now the overnight disappearance of the American Center for Voting Rights that the fraud was not by voters but by the Bush White House.

What is happening with the investigation into firing of Carol Lam, USA San Diego?

Josh Marshall explains the real problems with the firing of Carol lam, the U.S. Attorney in San Diego, CA while she was investigating a corruption case related to the Abramoff case that includes a Congressman, the House Appropriations Committee, high level CIA officers and high level civilians in the Department of Defense.



Josh explains why the firing was at the direction of President Bush.