MTP: Good Gonzo chat, but T Russ lets Senator Specter off EASY

I watched Meet the Press yesterday, and I must say that host Tim Russert redeemed himself somewhat after having Tom DeLay on last week. That's not too surprising to me, though - Russert rarely has two bad weeks in a row.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) were on to talk about the continuing saga of the eight dismissed federal prosecutors.

Just a few thoughts, and then I'll move on to other aspects of this story in different posts.

First of all, if I hear one more Republican mention that President Clinton dismissed all 93 federal prosecutors when discussing Alberto Gonzales, I'm going to scream until my voice goes out. All together now, folks - COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Just about every president replaces all of the federal prosecutors when first taking office. It's the standard MO - prosecutors are expected to turn in their resignation letters with the arrival of a new administration. Clinton did what just about every president does. And, after the first term, if a president is around for a second term, typically some, if not all, are replaced.

That's not what the controversy is in this case, period. At issue here is that many of these attorneys were fired because they were not prosecuting cases the White House wanted (in some cases, more Democrats); and in other cases, the White House was peeved that certain Republicans were being targeted.

For instance...

As reported by the Congressional Research Service - a piecemeal "purge" of attorneys (especially mid-term) is not normal, or ordinary. Of the 468 U.S. attorneys confirmed by the Senate over a 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily. (This number does not include the eight that Bush bounced.) This excludes the typical resetting with every administration, which I mention AGAIN. I wish people would just stop it with the Clinton references. I'm going to start calling Clinton "Crutch" because more than any other person on the planet, he's been leaned on by Repubes in trouble.

The stories about WHY these attorneys were fired seems to change like the temperature, too. For example, check out what happened to David C. Iglesias, the fired attorney in New Mexico...

In February 2007, Iglesias publicly alleged that "two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator" and that "the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions."

As a quick aside, U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada and California were also conducting corruption probes involving Republicans at the time of their dismissals, but I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

According to Iglesias (and this was later confirmed), prior to the 2006 midterm election, U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) called and "pressured" Iglesias "to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator."

When Iglesias told Domenici that an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, Iglesias said "the line went dead," and he was fired one week later by the Bush Administration.

After initially denying the call, Domenici recently copped to making it.

According to a WaPo article, "A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of [Congressional] ethics rules."

Domenici admitted calling Iglesias despite initially lying about it, but Domenici said he never used the word "November" when he called Iglesias about an ongoing Albuquerque courthouse corruption case.

Yea, right.

I'll have more in a bit about subpoenas, A-Gonz and Arlen Specter.