Bush v. Democracy: Bush wins, again

Once again, President Bush has subverted the will of the American people, and certainly the spirit of our democracy. The only question that remains is, what will Congress and the Democrats do about it?

Actually, that's not the most important question. Even a passive follower of politics knows that the Democrats are all opposed to most of Bush's foreign and domestic policies. The most burning question now is, when will enough Congressional Republicans get sick and tired enough to do something about it? So far, scant few voiced opposition; Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are among the prominent who come to mind. But, it's going to take many more than that to be able to legislatively and legally do anything about Bush and Cheney's subversion of our democracy.

The latest outrage - earlier this month, both houses of Congress, by large margins, passed a bill taking away the Justice Department's right to appoint interim U.S. attorneys (for an indefinite period) without Senate approval. The bill has been on Bush's desk since June 4. A president must sign a bill into law within 10 days (not counting Sundays), or the bill automatically becomes law. Not even Bush would be stupid enough to let this bill become law without his signature. Today was the deadline.

However, Bush had one maneuver left yesterday before signing the bill into law - he appointed one more U.S. attorney, in this case installing George Cardona as an interim U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not pleased. Today in a hearing, Leahy ripped Bush over the controversial move:

That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the president's desk since June 4th. Do you know it seems he just can't bring himself to sign it? Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the attorney general has used the power that we voted to repeal again.

It's almost like they live in an alternate world, as though they're not realizing the reaction of Democrats and Republicans about this misuse of this power. That's wrong.

Well, Senator Leahy, that's a start. It's more than "just wrong," it's giving the middle finger to the American people and our way of government.

It's important to note that the Justice Department (and by extension, President Bush) should NEVER have had the power to appoint U.S. attorneys in the first place - the provision was furtively put into the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Act of 2005 at the very last minute by someone in Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) office, under Specter's name. Specter was recovering from cancer treatment. I don't know if that account is true, but I've heard it from some credible sources, most notably liberal talk show host Thom Hartman. The guy who was instrumental in getting that provision into the bill? Timothy Griffin, who was later appointed interim U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

More on Griffin in a future post, and his role in caging during the 2004 election.

That only question now is, what will Congress do about Bush's final appointment? I'm sure Sen. Harry Reid is planning the Bush "no confidence" vote right now. What a joke. Alberto Gonzales really should be forced to resign or impeached. But, with the backbone this Congress is proving to have, neither is likely probable.

It's time to write our legislative leaders to tell them what we think of this latest move. I'll share my letter to my two senators with you tomorrow.

Think Progress has more.

Specter predicts Gonzo will step down

But, I'm not so sure. We've only been hearing this song now for about three months. However, a Senate no confidence vote, even if along party lines, would be an embarrassment to Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration. And that vote would NOT be along party lines - more than a handful of Republican Senators have publicly called for Gonzo's resignation in the last few weeks - Norm Coleman, Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel among them.

In the end, though, how do you embarrass a shameless administration? I don't remember where I heard this over the weekend, because I've been reading and watching so much on politics lately, but it really resonated with me, but it went something like this:

Bush and his cabal are perfectly willing to look completely stupid to advance their agenda. They'll say a million "I don't remembers" with a side of "that's just not true" (when they know that IT is), and in the end, if Gonzo stays put as AG, then it's a "victory" for Bush.

Sometime around January 22, 2001, this administration stopped considering what the best thing for America is, and started worrying about what's best for their political donors, and the best course to stay in power.

If Congress wants Gonzo out, it will probably have to impeach him.

Video via C&L

Gonzo in middle of NSA spying controversy

This is a longer clip, so give it a watch when you have time.

It's the testimony of James Comey, the former deputy attorney general. It seems that when former Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital for gall bladder surgery, the White House had a problem with the NSA's Terrorism Surveillance Program. It needed DOJ approval for the plan.

However, Ashcroft had temporarily turned over the responsibilities of his office to Comey while he was undergoing surgery. The White House wanted Comey to sign off on the NSA's program, and when he raised objections, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card rushed over to the hospital where Ashcroft was convalescing and tried to get him to sign a piece of paper approving the program.

In no uncertain terms, Ashcroft refused. An enraged Card told Comey that had to report to the White House immediately, and Comey refused to appear without a witness, considering what he just witnessed. Comey also threatened to resign, but Ashcroft coaxed him out of that decision, urging Comey to wait until he was in better health so they could resign together. Reportedly, FBI Director Robert Mueller also threatened to resign.

This is a pretty amazing story, which could have turned into a modern-day Saturday Night Massacre. In some ways this revelation does resemble Nixon's colossal political miscalculation. I've already heard some conservatives say, "What does this have to do with Alberto Gonzales' behavior as attorney general?"

Really, it's another brick in the wall, and it further demonstrates Gonzo's willingness to let politics trump the law. If I were a lawyer, I'd say, "It goes to credibility," in relation to the U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal.

However, the attorney general still has the "full support" of the president.

Pathetic.

Alberto Gonzales testimony high(low)lights

Lots of video to bring you this morning before I get on with writing some of my longer pieces. Yesterday saw embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales taking lots of heat up on the Hill. It's amazing to me that he's lasted as long as he has. Here are a few of the better clips from yesterday.

The footage above is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) really letting Gonzales have it. I find it truly remarkable that the attorney general of the United States claims that he isn't responsible for determining which documents are released and redacted in the U.S. attorney firing scandal. He is the number one law enforcement official in this country, and the DOJ is responsible for releasing the documents that are requested, which he heads. If he isn't responsible, then I'd like to know exactly who is?

Gonzo reminds me of CEOs (Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers, anyone?) of companies that have bilked billions from investors and employees who claim, after the fact, "I didn't know this was happening." That's no excuse, and these criminals (Gonzo included) should not be provided safe haven under the law.

I have to confess, I don't want Gonzo to resign, because if he does, that will take the immediacy out of the investigation, and the likelihood that he will be brought to justice greatly decreases. Bush and Gonzo are doing the Democrats a favor by his staying on as AG. I want to see him impeached and forcibly removed from office.

A footnote to Waters - she's the woman who formally protested the results of the 2000 election on the floor of the U.S. Senate in December 2000:

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it isn't signed by a member of the Senate," said Waters. (On her objection to the Presidential Election in 2000), to which Al Gore responded, "The chair would advise that the rules do care."

Gore, as president of the Senate, acted appropriately in this instance, but it's too bad that not ONE U.S. Senator would sign on to formally protest the election, especially in light of the election fraud that has come to light since that election. But, that's a post for another time. I'll be writing about election fraud in the coming days.

Here's one more clip from Gonzo's testimony yesterday...

Gonzo just wilts in the face of the heat that Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) is giving to him yesterday. It almost becomes repetitive after watching just a few minutes of this. You'd think that Gonzo is a low-level lawyer or even janitor at the DOJ in the wake of his testimony - the man claims to know next to nothing.

If this was spur-of-the-moment testimony, that would be one thing, but he's had weeks to prepare for his testimony, which makes his words all the more damning.

Gonzo under oath...

I swear to tell the whole half-truth, and nothing but the spin, God help my sins.

More on this later today...

Photo from AP/Mark Abraham

Gonzo gets a stay

The Senate Judiciary Committee has wisely postponed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony, which was originally scheduled to begin today, until Thursday. Gonzo is now scheduled to begin giving testimony on Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

It was the obvious and smart thing to do, in light of yesterday's Virginia Tech Massacre. From what I've been reading, Gonzales needs all of the practice he can get. Word out of Washington a little over a week ago had him doing so bad in his rehearsals that an appearance on "a Sunday morning talk show" had to be cancelled.

I'm quite annoyed that the attorney general of the United States is taking up weeks at a time to "rehearse" for his appearance on Capitol Hill. Seriously, if you are planning on telling the truth, do you need weeks of preparation? I think not.

According to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Gonzo hasn't just be preparing, he's been cramming:

At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales’s performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers — including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan — about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his time line confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got "exasperated" with him, the source added. "He's not ready," Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales's public-affairs chief, told the A.G.'s top aides after the session was over, said the source.

Gonzo's testimony on the Hill is going to be huge. It's not a reach to conclude that his testimony will probably determine whether this investigation goes any higher up the ladder, and whether he keeps his job.

My predictions: barring a miracle by Gonzo, he's gone, and this investigation is going to go deeper and deeper. Whatever happens, I do hope that it doesn't turn into a Ken Starr-style witch hunt. I just want the truth to come out, whatever it is.

Gonzo is already probably fatally wounded as attorney general - I don't see how his Congressional testimony is going to clear up and make everyone forget his many examples of wild inconsistency.

Ed Gillespie is a name that some may remember - he was chairman of the Republican National Committee for a few years, and he also was an aggressive member of Bush's 2000 election team. He coached Bush's lawyers who appeared before the Supreme Court to argue Bush's side in Bush v. Gore, the disastrous decision that gave us the wonderful president that we've had to weather these past 6+ years. I'd argue that Bush v. Gore is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Picture from TMW

Rachel Maddow calls b.s. on Orrin Hatch

There has been lots of talk this week about Orrin Hatch's appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday. During his appearance, Hatch mentioned Carol Lam, a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California and one of the eight attorneys recently fired by the Justice Department.

During his appearance, Hatch mentioned that Carol Lam worked for the Clinton campaign (see video below).

At the heart of Hatch's inaccuracies is this paragraph:

Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton, and they’re trying to say that this administration appoints people politically? Of course they do.

Here's the video clip...



Rachel Maddow (top left), who hosts her own program on Air America Radio, did a little digging of her own and began poking holes in Hatch's lies and distortions, writing this letter to the Hatch:

Dear Senator Hatch-
You don’t call, you don’t write...

I’ve just about exhausted myself trying to get someone in your office to call me back this week. Please apologize to your adorable receptionist on my behalf – the poor man now gets audibly exasperated as soon as I say "hello."

What I’d like to talk with you about is very simple: on NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, you said this about Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego who was fired by the Justice Department in December:

"She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"

I checked the transcript against the video (or click here for the specific clip) and it’s clear to me that you weren’t misquoted.

Here's my question for you or your staff: what in the Lord's name are you talking about?

Here at Air America, we called John Emerson, who managed Clinton's California campaign in '92 and again in '96 to ask if Carol Lam had been the "campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton" – you might have thought we'd asked him if the sky was green.

First of all, uh, NO, she wasn't.

And second, Carol Lam was an Assistant US Attorney at the time of Clinton's campaigns, and she therefore couldn't have also been a campaign manager for any presidential candidate without violating the (ironically-named) Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal government employees.

Then we called a source close to Carol Lam in California, who expressed utter bewilderment at what old Orrin said on Meet the Press.

The source confirmed for us publicly-available documents about Lam's career which indicate that she is not a law professor, she's "been a federal prosecutor for nearly 18 years and [has] never been a fundraiser for any president."

Senator Hatch, what’s going on here?

Were you thinking of someone else? You seemed under the weather on Sunday - did you maybe fall asleep and wake up in the middle of what you thought was a totally different interview – an interview about someone who DID work for Clinton's campaign?

Don't you want to apologize and set the record straight? Won't you be embarrassed if Meet the Press has to run a correction about something you said, that you won't retract?

Or do you have secret information that no one else has, that will back up your off-the-wall claims about Carol Lam?

Senator Hatch, call me.

My voicemails have filled up the systems on all of your press guys' phones, so I know you know how to reach me.

When you call me back, I'll give you all the time you want on my radio show to either explain your top-secret Carol Lam information, or to apologize for your utterly outrageous, inexplicable smear.

I know it's difficult to have to defend the Bush Administration for their political purge of the US Attorneys - but that doesn't mean you get to make stuff up about the US attorneys that you think will make it seem like they deserved what they got.

Come on, come on, Senator Hatch. I caught you on this one. Return my calls - I'll help you make it all better.

All best wishes,
Rachel Maddow
Host, "The Rachel Maddow Show"
Air America Radio 6-8 PM Eastern

###

Who says that letters don't make a difference? Hatch has responded in a letter to Tim Russert. [Click on letter for larger image.]

###

And Maddow responds to Hatch's b.s. letter. ...

Apparently this open letter thing works!

Senator Hatch has now issued a letter climbing down from the pile of lies he told about Carol Lam on Meet the Press this weekend.

He now says thought he was talking about a person named "Alan Bersin" when the name "Carol Lam" accidentally escaped his lips instead.

Given the massive media attention and debate about "Alan Bersin" recently, I can understand his mistake.

For more on this weird controversy, tune into my next show, titled, as always, "Yet Another Two Hours of Talk Radio All About Alan Bersin."

Rachel

****

Bravo, Rachel - keep up the good work. For those of you who haven't listened to her show, I urge you to - visit her blog Here, where you can find out more about her, the show, get lots of opinion, and best of all - downloads of audio and video files from her show.

By the way, for those of you who don't think Hatch's mistakes are important, think again. They are, because all signs point to the fact that they were deliberately said. The fact is that Lam and the other dismissed U.S. Attorneys are having their reputations wrongly and needlessly smeared so this administration can cover its ass.

Previewing Karl Rove's future career

But, I'm warning you, this ain't pretty. Karl Rove is like the sun - he's burned many people, he's not likely to go away for a long time, and, like the sun, if you look directly at this video, you'll regret it. You've been warned.

Well, we now know Karl Rove's next career once this administration is over. Maybe Rove could be a rapper - he's spawned more hate than even the worst rap artist could ever hope to, so he at least has the ideological foundation.

All kidding aside though, I thought this was kind of funny. He just looks like a buffoon and a fool trying to be funny, but people are making too big of a deal about this. But, it's kind of disturbing to look at in a funny kind of way.

What I did find truly annoying from last night's Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner were comments by President Bush when referring to the firing of U.S. attorneys:



"You know you've botched it when people sympathize with lawyers."

I realize that these events are supposed to be humorous, but really? I love it that the media consistently gives Bush a pass on his negative comments about lawyers.

I not-so-fondly remember 2004, when Bush mocked John Kerry and John Edwards for their proposals to reform medical malpractice. John Edwards' belly button lint knows more about medical malpractice than George W. Bush could learn in a lifetime, yet President Bush successfully mocked the Kerry/Edwards proposal, with his characteristic sneer:

"Their solution is to put a trial lawyer in charge."

It's amazing how much President Bush holds lawyers in contempt, yet he would never have been appointed president by the Supreme Court in the fall of 2000 were it not for any army of lawyers and a few of his daddy's buddies on the Supreme Court.

But, this is just another example of Bush thinking we're all morons and that we don't remember this stuff.

Wrong again, Mr. President.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.

W's urge to purge... another peek < ò > < ó >

This story, which I originally found on C&L and read about further in a March 22 WaPo piece, floored me. What shocked me even more was that Chris Wallace explored this on his show yesterday.

It seems that the Bush Justice Department stuck its nose right where it should not have gone - right up Big Tobacco's tar hole.

The story's so unreal, I'm not even going to try to describe it - just read a few excerpts for yourself from the WaPo story:

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

"The political people were pushing the buttons and ordering us to say what we said," Eubanks said. "And because of that, we failed to zealously represent the interests of the American public."

Eubanks, who served for 22 years as a lawyer at Justice, said three political appointees were responsible for the last-minute shifts in the government's tobacco case in June 2005: then-Associate Attorney General Robert D. McCallum, then-Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and Keisler's deputy at the time, Dan Meron.

News reports on the strategy changes at the time caused an uproar in Congress and sparked an inquiry by the Justice Department. Government witnesses said they had been asked to change testimony, and one expert withdrew from the case. Government lawyers also announced that they were scaling back a proposed penalty against the industry from $130 billion to $10 billion.

WTF? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that someone is getting paid here. This was the government's chance to drop the hammer on Big Tobacco, which has been exploiting the American public for decades, including intentionally putting additives in cigarettes that made them more addictive.

Here's a cheerful thought - if this administration would do something like this with Big Tobacco, what kind of influence do you think Bush and Cheney, oil men both, have over what goes on with Big Oil? Read on...

Yesterday [March 21] was the first time that any of the government lawyers on the case spoke at length publicly about what they considered high-level interference by Justice officials.

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

Hey, where there's smoke, there's fire. I have no doubt in my mind that Bush, Rove, Cheney and their cabal played a big role in the attorney firings. Now it's just a matter of finding out for sure by uncovering the legal trail, and deposing witnesses, under oath and with a legal transcript.

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.

Bob Barr slams U.S. Attorney dismissals

This one has got to sting the Bush White House just a bit (insert sarcasm) - Republican Rep. Bob Barr, who would never be mistaken as a liberal, criticizing the Bush Administration's handling of the Alberto Gonzales/U.S. Attorney firing scandal. (And he's got cred - he once served as a U.S. Attorney in northern Georgia.)

A partial transcript:

BOB BARR: Well, it's probably some of both. But what's really unfortunate here, both from the White House standpoint, as well as from the more important standpoint of what's best for the country, is the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who's the toughest hombre in all this. It's very unfortunate. And I'm not really sure that the administration has chosen the best line in the sand to draw here, so to speak.

Congress clearly has a right to inquire into the running of the Department of Justice, to inquire into the integrity of the process of hiring and firing U.S. attorneys, notwithstanding the fact that that that is technically a prerogative of the president. And rather than fight this, the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush I administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.

###

Ouch. More of A-Gonz and the attorney scandal later tonight.