Sampson Says Bush Conferred with Gonzales on Firing US Attorney Iglesias
It is one of the foundational lies of the Bush era that the president doesn’t read polls. He reads them — he just doesn’t give a damn what they say. In fact, starting at the top, no one in the Bush administration cares about public opinion, especially including the opinions of the Democrats who control the Congress.
So why are the Bushies being so squirrely about the congressional investigation into the prosecutor purge? Why did Karl Rove delete months worth of secret emails? Why did it take A.G. Alberto Gonzales two weeks to memorize his testimony in the matter? Why did Monica Goodling, a Christian nationalist mole in the Justice Dept., say she would plead the Fifth out of fear she might be forced to lie under oath?
The answer: George W. Bush.
Unlike the Scooter Libby scandal, where the wagons were circled to protect Vice Pres. Cheney, it appears that Dear Leader himself is at the center of the prosecutor purge.
On Sunday, the Albequerque Journal reported that the president may have personally added the name of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico to the purge list at the behest of Sen. Pete Domenici, the state’s senior Republican:
In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.
Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Gonzales whom the Bushies tossed overboard like they did Libby, has confirmed Bush’s involvement in the firing of Iglesias:
[Sampson] told Senate investigators over the weekend that the attorney general told him in early March that he and Bush had discussed U.S. Atty. David C. Iglesias’ performance before the November election, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said in a briefing with reporters.
This does not change the theory that the underlying motive in the purge was to put the San Diego federal prosecutor Carol Lam out of business in order to hobble investigations into Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the ranking member on Appropriations, and his lobbyist cronies. A group of prosecutors had to be fired in order to avoid the appearance that Lam was being singled out.
Since a group had to go, Bush played his “l’etat c’est moi” card and added to the list Iglesias, who, like Lam, had one of the best conviction rates in the country. Now the Bushies must go to any extreme measure to protect their king, including trying to delay the endgame until the end of his term in 2009.
- Topic: Politics
- Topics: U.S. Attorney Purge
Evidence Mounts That Bush Is at Center of Prosecutor Probe…
New evidence today that Pres. Bush fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias suggests that — unlike in the Scooter Libby scandal, where the wagons were circled to protect Vice Pres. Cheney — Dear Leader himself is at the center of the prosecutor purge….
It’s the president’s right to fire the attorneys. Clinton fired every single one. What’s the big deal? What a joke.
The myth that presidents have frequently fired USAs in the middle of their terms is just that: a well-circulated lie from Rove’s talking points. The fact is, since 1968, only three USAs had been fired in the middle of a term.
No president has ever before fired eight USAs in the middle of a term. The underlying motive could have been to stop investigations into his GOP cronies, which is obstruction of justice and very much illegal.
It is true that USAs are political appointees. When the president who appointed them leaves office, it is standard procedure for the USAs to offer their resignation to the incoming president. When the new president is from a different party than his predecessor, the resignations are always accepted.
George W. Bush (R) accepted resignations of all USAs appointed by Clinton (D), just as Clinton accepted most of the resignations of USAs hired by George I (R). Reagan (R) accepted resignations of all of Carter’s (D), just as Carter accepted resignations of all of Ford’s (R).
- Editors
Joe; You are funnier than a screendoor in a submarine.
When we were writing the Constitution we gave most of the legitimacy of the new government to the Senate and Representatives, i.e., people elected by the people. We gave a rather limited amount of legitimacy to the President.
I’d like to point out to you Section Two of Article Two…
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States…
So, Joe, it is a little more complicated than the simple view you have that misrepresents our Constitution.
Sincerely,
James Madison
“It’s the president’s right to fire the attorneys. Clinton fired every single one. What’s the big deal? What a joke.”
You obviously haven’t been following the story. That’s something they typically do at the begining of their first term, not midterm when a prosecutor is shown to be following the rule of law instead of a political adjenda. Dismissal for political reasons would be an impeachable offense.
Can we impeach Bush and Cheney yet? If nukes are “on the table” and military action against Iran is “on the table” — even though Iran’s biggest crime of late is pure propaganda — why is impeachment not “on the table?”
Damn, can we impeach yet? Come on!
Throw him out
I doubt if impeachment is in the cards. Here’s a bit of U.S. history first. Soon after our War for Independence,1790s, two political parties came on the scene. The republican/democrats who believed in a generally free country and the federalists who believed our nation should be ruled by the wealthy “aristrocrats”
who would control the country by holding the debt created by a large standing army that they also would control. The ordinary citizens then pay off the debt by taxes the aristrocrats levy on them. The federalists are back in the White House now and a majority in congress believe they,rather than the people, should rule this country. P.S. All the current Attorneys General are members of the Federalist Society.
Pensito Review,
The real reason Bush & Gonzales want to fire the federal prosecutors is because they are planning major violations of law by attacking Iran and repressing civil opposition. Thus, if we the people fail to demand impeachment, our lives will at the mercy of a fascist dictatorship.
I am almost convinced the Democrats will do a good job in the end with the investigations necessary ’til the end of the term or the impeachment of Bush…
We all know this is the most corrupt administration in history, and Bush & Cheney are war criminals. and they’ve corrupted the DoJ & DoD, and they’re slaughtering our troops and innocent Iraqis for the war profiteering, and so on….But, what do expect when an AWOL moron with a criminal record walks into the WhiteHouse.
Clinton ordered that all Federal prosecutors be fired abruptly, giving them only 10 days to pack up and leave because he wanted to hurry and get rid of the prosecutor in Arkansas who was investigating his and his wife’s assorted crimes before they could be indicted, after which he appointed one of his kneepadded former law students to the post, thus quashing any advancement of the investigation. Yes, Presidents of opposite parties do replace prosecutors of the opposing party, but not totally and abruptly, two months after taking office, with virually no notice (10 days notice is more than suspicious). The same scenario played out with the prosecutor investigating Rep. Rostenkowski. If Clinton was not attempting obstruction of justice, why did he not let the Arkansas prosecutor finish the investigation regarding him; likewise with the person investigating Rostenkowski. You people think that only your ‘enemies’ motives are worthy of questioning. Your hate Bush obsession is hypocritical in the extreme unless and until you hold Democrats, including the Clintons and everyone (politicians, activist, etc.) involved in the illegal immigration industry to the same letter-of-the-law standards.
The subject is George W. Bush and the suspicion he obstructed justice in firing his USAs. An interesting side issue is why Republicans continue to worship a man of such meager gifts who has brought nothing but shame and degradation to their party, not to mention this great nation. It is okay with liberals if Bush worshippers dance with Dear Leader over the cliff, of course. But we are mystified that 31 percent of the country continues to adore a proudly ignorant aristocrat who lies compulsively and screws up every single thing he touches. It is positively cult-like behavior.
If Republicans insist on re-litigating the Clinton years, so be it. They lied then and lost. They will lie again and lose again. For example, the statement here about Clinton is, of course, false:
As Mollie Dickenson noted in a February 1998 Salon.com article, Banks refused to pursue the Whitewater matter, citing his belief that “no prosecutable case existed against any of the witnesses,” including the Clintons.
George W. Bush replaced all of Clinton’s appointees but not all at once. The changeover wasn’t complete until late in 2002. DoJ was criticized at the time for not getting its political appointees lined up immediately after the election as normal presidents do. As it turns out, this was just a sign of things to come.
In the Rostenkowski matter, if Gingrich, DeLay and the rest of the insane clown posse that drove the GOP into the deep weeds had thought they could get Clinton on obstruction of justice, they wouldn’t have wasted their time, not to mention the credibility of their party in the minds of independent voters, on pursuing the sex lie.
- Editors
“Your hate Bush obsession is hypocritical in the extreme unless and until you hold Democrats involved in the illegal immigration industry to the same letter-of-the-law standards”
A little civics lesson – PRESIDENT BUSH is the head of the LAW ENFORCEMENT branch of our government. So if you have a problem with the way illegal immigration is handled in the US- look there
as for your baseless accusation that Clinton’s routine replacement of attorneys had to do with covering crimes- if you aren’t getting paid my melon-scarfie to post that nonsense you are wasting your time.
You’re all wrong. Both sides use the AG’s for political reasons. My sympathies happen to lie with Clinton, who gave us peace and prosperity. Where is the Dow after 6 years of Bush? After a severe dip, it has finally climbed to 12,XXX-the same as it was when Bill left office. Horrible progress–but then there is the national debt! I am 62 and wonder if we will ever recover from Bush in my lifetime. Folks, be very afraid of the Republican game plans. Democratic leadership benfits everyone, not just a select few. It is just a symptom of the corruption in the Cheney administration that even the AGs that they appointed are wise to their shenanigans. Justice trumps politics here. This admin. is a case for the textbooks. I just hope it doesn’t end up foreshaowing the fall of a really great country!
[...] Parents threaten to sue if Gore film showed in their kids schools (dumb). U.S. Exerts Authority Over Foreign Citizens. This is scary – you can now be imprisoned if you sell something made in the U.S. to someone (anyone) the U.S. doesn’t like – even if you’ve not broken any laws and your not a U.S. citizen!12,775 Days In Solitary Confinement (35 YEARS) – where did this happen? It’s happening right now, in America. And if this isn’t dictatorial behavior exhibited by the President, I don’t know what is. [...]
I think we should start a contest to describe this administration’s corruptness.
Just as we had the “Teapot Dome Scandal” we need a good moniker that could be passed on into history. Any suggestions?
….”W’s State of Lies Scandal”?
To impeach the president,v.p.,or any federal official go to:
impeachforpeace.org
The website provides the template any U.S Citizen can use to initiate the process. The forms are pdf format ready for you to download,fill in your name,address and mail- includes Congressman Kucinich’s address. He has promised to bring these to the house floor, etc.
Wow, the troll is really deluded. Thanks for the textbook example of cognitive dissonance.
To set the record straight, I think Bush is an idiot. Nevertheless, since the left made such a big point, including Rather’s use of forget documents, regarding whether Bush attended guard meetings 30 years ago, or whether George Allen said n****r 30 years ago, then surely Clinton’s record re corruption is germane, especially since his wife is seeking the presidency. Sandy Berger’s stealing and destroying top top secret documents, at the obvious behest of Clinton, is an open matter that the incompetent ‘Justice Dept.’ is trying to suppress, refusing to even ask Berger to take the lie detector test he committed to take as part of his absurdly light plea deal. Also, we know the Clinton’s had 1000 stolen FBI files on their ‘enemies’, and there has been no detailed investigation of that to date. Same with the Clintons illeally taking contributions from Chinese government-affiliated lackies and providing them invaluable missle technology in return. It goes on and on. I am not a Republican, a neoCon or member of any group either right, left, or center. I am an independent thinker unlike the rest of you who post here, who simply parrot what you read in Nazi collaborator and convicted insider trader, George Soros’s Media Matters and MoveOn’s sites, or the tripe you hear babbled by Randi Tokyo Rhodes or other all-hate all the time ‘Air America’ light weights. Wake up and seek the truth, independent of ideology. I don’t think you people can. Perhaps that’s why I got a PhD so easily, because I think for myself, while others cannot separate their own reasoning from what’s fed to them by self-proclaimed ‘experts’.
I agree in principle. Now let’s look at some more specifics, this one of a US Attorney who didn’t rock the boat, in fact he was doing the RNC’s dirty work for them. In New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie was appointed US Attorney by Bush. He was a prodigious fund raiser for the Republicans, and was said to have been rewarded for his work for the GOP. Since taking office Christie has focused on political corruption. He has obtained several hundred convictions. However, his record is that of all the state and municipal elected officials he has prosecuted, 94 percent were members of the Democratic Party. Was this a coincidence? In New Jersey, which is about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, a reasonable man would not suspect that there would be such a disproportionate number of law breakers among the Democrats.
This does not pass the smell test; It looks suspiciously like selective prosecution. Christie seems to be in no danger of being fired by Bush or Gonzales, because he’s doing exactly what they want in helping Bush corrupt and destroy the US Department of Justice.