More Damaging Evidence That Firing US DAs Is Political

A New Mystery to Prosecutors: Their Lost Jobs

There are some folks claiming that the arrest and conviction of two Border Patrol Agents was on orders from on high... at least as high as AG Gonzo Gonzalez's office. On the face of it that just doesn't make much sense, unless there is some sort of Karl Rove super secret initiative involved. In most cases I would laugh off such conspiracy theory approaches to an issue, even when I think there may be some injustice against the two agents. The facts of the Border Patrol Agents' cases do not fully measure out for or against them. On the one hand we have agents apparently acting with disregard of policy, following improper procedure, and some evidence that civil liberties and inherent rights being violated. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, even the lowest scumbag drug dealers--and people crossing our borders illegally--are entitled to constitutional protections, including protection against the use of deadly force in cases where such force is not warranted. However, on the other hand, it appears that the rules, regulations and procedures outlined for Border Agents--which comes down from on high and are routinely reviewed by the DOJ and possibly reviewed by Gonzalez himself--appear to hamstring officers of the Border Patrol from actually doing their job.

So, when I find out that AG Gonzalez is also hamstringing his own US Attorneys for clearly political reasons, my mind starts looking for patterns. In this case we have top notch prosecutors, all with spotless records, with a long history of using proper judgment and achieving stellar results, being fired because they did not line up with the political agendas of the AG and President Bush, they did not succumb to pressures from on high to prematurely or they did not indiscriminately prosecute certain parties, or because they dared to us their own sound judgment as to which cases are a priority according to the law rather than a political agenda. What does that say about AG Gonzo Gonzalez? What does that say about President Bush?

It says what we already know about both of them from their actions in the NSA Warrantless Doemstic Spying incidents, the grab for executive powers and authority not given to them by the Constitution, the disregard and nose-thumbing attitudes toward Congress, the authorization of torture and mistreatment in violation of international treaties, the circumvention of habeas corpus, the undermining and erosion of our civil liberties, and the outright disregard of their oaths, respectively, to defend, support and execute the obligations of the Constitution of the United States of America. It says that Bush and company will forward their political and ideological agenda no matter what opposition they face, they will endorse and embrace fascist approaches to government and governance to forward their own aims and motives, and they do not give one iota of concern to who's career or standing in the world they undermine, undercut or destroy.

We should all be standing in the streets demanding these folks be impeached and cast out of office today. We should be writing our congress critters, calling them daily, and promising that if they fail to seek impeachment, they will also fail to keep their office and the lucrative benefits--even those that come after leaving congress--in the process. We should demand investigations of criminal and unconstitutional conduct of not only those actors in the executive branch, but also the congress critters that are opposing and obstructing justice by not seeking immediate impeachment. Nancy Pelosi should allow impeachment proceedings to begin immediately or step down from the role of Speaker of the House. Even if the impeachment fails in the Senate, the impeachment process needs to occur to let American citizens know that the system is at least trying to work the way our founders and framers intended, with some hope that the despots that seek to establish a kingdom and dynasty will suffer some checks and balances to their ambitions and the abuses of power they effect upon us.

The fact that they attack people doing their jobs in an outstanding manner is evidence that they do not care to follow rules of decency, fair play, and the law.

After Daniel G. Bogden got the call in December telling him that he was being dismissed as the United States attorney in Nevada, he pressed for an explanation.

Mr. Bogden, who was named the top federal prosecutor in Nevada in 2001 after 11 years of working his way up at the Justice Department, asked an official at the agency’s headquarters if the firing was related to his performance or to that of his office. “That didn’t enter into the equation,” he said he was told.

After several more calls, Mr. Bogden reached a senior official who offered an answer. “There is a window of opportunity to put candidates into an office like mine,” Mr. Bogden said, recalling the conversation. “They were attempting to open a slot and bring someone else in.”

The fact that Bogden had to press for a reason for his dismissal is evidence that this administration will go to great lengths of operating in the dark to push forward their agenda and ideology, despite the obligation to govern in the light of day and limit the amount of secrecy involved in a democratic society. Our Constitution requires all but the utmost of governmental secrets to be exposed to public scrutiny. Even those top secrets must be justifiable before a court of law and subject to review and oversight by congress. The Bush administration violates these principles and processes on a regular basis, including in the case of dismissing these US Attorneys.

The ouster of Mr. Bogden and seven other United States attorneys has set off a furor in Washington that took the Bush administration by surprise.

Summoning five of the dismissed prosecutors for hearings on Tuesday, the newly empowered Congressional Democrats have charged that the mass firing is a political purge, intended to squelch corruption investigations or install less independent-minded successors.

Interviews with several of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials, lawmakers and others provide new details and a fuller picture of the events behind the dismissals. Like Mr. Bogden, some prosecutors believe they were forced out for replacements who could gild résumés; several heard that favored candidates had been identified.

The very notion that it takes an investigative approach to get to the reasons that were the basis for these firings is evidence that these folks are thumbing their collective and fascist noses at Congress, the Constitution and the citizens of our nation. Dismissing what now amounts to eight competent and qualified persons with outstanding records is a deliberate effort to sabotage good government and promote political hacks, as is evidenced by the rationale offered to Bogden for his dismissal.

Other prosecutors may have been vulnerable because they had had run-ins with the Justice Department, not over corruption cases against Republicans, but on less visible issues.

Paul Charlton in Arizona, for example, annoyed Federal Bureau of Investigation officials by pushing for confessions to be tape-recorded, while John McKay in Seattle had championed a computerized law enforcement information-sharing system that Justice Department officials did not want. Carol C. Lam of San Diego, who successfully prosecuted former Representative Randy Cunningham, had drawn complaints that she was not sufficiently aggressive on immigration cases.

The role and duties of a US Attorney is to manage the law enforcement efforts and prosecutions in their district and jurisdiction with a certain amount of discretion and autonomy from political agendas and motives. It is also their charge to assure that sound judgment, in concert with the principles of law, justice and constitutional standards, is employed in the execution of their duties. In my view, requiring the FBI--or any law enforcement agency--to adhere to practices that serve to assure the rights of the accused and provide protections for officers in the process is certainly not grounds for dismissal. Neither is the advocation of more effective use and design of information-sharing systems, especially when it is clear that the government has had numerous problems with the overall IT and information-sharing approach... especially in law enforcement, national security, the hunt for terrorists, border security, immigration, etc.

Justice Department officials deny that the dismissals were politically motivated or that the action resulted from White House pressure.

A larger load of bovine excrement has never been laid at the feet of well-reasoned and properly informed people. Are we to really believe that, despite the evidence to the contrary, there isn't a political motivation and agenda behind these firings when a such has been the case with everything this administration and its officials have been doing?

Brian Roehrkasse, an agency spokesman, said, “These decisions were based on the individual concerns about each U.S. attorney’s overall performance. This included performance concerns about ineffectively prosecuting departmental priority areas, failure to follow departmental guidelines, or just overall concerns about an ability to lead and effectively manage a U.S. attorney’s office.”

But the evidence is that these folks have been doing outstanding work, achieving outstanding records of conviction, and have outstanding records of leadership.

United States attorneys have four-year terms but can be removed at any time, and for almost any reason.

This statement exposes a form of injustice in our society. This injustice is often called the "at-will employment condition" that allows an employer to release a person at a whim. In other nations--especially those that are industrialized and follow some form of democratic principles--a worker cannot be dismissed without cause supported by objective evidence. In all but two jurisdictions in the US, there is an at-will employment policy and approach, supported by laws that are harmful to the worker. According to this practice and policy, either party--the employer or employee--can terminate the employment at any time for any reason. However, in actual practice, if an employee terminates employment without giving the traditional two-weeks notice, it is often held against them... and there is never a similar stigma placed upon the employer that terminates without a sufficient notice. In other words, as long as the party with the most financial resources acts in accordance with its own interests, there aren't any consequences. This situation with these US Attorneys illustrates that this discriminatory practice occurs even in our government which has a constitutional obligation to act in accordance with certain principles of justice and equity.

But across the country, legal and public officials have expressed dismay over the firings. In Western Michigan, for example, lawyers and a federal judge came to the defense of Margaret M. Chiara, the United States attorney there, saying she was well regarded.

“It just doesn’t look right,” said James S. Brady, who was United States attorney in Western Michigan during the Carter administration. “It compromises the credibility that justice is being dealt with fairly and impartially. There is a fear that politics have entered in life and death situations.”

Now there is an important point: these firings undermine the credibility of the office, the DOJ and the cases being brought under the authority of these officials, as well as undermining the credibility of AG Gonzalez to boot. But credibility of the government, the DOJ in particular, or the office of Attorney General doesn't seem to be a priority of Gonzo Gonzalez or Bush the Political Bigot.

Discussions began in October at the Justice Department about removing prosecutors who were considered flawed or deficient in carrying out administration policy by law enforcement officials, lawmakers and others, several officials said. The White House eventually approved the list and helped notify Republican lawmakers before the Dec. 7 dismissals, officials said.

The only obligation a US Attorney has is to carry out the official policy of the government in accordance with the law. The overall political agenda of one party over another, or the specific whims of whoever holds the higher offices of government, should not enter consideration when the overall performance of these officials has been efficient, lawful and within the scope of expertise and discretion.

While Justice Department officials expected that top assistant prosecutors in each office would probably fill the jobs initially, the officials said they had not chosen permanent successors. However, officials knew that if the replacements were to have a substantial tenure before Mr. Bush left office, they needed to be named quickly.

More evidence that these firings were politically motivated... the agenda is not the only consideration... promoting the careers of cronies that will do nothing without approval of the Bush gang (aka "yes men") is also part of the equation. Anyone want to bet that the folks placed in these positions will have brown noses and a long history of performing oral... well, you get the idea.

The list of prosecutors who were targets was approved by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and the deputy attorney general, Paul J. McNulty, the day-to-day manager of the Justice Department since he was appointed in the fall of 2005.

Under Mr. Gonzales, Mr. McNulty has become a powerful deputy with a wide-ranging portfolio. He was a United States attorney in Virginia, but he worked in Congress for more than a decade and was once legal counsel to the House majority leader. He is regarded in legal circles as more attuned to policy and politics than his predecessor, James B. Comey, a former career prosecutor in New York.

That leadership change may explain the removal of prosecutors who had mostly been in place since the start of the Bush administration.

Does anyone want to guess what color surrounds McNulty's nose? Want to guess what shape his mouth forms quite naturally? Anyone want to predict Gonzalez's size by looking at McNulty's oral anatomy? We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men and their whims. That concept and principle seems to have escaped everyone in the Bush administration, especially Gonzo Gonzalez. Perhaps he should read up on the history of those that have held his office, like Richardson and Ruckelhaus, who refused to violate the principles of their oat of office to empower their president to violate the Constitution, the principles of the law, and principles of decency.

“I and my colleagues are the same people in December of 2006 that we were in 2001,” said one former prosecutor who would speak only on the condition of anonymity. “The only thing that has changed is the administration of the Department of Justice. We were making the same arguments and the same points before.”

Amen! These folks are being politically sodomized without the benefit of lubricant, decency or consent. If this was actual sodomy, they would have legal recourse to not only stop this type of assault, but also have the perpetrators locked up for a long time. There are such things as political crimes and the Bush administration has become as criminal in this regard as Al Capone was in terms of organized crime.

Justice Department officials, who would speak about the department’s decision making only anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss personnel matters publicly, now acknowledge that the dismissals were mishandled. They failed to anticipate how much attention the highly unusual group firing would draw, and the agency’s contradictory accounts about whether the dismissals were performance-related helped spur suspicions.

In other words, they thought they could get away with it because most of us are fast asleep when it comes to these matters, and most of the rest of us are willing to be sheep. The Bush administration underestimated the intelligence, the attention and the sense of fairness possessed by the citizenry.

In one case, they said that they were unaware of concerns by United States Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, which he has expressed publicly in recent days, about being pressured by two Republican lawmakers to rush indictments before last November’s elections in a contract kickback investigation involving a former state Democratic official. New Mexico has three Republicans in Congress; Representative Steve Pearce has said he did not call Mr. Iglesias, while aides to Senator Pete V. Domenici and Representative Heather A. Wilson have said they would not comment.

Gee... I wonder if these actions were politically motivated?

We are getting screwed by the Bush administration and we are allowing Nancy Pelosi to prevent us from seeking the only avenue open to us... Impeachment. I will repeat my call for impeaching the bastards that are abusing our civil rights, liberties and consent to be governed.