The Lobbying for USA Jobs Begins

by emptywheel

Expect more stories like this. You see, after BushCo canned 7 attorneys last December, it ran around for a while pretending that it hadn't already selected the replacements for the 7 fired USAs. As the scandal grew, they were forced to assure Senators that they would not let the spots remain vacant. As Richard Hertling explained in a letter to Senators Leahy and DiFi,

When a vacancy in the office of United States Attorney occurs (because of removal, resignation or for any other reason), the Administration first must determine who will serve temporarily as the United States Attorney until a new Senate-confirmed United States Attorney is appointed. Because of the importance of continuity in the office, the Administration often looks to the First Assistant United States Attorney or another senior manager in the office to serve as acting or interim United States Attorney.

And in just about every case with the Gonzales 7, they appointed the First Assistant USA or the Criminal Chief to serve as interim USA. Charlton was replaced by FAUSA Daniel Knauss, Lam was replaced by Executive Assistant USA Karen Hewitt, Chiara was replaced by, first, CRM Chief Brian Delaney and, later, FAUSA Charles Gross, Iglesias was replaced FAUSA Larry Gomez, Bogden was replaced by Steven Myhre, and John McKay was replaced by CRM Chief Jeffrey Sullivan. The one exception to this rule is Scott Schools, who replaced Kevin Ryan; Schools work(s) in DOJ, but then again, Northern CA is the one office where there really were management problems in the office, so that move might make sense.

Now, in almost all cases, the Republicans already have a handful of nominees they're considering. So, in theory at least, these interim USAs will only serve until the new nominee is approved.

If he is approved. Because, after all, the Democratically-controlled Senate is going to be in no rush to appoint any schlub that Bush is going to name. Now, Sullivan (in WA) is one of the few interim USAs who is also being suggested as a serious contender for the job. But when you think about it, all of the interims may be serving for longer than they otherwise might. For the Republicans, this presents a potential nightmare--you've fired 7 political appointees, yet in doing so, you may have ruined your ability to replace them with the even more politicized replacements you had dreamed of. Instead, you'll be stuck with the relatively unpolitical person who just happened to be second (or third) in command when the original USA was sacked.

Which is why I'm suspicious of this article from Seattle. The headline sends the clear message that Sullivan is bad news:

Critics say error in trial casts doubt on acting attorney

But then curiously, the article doesn't actually name the critics until much later in the article. Rather, it names a bunch of unnamed critics for the greater part of the article...

But as the candidates for the post are now scrutinized, others say another side of Sullivan shouldn't be overlooked: that he once withheld evidence that could have cleared an innocent man. Among those critics are two Seattle legal experts who say it casts doubt over whether Sullivan is an appropriate choice for U.S. attorney.

[snip]

Now some critics say the case was shocking enough to question making Sullivan one of the top law-enforcement officials in the state.

Then finally, most of the way through the article, we hear from those two Seattle legal experts themselves. One, whose work on evidentiary laws makes him supremely qualified to criticize Sullivan in the case, really does sound like a critic.

It's not unusual for longtime attorneys, especially those who handle high-profile cases, to be admonished by judges or to be investigated by the state bar association. However, University of Washington law professor Robert Aronson called it "very disturbing for someone who would serve as the United States attorney."

But the other, who sounds more liberal, also sounds much more cautious in his criticisms of Sullivan.

"If it's true that he actually stacked the deck on evidence in homicide case in order to gain a conviction, that would be very, very serious misconduct, and would factor into a decision, in my view, on whether he should be U.S. attorney."

Then again, Strait said, if Sullivan's mistake was the bureaucratic error as Sullivan claims, it shouldn't disqualify him. "It's not a badge of honor, but mistakes are made," he said.

Which really leaves those other critics, the ones that Strait and Aronson apparently are just "among." Because this piece--particularly with its headline--sure looks like it may have been shopped by those other critics, those folks who need to disqualify Sullivan before they can push the Senate to get their own guys confirmed.

And why might we think the other candidates are more heavily favored by the Republicans who are going to have a hard time convincing the Senate to do a quick confirmation? Well, one is a former Republican Congressman, Rick White, who is apparently so interested in becoming the USA that he hasn't even kept his Bar dues up to date. I'm guessing, but I suspect a former Republican Congressman is going to be much more supportive of efforts to disenfranchise the poor in Seattle than John McKay appears to have been. And the other candidate, Mike Vaska? He's less overtly political than White. But I do wonder if anyone powerful in Seattle would be especially interested in having a guy who specializes in defending corporations in anti-trust and price-fixing cases as their USA?

Now, let me be clear--I have no idea who the best candidate is in WA, and while I'm suspicious of the way Aronson's and Strait's opinions are presented in the article, if Sullivan did willfully withhold evidence, he shouldn't be USA. What I'm trying to suggest, though, is that we're likely to see this kind of public gamesmanship in each of the districts with fired USAs. Because the politics surrounding getting a USA approved by the Senate (particularly in cases like WA, where both Senators are Democrats), have just dramatically changed.

Comments

[lizard]

Any idea how many, if any, of the interim replacements for the 7 were also appointed originally by the Bush administration? It would be interesting if there were a direct correlation between the choice of the 7 and the likelihood that a Bush appointee would be the interim replacement. How many on the lists the 7 came from had Bush appointees ready to take charge, and how many did not, and what is the correlation between the two? Before this scandal, the Bushies had never struck me as particularly deep in their planning and strategy, but this might be an exception.

[Stephen Dulaney]

I think they already thought this through and had appointed or placed who they wanted in as First Assistant United States Attorney. At least in two cases, Jennings in Arkansas and Wisconsin the acting UAS seems to have been the loyal busshie they wanted.

[Sara]

Well, they did pass the repeal of that part of the Patriot Act that took away the process of letting Federal Judges appoint a temp. USA if after 120 days the White House has not appointed, and the Senate Confirmed a new USA. So recess or not, USA's cannot be replaced without Senate Confirmation any more.

My guess is that Leahy will probably, one way or another, let Gonzales know that no processing of judges or USA's or even top confirmable DOJ officials, will proceed until all requests for documentation and witness appearances have been fully met. Federal Judges may be quite busy finding USA's in the near future.

There are more ways than one to run out the clock.

[emptywheel]

lizard

I think it varies from person to person, but in the case of Sullivan, he's been there forever, so not a Bush appoint. Most of the links have a bio--but they look like these interims (again, with teh exception of Schools) are really local career appointees.

[Gromit]

I'm wondering about the status of the bill that rescinds the ability of BushCo to bypass Senate confirmation of USAs. As I recall, it's passed both houses, but I haven't heard anything else. Wonder if the idiot in chief has enough sense to let it become law.

[Frank Probst]

What a tough break, huh? They went through all this trouble to sack the USAs, and now they're probably going to end up with people who were less partisan than the ones they started with.

[emptywheel]

Frank

Well, let's hope it works out that way. Couldn't happen to a creepier bunch of thugs.

[Frank Probst]

EW--The irony here reminds me of Sirhan Sirhan saying that, if Bobby Kennedy were still alive, he'd lobby to set Sirhan free.

[JGabriel]

Slightly OT, but I've got a question about Goodling that needs asking, even if it can't be answered without some serious investigative reporting.

What was Goodling doing during her paid 'leave of absence'?

One assumes that she would have retained her building ID during this time. I'd really like to know if she went to the office at all during her leave.

Basically, I'm wondering if her 'leave of absence' was really a timeframe without other responsibilities or oversight, during which she could enter the building and 'clean up' and destroy any incriminating or embarrassing documents in her office, or that she could access from her computer.

I mean, logistically, it's hard to see any difference between a) her leave and subsequent resignation or b) being fired with three weeks notice and free reign to do anything you want during those three weeks.

And, yes, there's every reason to believe the administration would permit and engage in something that sleazy.

.

[Mickey]

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, we progressive types have been insufficiently vigilant about such behind-the-scenes sheenanigans [and look where it got us]. As the Bush era drags on and on, I'm increasingly amazed at how many of the suspicions such as the one you're bringing up here have turned out to be only the tip of an iceberg of dirty tricks and manipulative gamesmanship that goes far deeper than I could've imagined. One thing that initially drew me to the blogs was the 'oversight' function. At first, it felt like learning to be Paranoid. But as scandal after scandal emerged and I realized how extensive the Talking Point Network really was and how much everything this Administration did was so heavily orchestrated. I came to see it as getting over being naive.

Frankly, I preferred naivity. It's hard to maintain a decent world view with the likes of Bush, Rove, and Cheney running the show. They're like seasoned sociopaths who go on the 'con' even when they don't need to. And it's fair to say, at this point, that if there's no apparent hidden motive in their actions, it just means you haven't looked hard enough. Like the paranoid people I encountered in my career, nothing's left to chance.

That said, I'm suspicious of the notion that the "fill-ins" are more benign. Some were put in place to shut down the investigations of their predecessors. Carl Lam was on a roll. And Paulose sounds like she was part of a plan to protect UnitedHealth and [now very rich] former CEO Dr. William McGuire. But the way it was set up to allow Bush to dawdle and just not get around to appointing new U.S.A.'s, thereby avoiding the Senate, I would suspect the Interims of being operatives who would last out Bush's term. This whole voter fraud initiative is aimed at the 2008 election and these Interims were off the radar - dangerous critters.

So while I agree that we need to look at articles like this one as potential Administration orchestration, I worry about the Interims too. With Bu$hCo, worry is never safely put aside.

[Sara]

Something is telling me that there are lots of informants who get messages to Leahy, Conyers and Waxman, and probably have done so over the years, with the result that they have a fair idea what is going on, and where to look for critical evidence. By that I don't mean Democrats -- I mean career professional people who have a certain pride in their craft and agency, and who still did their jobs well, but did let certain congresspersons know what they saw and understood. If it is true that Monica ended the careers of DOJ professionals, believe me there are probably an army of DOJ Career Lawyers ready to informally talk with Leahy and Conyers. Do you really think Monica could walk into Main Justice while on leave and not be observed? They would be looking for that. They have been abused long enough -- and now is the time to help right things.

[Sid58]

Sullivan was our (Yakima, the Other Washington) chief prosecuting attorney for 27 years. He tried to be a centrist politically, and I agree he's a careerist type. But he did leave with that missing evidence charge as a blot on his escutcheon.

[JGabriel]

Sara: "Do you really think Monica could walk into Main Justice while on leave and not be observed?"

And not be observed by anyone who would report it to members of Congress or their aides? Yes, I think it's possible. Especially on weekends, or during the evenings, and during the first few days of her leave, before it was widely publicized. And then there's all the computer clean-up that could have been done remotely, using Citrix or Windows Remote Desktop Client, before her account was purged upon resignation.

Then there are those who wouldn't have even thought it odd to see Goodling in the office, or those who may have thought it odd but didn't say anything except maybe to co-workers, or those who wouldn't have said anything for fear of retaliation later. And why would anyone say anything anyway? Everyone was told Goodling was on leave, not that she was fired or resigning -- so there wouldn't be anything to particularly notice, much less report, until after her resignation, when memories would be much hazier.

So, yes, of course it's possible.

Obviously, I don't know that Goodling did anything of the kind. I just know that given the actions of previous members in this administration, it seems more likely than not.

There should be sign-in sheets, electronic pass-key records, and computer login logs that could be checked to see if Goodling came in to the office during her leave, or logged into the computer systems. She almost certainly did the latter, if only to check her office e-mail.

The point is, there is no reason to trust a DoJ official who takes the Fifth in a Congressional investigation, then takes a leave of absence, and then resigns three weeks later.

So I think the Judiciary Committee should try to ascertain from the available records whether and how often Goodling visited her office or logged in during her leave, and what she was doing if and when she did so.

.

[tekel]

back up the truck. Debbie Palfrey gave ABC all of her phone records. The court said she couldn't sell them, so she didn't sell them. She gave them away.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/MNG0BP5O2P1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[knut wicksell]

I remember Rick White. If he's the guy I went to school with, he's a piece of work.