« Shorter Foggo's Lawyer: Please Give Us the Politicized USA | Main | OPA »

May 02, 2007


No snark on this. Rather, now we're getting to the key to the whole mess. The mass firing was all about getting rid of Lam ASAP. Here are my questions:

1. Why, after talking about this plan for nearly two years, did they rush it through in late 2006 just after losing control of the Senate? (Hint: They knew they could only get away with firing USAs when their terms had expired.)

2. Who was the only fired USA to ask for an extension and not get it? (Hint: Check out DAG0043.)

3. Who was the only USA that they had a "real problem" with that was so serious Sampson wanted her out "the day her 4-year term expires"? (Hint: OAG0022)

4. Who was the only USA personally attacked in the Senate after she was fired?

5. Who was the only USA actively investigating companies with direct dealings with the White House?

so there's another base count of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE to add to the RICO conspiricy prosecution

and there are a few reports of bogus criminal cases being filed against Democrats in Pittsburgh

each phony prosecution is another base count

what we're looking at is about a dozen base counts of Obstruction of Justice

then we start adding the layers

gonzo's abdication of his constitutional duties to sampson and lawyer goodling

abus and sampson's lies to Senator Pryor

the lies contained in abu's written resopnses to Congress

sampson's lies to Congress

abu's lies to Congress

there are enough shells and peripherials to qualify under the RICO statute

when do we get our Special Prosecutor ???

off topic, but directly related to my above comment:

tpmmuckraker has an article that exposes actual extortion in the Arizona USA case

U.S. Attorney for Arizona Paul Charlton told Congress that Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, called him and warned him to remain silent. "I believe that Elston was offering me a quid pro quo agreement: my silence in exchange for the Attorney General's," Charlton wrote in answer to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.

extortion is rackettering

rackettering is the "R" in RICO

Apparently, a snarky response is not as satisfying when it's predicted. And note Mr Ockham has in turn invited the same by his own insightful rhetoric.

Actually WO, I suspect we'll find that Lam is not the only one investigating companies with direct ties to the WH. She's just the one investigating the most pressing ties to the WH. And of course, she is by no means the only USA investigating the WH--if that were the issue, Patrick Fitzgerald would have been higher on the list than Lam. Which raises the question why they did it with Lam and not Fitz.

Don't you think it was just because Fitzgerald was too high profile?

I think we're starting to get close to my question of a few days ago, "Where's Cheney in all this?"

It looks like Rove and Miers had a plan to stop the investigations into the GOP cash-for-contracts scheme, and this would have led to Cheney's contract with Wilkes for "office furniture" or mail opening or whatever. That would have led to otehr contracts for black ops being run out of the OVP. They also had a scheme to facilitate the transfer of Native American resources to extraction industries one way or the other, which Cheney would have been interested in as well. So interests at "the hgighest levels of government" dovetailed hhere.

Don;t think it is just one thing, like voter fraud or Wilkes/Cunningham or Native American resources. It is about all of it, but mainly the gaining and holding of power and the fleecing of America in every place and every way they could.

Fitz was obviously too high profile by the time of his indictments, if not before. Plus, he had Marcy and FDL and a whole gang of bloggers following his every move. Think about that.

And I do hope Gerry Parsky reads Lam's response regarding the vetting process for her successor. He was already pissed at the process used to replace Lam and Ryan. But he might like to know that they intended to blow him off entirely. All of which makes it crystal clear that DOJ fully intended to use the PATRIOT provision to replace the fired USAs, especially Lam.

As does the new Step 3 added by Sampson to his plan [in the second two versions, 11/15 & 12/05]:

I need more time! The decision is to have a new Acting or Interim U.S. Attorney in place by the end of the year (granting "extensions" will hinder the process of getting a new U.S. Attorney in place and giving that person the opportunity to serve for a full two years).

Elston to Lam: "Here's your hat, what's your hurry?"

This may be the first time in history a CEO with bragging rights to an MBA fired all the people who were doing exemplary work for his "company." Astounding.

as for the timing of the firings,

the renewal of the patriot act
seems a crucial controller of the timing - enacted in 01 or 02, the act was due for renewal in 2006.

after re-patriotization,

it was possible to move ahead with install god's chosen u.s.a's.

as for motive or incentive,

the never-ending revelations about the abrhamoff octopus and the plame investigation,

together with the knowledge rove/bush/cheney had about what had not yet been revealed,

would have provided a strong incentive to figure out how to gain complete presidential control of the u.s. attorney appointment process

so the time line would go something like:

-scheme about what to do and how to make it happen. hit on a patriot act provision

- encourage some u.s.a's to leave as their terms were ending (four did)

- have "interims" handy (palouse) or in place (griffin)

- remove remaining troublesome u.s.a's directly (eight fired)

and then quietly use the patriot act provision to formally anoint the chosen ones without congressional vetting or senatorial approval.

in constitutional terms,

the plan seems to have been to use the patriot act to give the white house COMPLETE control over the appointment of u.s.a's.

in order to cover-up political embarrassment and/or illegal conduct.

as an aside,

in terms of that scheming,

i keep thinking about the little problem that sen specter had with earmarks a year or so ago. as i recall a staffer had distributed quite a bit of federal largess with specter's approval.

no one seemed to know why this tidbit came out at the time.

i'm wondering if it was a bit of softening up blackmail to insure that there would be no opposition on chairman specter's part when it came time to slip the "emergency" appointment provision into the patriot act renewal.

given this bit of presidential deceit, we have every reason now to ask whether there might not be other serious mischief planted by the white house in the patriot act reauthorization.

to continue the line of thought above:

my guess is that the white house's doj manipulations

are really about the white house being able to control what the federal legal system does with respect to republican political activity -

primarily, to insure that investigations of illegal or unfair republican political activity either

don't happen


have a nasty, brutish, and short life.

in contradistinction,

the doj firings were intended to sending a warning to u.s. attny's,

something the sociopath rove seems much inclined to do.

the message to others u.s a's was:

if you don't do what we ask be done, you will be replaced.

in 2006, "what we asked be done" was legal findings of some variant of election fraud against dems in an election year.

next time, next year it will be some other demand.

so the firings were a threat about not following orders.

the real interest of the white house

in allowing the president to appoint u.s. a's

is to be able to keep political scandal

and known illegal activity

under control.

Is serving the full 2 years a requirement for something?

It appears to be horribly important to someone to be able to ensure that span of time.

Do they automatically get reappointed? Does health insurance for life kick in? Entitlement to legal representation by the government? Their choice of assignments?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad