![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieFirst of all, let me give a huge shout-out to the good folks over at the invaluable Talking Points Memo, who have been covering this story for weeks. Indeed, you could argue that they're a key part of bringing all this to light, unlike the mainstream media, who even now keep burying the lede if and when they cover it at all. If you haven't been reading Talking Points Memo and its sister sites, do yourself a favor and start. It's a fascinating ongoing experiment in journalism online.
Not familiar with this news story, you say? Or not sure why you should care that some government attorneys were summarily asked to resign (the equivalent of pink-slipped, as you don't get to stay on once you've been asked to leave)? After all, lawyers are the bad guys, right?
Not these lawyers. The US Attorneys in question include:
All of the purged US attorneys had excellent performance records - a matter of public record, despite what the DOJ, the USAG's office and the White House are all trying to claim. (Don't get me started on this administration's record of ignorning inconvenient little things like facts - if you want clear evidence of how little "proof" there is for these claims, just watch some of the CSPAN coverage of the DOJ lackey trying to answer that question.) So far it's come to light that most, if not all, of these purged attorneys were slated to be replaced by hand-picked White House cronies, many of whom are not even remotely qualified. (Thanks to a little proviso in the Patriot Act, these appointments no longer have to be confirmed by the Senate.) And it looks like at least some, if not all, of these fired attorneys were working on high-profile cases that discomfited those in power to some degree. Four of the eight led probes of important Republicans, and another was involved in the lengthy probe of Democrats and had drawn fire from local Republicans who expected a quicker indictments.
I know it's a big thing to continually praise our military men and women, who are out there laying their lives on the line for their country. And they deserve that praise, no matter what you think of the various wars they're involved in. But it seems to me that the people who put their careers on the line to protect the public from graft, corruption, and government interference are equally worthy of praise - and that the combing-out of the ranks of these people is a matter for grave concern. If, as seems likely, these attorneys were pressured not to talk about their firings by the government, that's even more serious.
But you'd never know it from the lack of mainstream media coverage this has gotten until today. Until today, I hadn't seen anything about this on the front pages of the CNN, MSNBC, or BBC Web sites (but I can forgive the BBC more easily than the other two; the Beeb is British). And today's article on the matter from the Associated Press is hardly up front about the situation, implying that these attorneys are complaining about their firing for cause, not testifying under subpoena about what occured. (Note: the AP story is modifying online even as I type this. The headline just changed from "Fired attorneys defend their records" to "Fired Attorney Felt "Leaned On" by Domenici", so maybe the AP is getting a clue and not just reading from governmental talking-points.)
As it is, the attorneys have been subpoenaed, and they are talking to the Senate and the House today. Maybe people will pick up on just how important this is. I hope so - because what's being disclosed today is at least as dangerous to a free democracy as bombs, and a lot more insidious.
Not familiar with this news story, you say? Or not sure why you should care that some government attorneys were summarily asked to resign (the equivalent of pink-slipped, as you don't get to stay on once you've been asked to leave)? After all, lawyers are the bad guys, right?
Not these lawyers. The US Attorneys in question include:
- Carol Lam, whose office brought the Duke Cunningham prosecution forward and consequently exposed a huge amount of corruption in Republican-controlled Washington DC.
- Seattle's own John McKay, a longtime Republican who refused to play partisan politics, including turning down pressure from Doc Hastings (R-WA, and currently the ranking Republican on the House Ethics Committee!) to poke further into Gregoire's election.
- David Iglasias, who prosecuted several New Mexican Democrats for corruption, but refused to comply with "requests" from two New Mexican congressfolk to hurry up further indictments two weeks before last year's November elections.
- Bob Cummings, whose outstanding performance record was apparently less important that getting a Karl Rove aide a high-profile position to add to his resume.
All of the purged US attorneys had excellent performance records - a matter of public record, despite what the DOJ, the USAG's office and the White House are all trying to claim. (Don't get me started on this administration's record of ignorning inconvenient little things like facts - if you want clear evidence of how little "proof" there is for these claims, just watch some of the CSPAN coverage of the DOJ lackey trying to answer that question.) So far it's come to light that most, if not all, of these purged attorneys were slated to be replaced by hand-picked White House cronies, many of whom are not even remotely qualified. (Thanks to a little proviso in the Patriot Act, these appointments no longer have to be confirmed by the Senate.) And it looks like at least some, if not all, of these fired attorneys were working on high-profile cases that discomfited those in power to some degree. Four of the eight led probes of important Republicans, and another was involved in the lengthy probe of Democrats and had drawn fire from local Republicans who expected a quicker indictments.
I know it's a big thing to continually praise our military men and women, who are out there laying their lives on the line for their country. And they deserve that praise, no matter what you think of the various wars they're involved in. But it seems to me that the people who put their careers on the line to protect the public from graft, corruption, and government interference are equally worthy of praise - and that the combing-out of the ranks of these people is a matter for grave concern. If, as seems likely, these attorneys were pressured not to talk about their firings by the government, that's even more serious.
But you'd never know it from the lack of mainstream media coverage this has gotten until today. Until today, I hadn't seen anything about this on the front pages of the CNN, MSNBC, or BBC Web sites (but I can forgive the BBC more easily than the other two; the Beeb is British). And today's article on the matter from the Associated Press is hardly up front about the situation, implying that these attorneys are complaining about their firing for cause, not testifying under subpoena about what occured. (Note: the AP story is modifying online even as I type this. The headline just changed from "Fired attorneys defend their records" to "Fired Attorney Felt "Leaned On" by Domenici", so maybe the AP is getting a clue and not just reading from governmental talking-points.)
As it is, the attorneys have been subpoenaed, and they are talking to the Senate and the House today. Maybe people will pick up on just how important this is. I hope so - because what's being disclosed today is at least as dangerous to a free democracy as bombs, and a lot more insidious.
