Does Chuck Schumer Need To Be Investigated While We're Looking Into the U.S. Attorneys Being Fired?

By RS Insider Posted in Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The RS Insider thinks there are two points on this US Attorney story that would make Democrats sweat bullets -- if the media takes the ball and runs with it, that is:
   1)   The Voter Fraud Defense:  a couple US Attorneys were let go, in part, for failing to investigate voter fraud.  This is not – or should not be – an area of partisan dispute.  The RS Insider distinctly recalls Democrats getting very worked up about potential voter and election fraud when it affected them.  So, why are Democrats defending a US Attorney who was let go for performance problems like a failure to pursue election fraud?   And for that matter, why do Democrats think a President shouldn’t be free to fire US Attorney’s who don’t pursue immigration enforcement,
   2)   See if you can follow this:  Senator Schumer is using his role on the Judiciary Committee to push an investigation that he can use – and is using (pdf) – to benefit Democratic campaigns. Senator Schumer is investigating the charge that Republicans attempted to use their position to push investigations that would benefit Republican campaigns. 
Perhaps somebody should follow this up with an investigation of Senator Schumer:  why is the Senate Judiciary Chairman Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee charged with investigating this using his position to press an investigation that he’s using to benefit his own Democratic Party campaigns?   

« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | Harry Reid Thinks He's Got The Surrender Right This TimeComments (2) »
Does Chuck Schumer Need To Be Investigated While We're Looking Into the U.S. Attorneys Being Fired? 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

As one of his constituents I would agree. As a matter of fact I noted here that something was rotten all the way back to 1998.

It reminds me of the old adage “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones”.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Something is still rotten with Sen Schumer, as one can see with this article

in re: voter fraud,

"This is not – or should not be – an area of partisan dispute."

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to have been much meat behind the voter fraud they were asked to investigate -

"Most of it was garbage, but we did look into more deeply into specific allegations and we could not find any evidence to indict," Iglesias said Tuesday.

Cummins, the ousted Arkansas prosecutor, also took issue with the voter fraud explanation.

"I would have serious doubts that anybody would fail to pursue voter fraud," Cummins said. "What they're responding to is party chairmen and activists, who from the beginning of time, go around paranoid that the other party is stealing the election."

In an email, Sampson - recently let go - said:

"Has [the Office of the Deputy Attorney General] ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?" Sampson wrote."

Speaking last week, Karl Rove said:

"that Lam was fired because she "refused to file immigration cases... at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office."

There doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that this was true; Lam apparently was never informed that she wasn't handling immigration enforcement right. But, she sure was doing a bang-up job investigating and indicting Republican congressmen in California.

The WH and justice dpt. have noone to blame but themselves on this issue. They can't get their story straight, and that's not usually a sign of a group who has nothing to hide, hmm?

enough to indict, rather than take the words of the ousted attorneys.

They have a stake in this fight, they aren't going to admit that there was evidence but they opted to not prosecute.

on this subject. Unless you've dealt with them, you have no idea how political and manipulative government lawyers are if given the opportunity. As the British once said of periodic ritual hangings of Admirals, any Executive should fire an attorney every so often just to show that he/she can.

In Vino Veritas

That's a pretty tall request. I mean, where are we going to get this evidence? Are we going to re-investigate entire cases before deciding whether or not these attorneys knew what they were talking about?

Fortunately for the attorneys, there are so many other holes in the story of why they were let go, that I doubt that this will be an issue at all in the long run, the validity of cases.

that decided there wasn't anything worth charging.

It isn't like there wasn't ever any investigation done, there are case files I am sure, so maybe starting there would be in order.

this game is smart enough to make sure they won't be hung by their case notes. If you're high enough up in a government, and US Attornies are, you can make sure there is no record of your existence on anything but official letterhead correspondence. In over twenty years at a fairly high level in a government, my handwriting or signature on anything but pleadings and official memos and letters is practically a collector's item. That stuff is Bureaucrat 101.

In Vino Veritas

The view that there is not much “meat” in the New Mexico voter fraud allegations is misleading at best. Inglesias was either incompetent or disinterested in pursuing the allegations and other issues in an expeditious fashion. By “other issues” I mean the shell game NMDMV, et al were playing with drivers licenses. In New Mexico, Illegal aliens can of course obtain drivers licenses. Hence the Republican’s wanted to match the list against voters and not surprising they were fought the entire way.

Time is of the essence in these types on investigations and stonewalling was NM Democrats (and their ACLU friends) modus operandi. Inglesias at best looked weak and needed a wake up call from someone. A U.S attorney can not consider the political landscape for too long in these matters. As they say “you hesitate, you die” and by December Inglesias bought the farm, rightly.

There were other issues as well. Inglesias office looked incompetent when prosecuting the so called “Vigil-Montoya affair.” The current and former state treasurers (Democrats) were charged with violating U.S.C. 1951. Based on FBI evidence collected this should have been a slam dunk. While convicted, many believed the case was poorly prosecuted and the sentences much lighter than expected. I would like to see the FBI email editorials on that case (minus the expletives).

Overall, the US Attorney serves the President. Frankly, I don’t care if the guy picked his nose and someone did not like it. He took that job knowing longevity was an issue always on the horizon. Anyone that tells you otherwise is Chuck Schumer in disguise.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

To lie about it? To give wildly varying reasons to the press for why something happened, if he could be replaced for no apparent reason at any time with no explanation owed anyone? Why did Sampson resign, if nothing was done wrong? Why did Gonzales testify under oath on Jan. 18th that there was no politics involved - a clear lie - if it didn't matter if there WAS politics involved?

I think there also is some question about Republican senators calling and asking him about... immigration issues? No, about indicting Democrats before the election. That sure doesn't look great either.

I only really see two options here which explain the situation we see today:

1, there is a feeling amongst members of the DoJ and WH that there was at least some impropriety in firing these attorneys; or,

2, there was a vast amount of incompetence at the way in which this was handled, by both the WH and the DoJ.

I can't think of any other explanation which adequately explains the actions of those involved in this. Neither is exactly confidence inspiring.

Then find me all the reasons given by previous administrations for dismissing USA’s.

This is another Democrat “nothing burger” trying to keep the corruption meme going. Look up how many times that word has been used by Democrat’s to describe this situation. Therein lays the answer as to why this is still in the headlines.

The only problem is I doubt they can sustain these tempests in a teapot until 2008. The public is not that dumb.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Cute phrase. You may want to keep trying to convince yourself of this as the days go along.

By the way, MSNBC is reporting right now as I type that GOP Sen. John Sununu (NH) is now calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. You may want to call him up and tell him not to bite into the 'nothing burger.'

The lie, of course, was that there was 'no political involvement' in the decision to let the attorneys go. Gonzales said, under oath:

"I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons,"

A clear and 100% lie given the emails and other information come to light showing the WH involvement with the matter.

If the WH could fire them for any reason, any time, there wouldn't have been any reason to make this statement at all. There seem to be a bunch of you who imagine that the admin. and the DoJ have decided to take the positions they have for no apparent reason, or because they are stupid or inept. An equally valid, heck, more valid reason? They are afraid of what else can come out.

Why did Gonzales lie in front of Congress? I have yet to see a good answer to that question. References to Clinton or other admins. don't answer that question.

where is the crime? "Political" has all sorts of meanings, and it is easy to truthfully say that something wasn't political, just depends on how you define it - that's the kind of stuff lawyers do, and bureaucrats.

"I have a new plan and you don't fit in it" is all it takes to fire any political appointee.

In Vino Veritas

I don't think it's valid to define 'political' to mean whatever you want it to.

And I never saw where you had asked me a question earlier, or I would have answered you, and I will endeavor to do so now:

"where is the crime?"

Other than Gonzales lying under oath, I don't think that anyone committed a crime. Does that mean nothing wrong went on? No.

Is that the only ethical and moral standard that the admin, any admin, should hold themselves to - whether or not something is illegal? There are no other considerations?

in the background as I read that. It really doesn't matter what you think is valid or feel about what was done. Something is either illegal as a matter of positive articulated law or it is a question of personal opinion. The closest you'll find to a definition of political in positive law concerns matters that relate to conferring or denying a benefit based on affiliation with a political party. In the NM case, it really doesn't matter if the Attorney failed to act on voter fraud issues out of slovenliness, incompetence, or because he wanted to confer a benefit to the Democrats or deny one to the Republicans; he failed to satisfy political authority and his position is forfeit. If there is evidence that he in fact failed to act in order to confer a benefit to the Democrats or deny one to the Republicans, it is he that committed a crime, albeit a difficult one to prove and prosecute - easier to just say "you don't fit in anymore."

In Vino Veritas

the question:

If political appointees such as the US attorneys can be fired for whatever reason the Prez wishes, why did Gonzales claim that he would never fire a US attorney for political reasons, under oath, in Congress?

If what you say is true, there would have been zero reason for him to say that. So why did he?

Answering questions with questions is a logical fallacy

for that proposition? Give me a definition of political, an authoritative one, not just what you "feel" it should be, and I'll answer you.

In Vino Veritas

According to, that would be:

- involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians.

I'm sure we can agree that the web/dictionary definition of political isn't what you are looking for here, mostly because it holds up my position completey.

What we really are talking about is 'political REASONS,' which would be more along the lines of: were people fired because politicians asked for them to be fired? Were they fired for doing a poor job, or for not going after political opponents of those who put them in office?

Some of the information available shows that those who were fired had received good or even excellent performance reviews. This conflicts with the given reasons for their firing. There is also evidence that certain politicians were unhappy with their failure to pursue cases against the other party in a timely fashion. That doesn't count as 'political?'

"- involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians.

I'm sure we can agree that the web/dictionary definition of political isn't what you are looking for here, mostly because it holds up my position completey.

What we really are talking about is 'political REASONS,' which would be more along the lines of: were people fired because politicians asked for them to be fired? Were they fired for doing a poor job, or for not going after political opponents of those who put them in office?"

Even if I accept your "dictionary" definition, nothing was illegal or political as that word has meaning in positive law. A US Attorney is a political actor in the sense that he or she is a political appointee, i.e., a person whose job is integral to the formation, effectuation, and implementation of policy and as such must serve to the "satisfaction" of political authority. Note I do not use the terms "at the pleasure," though that's close, or "at will," there are some constraints beyond the will or pleasure of political authority, though not many. A political appointee essentially has a "satisfaction contract," i.e., he must perform in a manner that satisfies political authority. If he fails to satisfy, he can be fired for any reason, no reason, but not for an illegal reason.

There is nothing wrong with firing a political appointee because someone important to you wants them fired; it is what the political system runs on. Again, there are limits, e.g., to thwart a prosecution, however. "Doing a poor job" is what political authority says it is; if the job you're doing doesn't satisfy political authority, "See ya'."

You are trying to give some sinister meaning to the very currency of political power and your meaning has no legal meaning. An illegal use of "political reasons" would be something along the lines of this: there is evidence that both parties are violating a law and a USA sua sponte or at the direction of authority chooses to prosecute violators of one party but the other. Anything else is just opinion, and like some other things; everybody has one.

In Vino Veritas

I'll reply at the bottom of the thread.

Asking someone to define a term in a question they insist be answered isn't a logical fallacy.

The only reason I can see why you'd object to clarifying your use of the term is because you really aren't interested in his answer, but are just trying to keep the waters muddy so you can continue to traffick in specious innuendo.

No crime as reported so try to get them on something else?

By the way, try again where did Gonzalez lie because your patchwork explanation is specious at best? By now, you should know that stringing together a variegated list of events with no common thread does not pass for an explanation here. Be more precise Kemosabe.

You may also want to read PADAG Moschella’s testimony on the reasons for firing.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

Which part was specious?

Gonzales said, under oath,

'"I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons,"'

but that's exactly what happened. In fact, many people are defending Bush's right to fire someone for 'political reasons' or any reason at all. So why did Gonzales say this?

Gonzales also stated that the DoJ was committed to having the replacement attn. for each position be 'nominated and approved' by the Senate. But email records from his own chief of staff show,

'Mr. Sampson told Ms. Miers: “I strongly recommend that, as a matter of policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments…. By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to the home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it faster and more efficiently, at less cost to the White House.”'

Coincidentally, between the time that the firings were first floated politically (two years ago) and the time they happened, a provision was slipped in to the Patriot Act allowing them to do exactly the opposite of what Gonzales said they were committed to doing. And his chief of staff recommended using the provision.

Sampson's emails sure are damning in this case. Seriously:

"In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis."

Yeah, there's nothing political at all about this. Pull the other one - it's got bells on!

Let’s keep it simple

Either there is a potential toxic spill in the making here or your just not following.

How does all this email business directly indict Gonzalez?

Gonzalez and Moschella articulated the reasons for firing these USA’s. Hence the required reading (hint, political is not mentioned in those statements).

I suggest you either provide direct evidence Gonzalez lied or admit there is not proof. Your choice.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

You asked,

'How does all this email business directly indict Gonzalez?'

It either shows that:

1, he had no clue that his chief of staff was engaging in high-level discussions with various members of the WH over reasons to fire the US attorneys and the possible justifications for doing so - not to mention emails talking about the 'problem with Lam' on the day the Cunningham case hit the LaTimes, or

2, he did know his staff was doing such things and approved of it, then lied about this to congress when he stated that he would 'never remove an US attorney for political reasons' and that the DoJ sought a 'nominated and Senate approved' replacement for each person who left.

He either knew that these things were going on, or he suffered from gross incompetence. I have a feeling we'll find out soon. Either one is a reason to call for his removal.

any time you like and for whatever reason you like; getting it is another matter. I frequently call for the removal of all Democrats from public life, but I have to work to do it one at a time.

In Vino Veritas

I'm going to go ahead and take this as a confirmation that there is no satisfactory answer to why Gonzales claimed he would never fire someone for political reasons, if there's no jeopardy whatsoever in doing so.

What was stated is that Gonzalez lied in this statement;

Why did Gonzales testify under oath on Jan. 18th that there was no politics involved - a clear lie

I say again, prove it or admit that assertion is fallacious.

It is not often the AG or anyone else is called a liar on RS without proof. It would be appropriate to correct the record.

Am I wrong here Mr. Moderator?

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

'in my opinion, he was clearly lying?'

Or maybe

'there is evidence that what he said was a lie?'

Would it keep you from crying to the refs?

I have endeavored to show evidence that he either was lying or incompetent. I think it is fallacious for you to claim that I haven't done so or imply that I am posting in bad faith. Clearly thi... wait a minute, don't want to cheese you off... In my Opinion this is clearly the case.


that wasn't completely true. From his press conference

Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information, incomplete information, was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress. I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and that it is complete and I am very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.

For Washington State, where the 2004 governors' race was decided, in favor of the Democrats, by 129 votes. One can see quality work done by voters trying to trace down the fraud.

More Votes than Voters-- Doesn't that sound strange?

"Again, none of this specific evidence was presented or even known during the trial. But we were all tippped off that something wasn't right when King County counted more votes than voters and admittedly fabricated the reconciliation reports. I would like to ask McKay the following: has he looked for and/or seen any of the funny votes listed above? Does he consider them to be sufficient evidence of unlawful vote counting to at least prompt a more comprehensive investigation? Has he conducted an investigation and concluded that all of these unlawful votes were caused solely by innocent human error? On what basis? If the answers to the first 3 questions are NO, YES and NO, would he be willing to assist in drafting a formal complaint that could lead to an investigation?

If anybody reading this knows how to reach John McKay, please help me get in touch with him.""

The totals shown are far more than enough to show that the
Democrats did not win the election. Why do we still not have a
investigation? Who gains if there is no investigation? Democrats
Who loses if there is no investigation? Every citizen of America.

Managing Editor

That is, the President should let congress know that he will fire Gonzalez after they confirm Ashcroft to take the job again!
I would love for him to say that, just to see the left go bananas. Of course, he won't.

Mr. Schumer is the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and may be using his position as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to push an investigation that he can use for electoral benefit. Mr. Leahy is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Conservatism without a conscience is an ideology without a purpose.

Mr. Leahy sure is the chair of said committee, and he's busy proving it - CNN just reported as I write this that he's issuing a subpoena for Mr. Rove to come have a little chat about what he knows, in front of the Judiciary committee.

might not want to get too much out in the open, about some of their people, such as these.

From the Staff
For the story behind the story...
Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:11 p.m. EDT

Report: Justice Department Probing Durbin, Rockefeller CIA Leak

Or this one.
[edit] Corruption investigation
Jefferson has been under investigation by the FBI for suspected corruption since March 2005. Since that time, he has been named in the guilty pleas of two associates. On 15 May 2006, Jefferson called a press conference at which he announced that he did not intend to resign, despite expecting to be indicted on corruption charges. On 20 May 2006, Jefferson's Congressional offices were searched by the FBI, "believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional office,"[5] raising concerns that it could "set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future administrations to intimidate or harass a supposedly coequal branch of the government."[6] See below.

An investigation of Jefferson by various agencies began in mid-2005, after an investor came to authorities. Jefferson is alleged to have received over $400,000 in bribes through a company maintained in the name of his spouse and children. The money came from a tech company named iGate, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky, and in return, it is alleged, Jefferson would help iGate's business. Jefferson was to persuade the U.S. Army to test iGate's broadband two-way technology and other iGate products; use his efforts to influence, possibly through bribery, high-ranking officials in Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon; and meet with personnel of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, in order to facilitate potential financing for iGate business deals in those countries.[7]

[edit] FBI investigation of bribery and fraud
On 30 July 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia.[8] Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria.[9] A few days later, on 3 August 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.

Could this be why the attacks on Gonzales are so intense?

Why would they bother attacking someone who is so clearly incompetent in issuing indictments against them? He's certainly had long enough.

Sorry, not persuasive.

Senator Ensign, the current Chairman of the Repulican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC) is not too pleased with the Justice Department neither. He has csuggested for the DOJ to either apologize and clear the name of atleast one of the fired attorney in particular or to give him the job back.

I agree. No retreat, no surrender.

Combating the stretch!

I accept your post as a very well written answer to the question of what 'political' means in this case.

Given your answer, however, why would you think Gonzales would have said he would 'never fire a US attn. for political reasons?'

If political reasons are fair game for firing a political appointee, it would seem that this is a useless statement. Gonzales didn't seem to consider it to be so; so why would he go out of his way to make this point?

mind, beyond the fact that this sort of act of supplication and self-flagellation seems to be what is expected of any Republican who does something a Democrat doesn't like. But it still gets down to subtlties of meaning.

I'm not one of those Rotary Club "hail fellow well met" Republicans, "I'd have just said I didn't like the SOB, so I fired him" and asked if they had any suggestions for who should be next. The wailing and knashing of teeth would have been over in a day or two.

In Vino Veritas

protection so this matter never comes up another Administration!

that's exactly what we'd do, and give them collective bargaining rights as well. That way, we'd have our little permanent sleeper cells in government to thwart, leak, and sabotage the way they do.

In Vino Veritas

That when democrats suck the life out of the nation, use FBI files to persecute enemies and order IRS audits of those they dislike its a non event.

When a republican decides who he wants working for him its a federal case.

Oh if you thought I was talking about Clinton read some history he was merely following in the footsteps of Kenedy and Johnson.

Google term of the day Cointelpro.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

[Retread, folks. Please disregard. -Thomas]

David Iglesias' task force was not only bipartisan, but involved the FBI...and this commission determined there was no evidence of fraud. I'm sure the WH, the FBI or Republican senators would have come forward if these assertions were untrue. This would have not only ended the fired attorneys controversy, but would have also embarrassed Democrats greatly.

Mine (commission) was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Why I was Fired
-By David Iglesias.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service