US Attorney Scandal – Worth Further Investigation

Dr. Errington Thompson

Just because something is complex does not mean it’s not understandable. The U.S. Attorney scandal is confusing. The question is, what’s going on?

Well, in order to figure out everything that is going on there must be investigations. Some folks on Capitol Hill are calling the current investigations a witch hunt and “political theater.”

If a policeman sees someone walking down the street with a large plasma TV, should he be curious? 

So
he asks the guy, “What are you doing with that TV?” He replies, “I’m
fixing it for Ms. Smith.” “Ms. Smith? There’s no Ms. Smith that lives
on this street.” “Did I say fixing it? I meant delivering it to Mr.
Jones.” I think everyone would assume this situation deserves further
investigation.


The same type of
thing has happened with the Justice Department. Eight U.S. attorneys
were fired out of the blue. All of these attorneys were Republicans.
The initial explanation was that they were fired for performance
reasons. Several reporters were able to obtain performance evaluations
on several of these attorneys and they were excellent. The next
explanation was that some of the attorneys did not prosecute enough
immigration cases.


This explanation
did not hold up to investigation either. Finally, Alberto Gonzales, the
U.S. Attorney General, stated that these attorneys serve at the
pleasure of the president. Therefore, the President can fire them at
any time for any reason. Well, this is sort of true. It is true the
president has the power to hire and fire U.S. attorneys. But, and this
is important, the President cannot fire a U.S. attorney to influence a
particular case or to halt a particular investigation or for political
reasons.


For the last
several months, we’ve had several officials from the Justice Department
testify on Capitol Hill. Each of these officials, from Kyle Sampson to
Alberto Gonzales to Monica Goodling, have related interesting tales.
Many of the witnesses have contradicted one another. There has also
been tens of thousands of e-mails that have been released from the
Justice Department and they also tell a tale which is partial and
incomplete. The question is what are the facts?


H. E. “Bud”
Cummins was removed in Arkansas in order to make room for a Karl Rove
protégé. It appears that David Iglesias from New Mexico was probably
removed because he did not pursue a voter fraud investigation in which
he thought there was not enough evidence against a Democrat before the
2006 election.


His decision
angered New Mexico Republican Sen. Pete Domenici. There appears to have
been a phone call from both Domenici and from New Mexico Republican
Rep. Heather Wilson. Calling a U.S. Attorney and inquiring about an
ongoing investigation is illegal. Iglesias testified in front the
Senate Judiciary committee he felt pressured. Again, it is illegal to
influence or pressure a U.S. Attorney.


One of the most
egregious firings would probably be that of Carol Lam. Carol Lam is the
U.S. attorney who prosecuted Randall Cunningham, the former U.S.
congressman. He was caught taking over $2.5 million in bribes from a
defense contractor. This was clearly a major prosecution. This would
have to be considered a feather in anyone’s cap, but yet, she was
fired. This had to raise red flags everywhere. It appears her
investigation had taken a turn toward Washington. Remember, the number
three man in the CIA, Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, was indicted in connection to
this scandal.


Let’s look at
one of the U.S. attorneys that was not fired. Stephen Biskupic was on
an early version of the firing list, and then for no apparent reason,
he did not show up on the final list. Mr. Biskupic is the U.S. attorney
for Wisconsin. Prior to the 2006 election, this U.S. Attorney brought a
case against a civil servant and somehow Republicans tried to tie that
case to the Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. The civil servant, Georgia
Thompson, was released from jail last month. She spent four months in
jail.


The 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals, who ordered her immediate release, called the
evidence in the case “beyond thin.” The purpose of this case, it seems
to me, was to tie the Democratic governor to these corruption charges.
Republican operatives spent over $4 million in advertising against the
governor. So, the question that is hanging out there for anyone to ask
is… did Biskupic keep his job because he prosecuted this case which
ultimately became an attack on a seated Democratic governor?


We could be
looking at a new and novel way to win elections. It seems that some
high officials in the Bush Administration want to use the U.S.
attorney’s office to indict prominent Democrats prior to an election in
order to sway popular opinion. To be more specific, they want to use
the U.S. attorney’s office to influence elections in any way possible.
John Ashcroft, former Senator from Missouri, lost his 2000 re-election
bid to the U.S. Senate by a slim margin. He was convinced voter fraud
was the reason for his loss. He launched a series of investigations as
U.S. Attorney General which resulted in four convictions.


These
convictions led to the state of Missouri enacting voter identification
laws. It was clear these laws would disenfranchise 150,000
African-American voters in St. Louis and Kansas City. Thankfully, the
Missouri Supreme Court struck down this law as unconstitutional.
Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, won the 2006 race by only 50,000
votes.


I do not know
where this U.S. Attorney investigation will lead. I can tell you the
more information that is revealed the uglier this scandal looks. It
looks like some attorneys were targeted for being too aggressive in
investigating Republicans. It also looks like some of the U.S.
attorneys were targeted because they lived in “swing” areas or
districts. These are districts that would be susceptible to election
shenanigans.


No matter what
the final outcome of these investigations, it is clearly worth the
effort to investigate. If we don’t look, we will never find anything.