Posted on 03/21/2007 11:06:28 PM PDT by CheyennePress
LOS ANGELES, March 20 — Among the cases of the eight federal prosecutors dismissed by the Department of Justice last year, none brought more accusations of egregious political retaliation than that of Carol C. Lam.
Democrats in Congress and others have suggested that Ms. Lam, the former United States attorney in San Diego, was ousted largely to stymie her investigations of Republicans and Defense Department officials, after a prosecution of a Republican congressman from California.
But interviews with law enforcement officials in California and an examination of e-mail released by the Justice Department demonstrate that Ms. Lam was a source of longstanding vexation to the department, with which she differed on strategy.
Ms. Lam ran afoul of local officials and the department as far back as 2004 over her decision to pursue far fewer illegal immigration cases than similar districts did, choosing instead to personally prosecute a case against a health care company. She also prosecuted too few gun-crime cases for the administration’s taste.
“Have a heart-to-heart with Lam about the urgent need to improve immigration enforcement,” said a June 2006 e-mail message that D. Kyle Sampson, the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, wrote to another senior department official. “If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15 [my date] remove her.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
What BS. Cunningham confessed and, IIRC, pled guilty. Some pursuit.
Lam was fired for not prosecuting illegal-alien smuglers (the very charge that the most radical right-wingers around here bash Bush about) and Iglesias was fired for not prosecuting rampant New Mexico vote fraud.
Iglesias is a Republican...hardly the stuff of typical Democratic-Party ire about being fired.
Thus, another manufactured Beltway "scandal" with all sound and fury signifying nothing.
We must excerpt the NY Times material. Please do not attempt to get around this by posting the rest of the material in a reply.
Precisely!!
Here's an entire article on these Donk shams. (Must read!)
IMHO, the Donks must think the average American is an idiot. I think they're in for a surprise.
Egged on by the all too willing "real, true" conservatives on this forum.
Clarice rocks!
Sooner or later the voters are going to get fed up with this insanity, if they can remember till the next election, some of the culprits may get the boot.
Yes she does!
BUMP
Wrong.
Tancredo said that he didn't want Gonzales gone because of the US Attorney firings.
He wants Gonzales gone because of his general incompetence, lack of spine, refusal to prosecute cases of obvious treason/sedition etc., the railroading of the Border Patrol Agents, Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist and other earlier actions/inactions.
You might correctly accuse him of violating Reagan's 11th commandment, but he is consistent in his thoughts about this.
Plus, he isn't even mentioned in this article.
It's even more than BS .. because the other men involved with Cunningham will begin their trial on April 10th. The reason I know that is because I was selected to appear for jury selection.
Nothing has happened to stop this case from going forward so Shumer is just blowing smoke where there is no fire .. AS USUAL .. and the emails prove it.
Lam's removal had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cunningham case.
I searched google for info on this U.S. attorney hubbub. I'd swear that no one on the right is writing about it, seemed like 90+ percent of the hits were lefties.
I did find a government report that includes U.S. Attorney Banks (Arkansas and fired by Clinton) which links to the RTC and charges against the Clintonistas of interference with an investigation. I remember the Senate hearings.
It was about Madison Guaranty, 1992.
The RTC investigation began apparently as a result of Jeff Gerth's NYT March, 1992 articles.
There was a referral later that year (1992) but U.S. Attorney, Charles Banks said he did not want any investigative action taken until he discussed the referral with FBI management.
The Madison Guaranty referral (C-0004) was considered sensitive, it called for special handling. The man running for president was involved as a witness. U.S. Attorney Banks wanted to wait until after the election.
The RTC wanted to get started but U.S. Attorney Banks did not (there appeared to be nothing requiring immediate attention before the election).
Banks was troubled by the names of the witnesses and realized the referral was sensitive for that reason.
Banks had already prosecuted McDougal and was concerned about proceeding a second time against him though he wished he'd had the benefit of the new facts back in 1989.
Banks felt the RTC referral gave him no basis to suspect the Clintons of criminal conduct but still refused to do anything until after the election.
Though C-0004 was not in the computer Washington became aware and was able to learn of it. Here's a quote directly from the report I'm using.
"[AG] Barr said that if the referral was found, he did not want action on it artificially sped up or slowed down -- it was to be dealt with on its merits and in the normal course.Barr stressed the matter had to be handled discreetly. Barr said he prohibited calls to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock to avoid the impression the Bush Administration was attempting to influence the election."
This is just a little part of PART F, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S HANDLING OF THE RTC CRIMINAL REFERRALS AND THE CONTACTS BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Chapter 1: DOJ Handling of the RTC Referrals
Now what I remember of the Senate hearings on this matter the Clintonistas took over and via the Treasury Dept. was able to squash the RTC's Kansas City office's investigations and personnel.
One Clinton Treasury bigwig before the Senate subcommittee kept a diary detailing some of the Clintonistas involved in the squashings.
But who would a thunk it. The man was lying to his diary and of course the Democrat-cotrolled subcommittee was just heart-broken. Sure.
Like something out of Monty Python, Josh Steiner -- the Clinton Treasury chief of staff at the time of the RTC hearings -- told the Senate subcommittee he had lied to his diary. Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) was doing the questioning at the time. I'll never forget the Senator's stare but after a long silence he moved on.
Why don't the Republicans bring up the Clinton RTC shenanigans, it's tied to the U.S. attorney's office which would have prosecuted the case. I'm sure the Democrat-controlled Senate hearings cleared the Clintons but there's got to be a minority report which differs.
Actually, it could be turned back on the DemocRATS.
Let us hope and pray.
IMHO, they are overplaying their hand and this will come back to bite them in the ass.
On the other hand, this foolishness takes time away from bad stuff like shamnsty, tax increases, pork, etc.
You obviously know too much to ever be selected for the jury. Of course, there is the possibility that the defense will run out of objections or preemptions before they get to you, as in the Libby trial.
Ping.
Well .. the sad part is .. I had to decline the invitation. They wanted people to be available for 12 weeks (3 months) - and that means I would lose over 3600 - or three months rent. Can't do it. My employer does not pay any portion of the time. Even with the small portion the court would pay .. I might be able to sneak through .. but my employer would have to replace me .. and I cannot afford to give up my job.
The reason I got picked in the first place was my number came up for the month of April .. and the trial is slated to start on April 10th. And .. because of my employment situation (I work at a nursing home), I have had to write to the court and ask to be excused. Darn .. I was hoping to be Jury Foreman at least once in my life!!
But .. it's really upsetting me. You're right - if they interviewed me first and ask the right questions, the defense would probably have me excused .. however, I might have gotten lucky and made it to the end of the selection and been able to make it onto the jury. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE BEEN ON THAT JURY .. bribery, fraud .. interesting case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.