OUSTING OUR U.S. ATTORNEY Concerns about Lam were real

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | February 15, 2007 | By Darrell Issa

[DBCJR]

Despite reports and irresponsible statements to the contrary voiced by the media and some Democrats in Congress, concerns about U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's performance in prosecuting serious border crimes were bipartisan, substantive and long-standing.

I first wrote to the U.S. attorney about border crimes more than three years ago after learning from a reporter that her office had declined to prosecute an alien smuggler apprehended while transporting a car loaded with undocumented immigrants near Temecula... I sought information from sources in the Border Patrol, and others in the law enforcement community, about what was really happening with border prosecutions. They described a broken system, lacking needed resources, exacerbated by a U.S. attorney who had pulled back from prosecuting all but the most egregious smuggling cases.

Border Patrol agents were forced to accept a reality in which smugglers knew what they could get away with. A smuggler knew he could drive a van full of illegal immigrants across the border without fear of any consequence other than being sent back to Mexico to try again. Smugglers who were American citizens faced no consequences at all. The threat of prosecution was a joke unless the smuggler brought a dozen or more illegal immigrants across the border at the same time or somebody literally died.

Last July, San Diego Border Patrol Sector Chief Darryl Griffen expressed concerns about changes made to prosecutorial policies related to smugglers in front of a bipartisan House panel...

In June 2006, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to express concerns about Lam's performance in office, “It has come to my attention that despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. . . ...

[DBCJR]

Diane Feinstein and a bipartisan Congressional panel were very much aware of the problems with Carol Lam's office . More than a year ago Feinstein wrote Gonzales drawing his attention to Lam's incompetency, a letter dated June 15th, 2006. For Feinstein to now say that Lam was a model attorney in criticizing Gonzales' firing Lam is the ultimate hypocracy and flat out lie. She is joined by the other Democrats on that panel. They KNOW different.

[Sam Ketcham]

But things were different a year ago. LAM was doing what Bush wanted. How do I know? Bush appointed Martinez as honorary head of the GOP based on his S 2261 Amnesty bill. LAM could not have been in conflict with Administration immigration policies - also there are three questionable prosecutions of BP agents, ALL by ONE AUSA! The AUSA wasn't fired. to be consistent, LAM and the AUSA (another Judicial District) should have been removed.

[Txsleuth]

bump for tomorrow.

[DBCJR]

"But things were different a year ago. LAM was doing what Bush wanted. "

Feinstein is on record against Lam's poor immigration prosecution record then, now saying Gonzales couldm't have fired her for that now because of her excellent record. This is about Dems changing for political reasons unrelated to facts.