Things have been a little slow on Common Blog lately, partially because it's August, and there's not a whole lot happening. Also, because I'm working on a new section of the Common Cause website devoted to the US Attorney scandal.
A significant part of this section will be a Who's Who of the players involved in the controversy, from the major players in the White House and Justice Department, to the dismissed attorneys themselves, all the way down to the minor figures you may not have heard about. It's still a ways off from being completed, but in the coming days I'll be periodically posting profiles of some of the players, to give you a taste of what's to come.
To start things off, let's get to know Carol Lam.
Yesterday's New York Times ran an editorial summarizing what's come to light about the firing of eight US Attorneys in recent weeks. They lay out the conclusions that are becoming more and more difficult to ignore:
At best, the firing of eight United States attorneys, most of them highly respected, is an example of such profound incompetence that it should cost Mr. Gonzales his job. At worst, it was a political purge followed by a cover-up. In either case, the scandal is only getting bigger and more disturbing.
New reports of possible malfeasance keep coming fast and furious. They all seem to make it more likely than ever that the firings were part of an attempt to turn the Justice Department into a partisan political operation. There is, to start, the very strong appearance that United States attorneys were fired because they were investigating powerful Republicans or refused to bring baseless charges against Democrats.
Such as Carol Lam, who put Duke Cunningham (R-CA) behind bars...or Paul Charlton, who was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Given last week's revelations from former dupty attorney general James Comey (2003-2005) that most of the prosecutors performed well - or even exceptionally - and from some of the fired attorneys that they were pressured, or even threatened, by Michael Elston, an aide to the deputy attorney general, the NYT challenges our representatives to do what's right and pursue the whole truth.
It is long past time for President Bush to fire Mr. Gonzales. But Congress, especially the Republicans who have dared confront the White House on this issue, should not be satisfied with that. There are strong indications that the purge was ordered out of the White House, involving at the very least the former counsel, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove.
It is the duty of Congress to compel them and other officials to finally tell the truth to the American people.
The media is abuzz today about the announcement that the Justice Department is launching an internal investigation into whether or not Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liason who resigned in April, illegally took partisan affiliation into account when hiring nonpolitical career federal prosecutors.
Additionally, statements released by some of the fired US attorneys raise new questions about how their dismissal was handled. From the Washington Post:
In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.
Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.
"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.
Elston is denying this, of course. But that's not the end of it:
Common Blog
