FLASHBACK: Bush Administration Pushed Out Lead Prosecutor On Abramoff Case
FLASHBACK: Bush Administration Pushed Out Lead Prosecutor On Abramoff Case
As many as eight U.S. Attorneys are leaving or being pushed out of their positions by the Bush administration. Several of these prosecutors are working on high-profile cases, such as Carol Lam, who ran the investigation into the corruption of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA).
The San Diego Union-Tribune has noted that Lam appears to be the “victim of strong-arm political pressure from Washington, where officials apparently wanted to hand her job to a partisan operative.” U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins, who was pushed out by the Bush administration in December, was replaced with a “37-year-old protege of White House political adviser Karl Rove.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has denied political motivations behind the resignations, recently telling Congress, “Nothing could be further from the truth.” He added that they were a “sign of good management” by the Bush administration.
But these replacements are not the first time the administration has punished U.S. Attorneys for going after White House allies. In 2002, U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black launched an investigation into Jack Abramoff’s “secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court reform bill then pending in Congress.” On Nov. 18, 2002, Black issued a grand jury subpoena to the Guam Superior Court to turn over all records involving the lobbying contract with Abramoff. The administration swiftly punished Black:
A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.
The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade.
An internal Justice Department investigation concluded that the White House did not improperly retaliate against Black for raising allegations against Abramoff. But the probe into Abramoff’s activities in Guam died shortly after Black stepped down. Congress needs to question the White House about whether the Cunningham investigation will meet a similar fate when Lam resigns.
American Progress Senior Fellow Scott Lilly has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
63 Responses to “FLASHBACK: Bush Administration Pushed Out Lead Prosecutor On Abramoff Case”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
I smell a Rove here.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pmYeah, because we wouldn’t want accountability.
Yeah, because all managers get rid of their best works.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmAnd as always, the media is unrelentlessly getting to the bottom of the …. story about missing white kids.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pmCan we charge those immediately responsible for the firing with obstruction of justice?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThe San Diego Union-Tribune has noted that Lam appears to be the “victim of strong-arm political pressure from Washington, where officials apparently wanted to hand her job to a partisan operative.â€
I just had a nauseating vision, of MA being offered the job. I think I’ll take a shower now . . .
January 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmwonder why no one will print this info? this is a clear indication that organized crime is far more important than justice to this foreign government
January 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pmimpeach, please?
As if Gonzales doesn’t have enough enemies at Justice; and these folk know things about him that will come leaking out, in the days (and congressional investigations) ahead.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmCongress needs to question the White House about whether the Cunningham investigation will meet a similar fate when Lam resigns.
Especially now that they’re looking into the funding of CIA private contractor deals. Cunningham’s college buddy, Dusty Foggo, will be on the congressional carpet, giving details of what he knew, and did as CIA number two.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pmDemocrats HAVE to step in and declare WAR against Bush/Cheney/Rove et al…
…shut down the capitol, the government and create a state of emergency…
…do what MUST be done…
…we HAVE to attack this administration (politically for now)…
…they’re REALLY playing hard ball, and the Dems are NOT protecting the good people in government…
…the whistleblowers and truth tellers have all been demoted and persecuted…
…the liars and criminals promoted and coddled…
…BUSH/CHENEY/ROVE must be STOPPED by any means necessary!
…NOW…
January 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pmImpeach Gonzalez first! Without him, they’ll have to get someone competent to uphold the laws passed by Congress.
Alberto Gonzalez has spent his entire time in this administration working NOT to uphold the constitution and the laws passed thereunder, but to help Bush find ways around the constitution and the laws passed thereunder. He must be removed from office at once.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pmWould you guys quit politicizing criminolitics. Jeez.
Sorry, If I don’t find some humor, I will go phucking ape shit. These bastards are really too much to handle at times.
And for the record, I coined the term “criminolitics”.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pmThis is clearly a political motivated obstruction of justice.
Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales need to be impeached now, and it won’t happen unless you and I call our Congressmen every week, if not every day, and demand it.
There is no leadership on accountability from Congress; they are playing catchup to popular opinion. If it is going to happen it is up to us to push them to do it.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWhats the limit on outright middle fingers being given to the rule of law and the will of the people?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:32 pmMy Senetor is ether John Kyle or John McCain. Two Johns that need to be flushed.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWe all wish the investigations were in-tact, had integrity, cuz we all know where the trail leads to.
Man these guys are really putting their asses on the line to keep me safe, they are so brave… NOT
January 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI smell a Rove here.
Comment by RUCerious
A turd blossoming through a… ewww.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pmStack the deck … then you cant lose!
January 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pmIf you cross Bush&Co, you will suffer revenge.
January 19th, 2007 at 2:53 pmThey need to be certain that the courts are stacked with friends of the administration - not judges who interpret the law. There is so much evidence that Bush&Co have committed felonies, it will take an army lawyers and friendly judges to keep them out of prison.
Pardon my ignorance, but what can Congress actually do to stop the purge?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmTime for Congress to step up and remind bushco of the what “balance of power” means in the real world. Bushco just keeps finding ways to destroy America….
January 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmWhy don’t these things make the daily papers or the 6 o’clock news? The so-called liberal media is asleep at the switch — or is it further proof of the corporate owners of the media being loath to report about the corruption of Bush&Co?
January 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmThat’s a rhetorical question - we all know the truth.
What’s going on here is very, very wrong and indicative of a very sick, corrupt administration. I only hope that these wronged prosecutors along with the American Bar Association begin wielding some weight against this thug administration….and soon! This country was only great because it fought corruption and had a moral conscience and authority…..that’s all gone now which is precisely why we are crumbling. More of the same (corrupt individuals) will only yield GREATER DESTRUCTION from within.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pmreid@senate.gov
mccain@senate.gov
kyle@senate.gov
schumer@senate.gov
leahy@senate.gov
kennedy@senate.gov
specter@senate.gov
_@senate.gov
…reach out and touch someone…
FORM letter:
Dear Senator,
Hearing the news of the Bush administration’s attempts to push out valuable (and ethical) U.S. Attorneys responsible for investigating and prosecuting such infamous criminal reprobates as former Rep. “Duke” Cunningham and lobbyist Jack Abramhoff is very disheartening and infuriating. I am emailing to ask if you and your fellow Democrats/Republicans have any recourse (no matter how severe) to stop these corrupt criminals in the White House from further immasculating our already compromised (by the corrupt tenure of Alberto Gonzales) DOJ? This practice of demoting and persecuting conscientious patriotic whistleblowers (like Bunnatine Greenhouse and Coleen Rowley) while promoting and rewarding corrupt, loyalist liars and scumbags HAS TO BE STOPPED!
How can we earnest Americans continue to teach our children to be good stewards of truth and justice and to believe in a meritocracy with the examples set by this clearly corrupt and criminal regime currently in power? We need to do whatever is necessary to STOP Bush, Cheney, Rove and their criminal cabal. What do you need us as citizens to do to help achieve that end?
If you’d like to see the article it is on the blog: thinkprogress.org
I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
January 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm#21…”liberal media” is a misnomer and a moniker bred by the right to silence anyone who bases their commentary on truth. It also serves to “give the appearance” that there is something inherently wrong in providing the truth to the masses…..
They’re not “asleep at the switch”; rather they’ve all become sycophantic (for a nice price??) corporate media whores and pimps….spewing nothing but propaganda. People are becoming enlightened about the bogus role the mainstream media is playing in their lives and switching to alternate sources for truthful news and reporting.
Americans no longer need these corporate sycophants who call themselves our “media”. No one I know even turns on the news channels any longer. They’re totally “out of touch with reality” and have made themselvess irrelevant and passe.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm#19 RCC
Pardon my ignorance, but what can Congress actually do to stop the purge?
They’re going to introduce, and most likely pass, a bill that rolls back that little addendum to the Patriot Act that Specter slipped in. After that, U.S. attorneys can not be replaced by the White House, it will be the job of a district court judge again. And they’ll have to go through Senate confirmation hearings again, too. In the meantime, Leahy and Feinstein told the AG to knock it off. If he doesn’t, it might as well be a declaration of war between the White House and the Senate. It almost is already.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmThanks for your trouble, big papa.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm#11 FT - I see a new version of the lyingBastardometer, renamed the Criminolitic-0-Meter. Hmm, can’t even figure out how to pronounce it, let alone describe how it works…damn.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:27 pmLet’s get these fired attorneys on the talk show circuit, a literal tell on bonanza of whistle blowing! Big whistles, lots of blowing….
January 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pmYeehaaaaw~
As many as eight U.S. Attorneys are leaving or being pushed out of their positions by the Bush administration.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI’m confused, is this a purge or surge?
9, Big Pappa, I heard a story on the radio that Pelosi has ruled out cutting off funds for the surge (escalation). I’ll have to verify it from other souces before I believe it. But I’m betting that its accurate.
You’re looking for the Dems to wage war against the Rethugs. That would be the response of a true opposition party. The Dems are NOT an opposition party.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:40 pmGUNS in the hands of American citizens are the only thing preventing these people from establishing martial law.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pm#30 Larry from C
9, Big Pappa, I heard a story on the radio that Pelosi has ruled out cutting off funds for the surge (escalation). I’ll have to verify it from other souces before I believe it. But I’m betting that its accurate.
What she said was: “Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way.”
There are two problems with that: 1) Bush has been rushing troops over there so that he can get them into harm’s way before Congress can do anything about it. 2) If they cut off funds, the Pentagon will find money elsewhere to deploy the troops. They’ve got it stashed all over the place and they’ve found creative ways of getting around DoD procurement. Then they’ll cut back on armor, food, medical supplies, air-conditioning, anything they can to say “Look, the Democrats are hurting the troops.” But, it won’t stop them from putting the troops over there.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pm#31 Jeff
GUNS in the hands of American citizens are the only thing preventing these people from establishing martial law.
Don’t kid yourself. They’re not afraid of citizens with guns. How many citizens have night-vision goggles and gas masks? Body armor? Automatic weapons? Helicopters? And that’s not to mention some of the more high tech stuff they’ve got.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pmAs usual George Bush doesn’t do the right thing. With him it’s always about cronyism, political favors, influence peddling and selling of his soul to the highest bidder. We need a president who works for the general good of the people, not just for his rich right-wing friends.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pm#32 chimpeach
I was going to reply to Larry, but I see you already did so - and did a good job. Pretty much what I was going to say.
Can we lay down a deadline for the money, and start removing troops now, so that when the deadline comes, the troops will be out of there?
January 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pmSomeone who knows the military, please comment.
#35 Marie
I keep hearing that there are things Congress can do about it. I’ve heard Murtha say that they can make Bush account for what exactly every single penny of appropriation is going to. He also said they can attach things to it that make it very difficult for Bush to sign, for example shutting down Gitmo. I’d like to hear the definitive word on it.
January 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pmDon’t kid yourself. They’re not afraid of citizens with guns. How many citizens have night-vision goggles and gas masks? Body armor? Automatic weapons? Helicopters? And that’s not to mention some of the more high tech stuff they’ve got.
Comment by chimpeach
I could rig-up some very nasty surprises for anyone jumping my back fence, late at night. As could many others if the need arose. Low tech stuff, that their gadgets can’t detect. Why do you think we have so many casualties from IEDs?
January 19th, 2007 at 5:07 pmBarfly,
Your right.
This whole phucking debacle was pulled off with low-tech means. Hijacking airplanes with boxcutters.
The insurgents do quite well against our “high tech” shit.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pm32, 35, Chimpeach & Maria
The troops wouldn’t be in harms way if we followed the Kucinch plan and appropriated just enough funds specifically to bring them home.
Also, why can’t congress make the AUMF (Authorization for Military Force) invalid. (1) The reasons we went to war were lies. (2) Bush declared victory on the USS Abraham Lincoln and stated that major combat operations were over.
Either of these two reasons is enough for the AUMF to be an expired document. Congress should set to work on a new document that only funds the troops coming home.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:47 pm#39 Heritage Foundation
And how long have the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute been around? And how long has the Center for American Progress been around?
For a minute there it almost seemed like you had a point.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pmChimpeach,
Heritage foundation is Rachel b, trying to look like someone else.
If we bait her enough, the ranting will begin. I bet you.
January 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pmUsing the law to oust people doing their job. Welcome to the USSR, American style.
January 19th, 2007 at 6:23 pmrachel kinnardi,
Please add me to your list.
January 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pmComment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
I found Heritage Foundations post about think tanks to be both informative and non-combative. Not a “troll” post at all. And I thought, “Why would you want to bait her?”
Then I saw rachel’s “no fly list.” sigh. the damage has been done.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pmI guess since I’m on the list, I am precluded from supporting her reasonable post.
Abramoff and rachel can go get hitched, then run off to Borneo together.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pmI found Heritage Foundations post about think tanks to be both informative and non-combative.
I don’t think it’s an original.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pmI felt rachel met at least 5 of the criteria for Borderling Personality, and I posted the criteria, and it was deleted. Is rachel someone from TP, breaking up the social cliques?
January 19th, 2007 at 8:26 pmSorry, its “Borderline Personality”
January 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pmComment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Neither do I. But it was factual, and, truthfully, non-partisan. Anyone who adds to our knowledge in such a manner, even if it is by showing us other’s writings, should be welcome. I note, too, that this excerpt was brief, and not the multiple cut and paste jobs we have seen from bona fide “trolls.”
rachel, I think if you stick to reasoned articles and reasonable debate, you will gradually find youself welcome here by all…except the “trolls.”
January 19th, 2007 at 8:44 pmYou sound exactly like Bill frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo.
Or Phil Gingery in the House during that time.
Comment by rachel kinnardi
I got you to talk to me.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:52 pmRachel I don’t understand your list. You started out by saying you will talk to those people.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pmIf we bait her enough, the ranting will begin. I bet you.
Comment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
For Truth, I don’t know what perverse pleasure you derive in baiting someone, but I, for one, would not have appreciated that comment were it directed towards me. And I see you have persisted in “baiting” her.
Thus I drew a Rune for you: NIED: Necessity.
Here is the message from the Universe to you:
January 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pmFor Truth, I don’t know what perverse pleasure you derive in baiting someone, but I, for one, would not have appreciated that comment were it directed towards me. And I see you have persisted in “baiting†her.
Thus I drew a Rune for you: NIED: Necessity.
Here is the message from the Universe to you:
This means the necessity of patience. This is a delay Rune. This Rune reminds us that greed and desire can prove destructive. Avoid quick decisions and think carefully before making any commitments. Don’t take on additional responsibilities at this time. It does not bode well for immediate romantic relationships.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
You are much more patient than I am.
I am aware of my impatience. I am out of patience with this troll, which seems to be Santo possibly. I have decided to take it on personally. I was swatting the troll. I am also using the opportunity to vent my own aggression.
Thank you for the message.
I have decided to stop taking it on personally. And allow it to continue its disruptions.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:54 pmComment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
She’s not Santo. And when left to her own, she does post some decent articles, albeit copied from elsewhere.
I think if ywe allow her to contribute, we will all gain. Have you noticed she only goes ballistic when she is derided?
Have you ever become your breath?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pmnoticed she only goes ballistic when she is derided?
No I haven’t noticed that. It seemed it decided to be really disruptive all on her own. Before today.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:32 pmHave you ever become your breath?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
If I did, I wasn’t aware of it.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:34 pmComment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
If you did, you would be aware of it.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pmComment by ForTruth — January 19, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
granted I don’t read all the threads all the time, but I have noticed such a nexus, assuming I am reading through various aliases correctly.
Rachel, thanks for the link. I’ve bookmarked it.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:50 pmA Disclaimer of sorts:
I received several “delivery failure notifications” on some of those senate.gov email addresses and had to google: “us senate” to get their web forms…
…the point of the post #23 was to encourage posters to get active and make the effort to let our elected officials know that we’re watching…
..sorry if anyone used any of the actual email addresses above, received delivery notifications, and became disheartened or felt otherwise inconvenienced…
January 20th, 2007 at 12:48 amI don’t want to feed insanity much like you don’t feed the bears at the zoo, but…Rachel Kinnardi writes in a similair style to Malkin. That’s Michelle Malkin the pundit who likes the sound insanity makes when it comes out of her mouth. Anyway Rachel is either Malkin or has studied her style, i.e. a member of the Michelle Malkin misfired synapses of the brain club. Of course this is my opinion. Note - opinion subject to change if new light is shed on the subject. That’s right, I have the power to change my mind. Incredible, no?…psst…Italics mean toungue was in cheek.
January 20th, 2007 at 7:41 amAnyway Rachel is either Malkin or has studied her style, i.e. a member of the Michelle Malkin misfired synapses of the brain club.
Interesting hypothesis. A far smarter human being, the Unabomber, was outed by his writing style. Malkin is a frightening tropical fish faced “me luv you long time” bannana who may have been drawn here recently by mention of her. Or maybe these guys are just all cheaps clones of one another.. who knows. anyway, if your right.. congrats.. if your wrong.. interesting hypothesis nonetheless.
January 20th, 2007 at 11:03 amhealth guam
I was impressed by your site and offerings. I was looking at some of the articles and it really impressed me. All I can say is congratulations on creating this site and what took you so long? I look forward to returning.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:55 amAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm