Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?
Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?
Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”
The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:
– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.
– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”
– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”
– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.
To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated.
That should raise questions about the White House’s involvement.
UPDATE: Perhaps this was the “real problem” Sampson was referring to:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Worst President EVER!
ITMFA now!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmDuke was prescient, because he is the Duke (in) Stir.
Cheney should show us all receipts for that $140,000 in furniture.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmWho is this Carol Lam anyhow? Who does she think she is?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:56 pmHeh.
Please let it be true. Please.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pmU.S. attorney’s firing may be connected to CIA corruption probe
By Margaret Talev and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday
http://www.realcities.com/ mld/ krwashington/ news/ nation/ 16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pmWas the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pmOnly question. When did the president know, and when did he sign the check.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pmCoincidence? No no. It must be the hand of God, providing for His good, loyal Republican subjects exactly what they need, in cash. That must be it.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pmWas the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski?
Jake, Does that justify this to you?
As long as Clinton did it, then “W” should be allowed to as well? Two wrongs eh?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHow bout going for a ride on the $140,000 yacht Jake. A long, long ride.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWas the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski? Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
I’m still waiting for you to show that Clinton fired any attorneys during his term, other than when he replace them at the beginning of his term?
Oh wait, it’s because you’re a lying st*pid old sack of sh*t!
Stop Jake’ing off all over the threads, and get that *boyfriend* you’ve always wanted but feared having! ‘Kay dum bass?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pmLike little children, the trolls are in lock step asking “Mommy, if they can do it why can’t I?” or “Billy has one and I want it too!”
So infantile, the wee little trolls.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJeez, Jakers, the other trolls got boat rides included in their RNC perk package. How come you didn’t?
(cut to sceen in Jake’s mom’s basement…)
Mommmmmmmy!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pmHow come I didn’t get a boat ride, all the other widda trolls did! Waaah!
Looks like what we need here is an independent prosecutor.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm#14 Good luck finding one of those !.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm“But Clinton did it too”
That’s no excuse for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe Constitution strikes again!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThe wheels are coming off. If it all wasn’t so damned tragic it would look like Keystone Kops.
Digital LSD
March 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pmhttp://www.teocawki.blogspot.com/2006/01/grok-box-rocks.html
A nit-pick for FAIZ.
You write above: “Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said recently on the Senate floor that she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.â€
Yet in actual fact, the story you link to in the NY Times quotes Specter as saying this: “Mr. Specter raised the question of whether Ms. Lam had been dismissed because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful,â€.
See the difference? It would seem, at least to my understanding, that in your reporting, you’ve been less than accurate in quoting Sen. Specter. He didn’t actually state, as you’ve indicated, that she WAS let go for that reason.
Just trying to keep you honest here. Misquoting or misleading, anywhere in the journalism field and no matter on which side of the political spectrum you sit, is a major no-no. ‘Kay? Carry on.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pmIt will be unfortunate - but typical - that the most scofflaw administration in American history will not be brought down for its gross abuses of the law and the Constitution, but for petty graft.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pmJake,
Wow, now it’s looking like Cheney got a kickback for a contract the White House awarded to a convicted felon!
Is it all starting to make sense to you yet or are you still confused about “What more there was to ’shut down!?’”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pmWhy doesn’t Jake call for Bush getting oral sex from a White House intern? I mean, as much as he’s been saying Bush should do what Clinton did, then why not this?
Of course, Bush has done much of the GOOD that Clinton did and we don’t hear much clamoring from the neocons about this, do we?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pmRight on cue, here’s the proud “independent,” Jake, to offer up the latest lame “Clinton did it” defense sanctioned by the RNC.
Question: What did Rostenkowski have to do with the Clinton Whitehouse? Answer: Nothing.
Question: What did Carol Lam’s indictment of Duke Cunningham have to do with the Whitehouse? Answer: We now have evidence that Dick Cheney was involved.
Question: was the Federal prosecutor done with his Rostenkowski business? Answer: yes and Rostey went to jail.
Question: Was Carol Lam done with her various investigations? Answer: No, she was deeply involved with indicting Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes and was investigating other prominent Southern Californian republicans. She had also discovered evidence that the Vice President was involved.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI’m sure the amounts of money being exactly the same are merely a coincidence.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmPeterW, remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmJake still blowin’ them goats.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI think that Carol Lam should be promoted to the U.S. Attorney General spot…a true attorney general that goes after the bad guys..no matter which party they belong to, what a concept..!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pmw o w …
just listening to thom hartmann talking about this story…
“why do i hear spiro agnew’s voice in my ear?” (paraphrase) -t.h.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pmCan anyone think of a reason the White House would be funneling cash to Duke Cunningham in such a clumsy way? Don’t they have “political supporters” to do that kind of stuff?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm#14: You got that damn straight!
“Bi-partisan” investigation has become the barely disguised code for a bi-partisan cover up. It is a disguise that now fools only the Jakes of this country.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pmThe Repuke spin machine is in overdRive on this scandal.
Evidenced by the massive vomiting of already debunked talking points by the troll in blogland.
They’re Republiborg drones
March 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pmIf the trolls had consciences, asuming they do,
March 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pmwhen would said consciences begin exploding? How many more revelations of misdoing, misdemeanors, high crimes and treason would it take?
What kind of furniture cost $140,000? Just think how many poor people we could feed for $140,000 or Seniors drugs or no child left behind or minimun wages or our military at Walter Reed.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pmIsn’t Mitch Wade connected to Katherine Harris, the enabler of the greatest voting fraud in the history of this country in 2000? Harris’s connection to him brings into focus a whole host of other investigating which needs to be done. Naturally, Lam was let go because she was going for the jugular - that’s a “no brainer”. Now let’s sit back and let her “sing” because she probably has a great deal to tell us……pop the popcorn because it’s going to be a long “dark night of the soul” once these investigations get into full swing and indict the top people in this government. It’s-a-comin’….just like the dawn…..the Bush House of cards if caving in on itself finally.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pmnooneyouknow: I would imagine that, with no oversight for the past 6 years, they got sloppy. When you have absolute power for so long, I would imagine that you stop taking as many precautions as you do in the begnning-the Redudlicans assumed they were going to have imminent dominence permanently-per Rove- so they started to slack off on taking the time to hide these despicable acts.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm#30 We all know without a doubt that “bipartisan commission” means (in Orwellian speak) the ultimate COVER UP. Just think of all of the “official versions of these bipartisan commissions” which are dubious at best, totally bogus at worst…..the Warren Commission, the 911 commission, and so on….Every american knows it’s just a charade to exonerate the wrongdoing of the party in power. Do they really believe that americans are fools??
March 19th, 2007 at 2:26 pmHoping truly that Ms Lam has some serious personal bodyguard type protection for the next few months. We need to hear her story, all of it.
BTW, for sale, cheap,
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm1 used Credenza with Veep logo $140,000.00, no checks accepted.
My prediction: Gonzo is gone by the end of the week and Cheney’s gone by June for “health reasons” and/or “to spend more time with his family.”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pmWow. Isn’t this something like a “smoking gun”?
If so, then file it along with all the other “smoking guns” that we’ve had against BushCo. You know. Like no Yellow Cake, VP’s visits to CIA to cherrypick information to invade Iraq, FEMA cronyism failures in NOLA/Miss/Ala, FISA illegal wiretapping… you know, small things like that…
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pmWhat kind of furniture cost $140,000? Just think how many poor people we could feed for $140,000 or Seniors drugs or no child left behind or minimun wages or our military at Walter Reed.
Comment by Mary Poplins
Well, truthfully, it all depends on what is being furnished. You’d be amazed at how quickly the costs pile up, especially if anything is being custom-built. It wasn’t clear to me what was being furnished, and if it was several offices (or an entire household), the price doesn’t seem terribly out of line. Sure, to most people it’s an insane amount of money to spend on furniture, but among the upper crust of the country, it’s nearly chicken feed.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pmFair point BetteB (#19). The NYT quote isn’t clear. I wasn’t sure whether Specter actually made the remarks as a question or a statement. It’s possible the NYT interpreted the remark as Specter simply raising an issue. But I’ve changed it to “questioned” to be safe.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pmKarmic payback is a drag….and it never ceases to amaze me just how the true scum rises to the top of any wrongdoing. Notice how all of the fingers in every hearing and investigation is now putting the finger on #2 (Cheney) and #1 (Bush). This country cannot afford to be associated with the discredited likes of these two gents any longer. the more scandals which arise from the daily hearings, the greater the damage to the Republican party.
Just read about the Unity08 movement in which people are gathering together because they are finding that their beliefs and wishes are not being represented by EITHER PARTY now. As in Ecclesiastes….”to every thing there is a time…..” And I couldn’t think of a better time for the rising of a “third political party” than now….with the Phoenix crashing and rising again.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pm#38 My predictions are in total simpatico with yours…..Cheney’s already gone (health-wise) and is standing on a very precipitous perch physically and will decide to exit stage right in a couple of weeks…..Gonzo is bonzo and was history from the first day of his tenure as Attorney General. I’ve seen trained apes act more intelligently this this oaf. Once they’ve gone and Rove is subpoenad, he will either perjure himself and be gone or his fingerprint in all that’s been corrupt in this administration will indict him.
Then it leaves Bush On The Coach - ALONE! And he’s got so many articles of impeachable offenses on his side of the ledger now, that he will be impeached easily.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmJake must have ran back to the RNC headquarters for some new spin points for “independents.”
March 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmJake,catch your breath,slow down,and read!!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pmYou had a Democractic President coming to the White House after 12 years of Republican rule,do you think for a minute,(”Oh that’s right you don’t think for yourself,Hannity does your thinking?”) that Clinton was going to leave those attorneys that had been placed there by Raygun and Poppy on the bench? Answer that !
When are you Sycophants going to grow up and quit whining? You’re backing a failed Presidency,a failed Adminsration,a failed Foreign Policy,and everything else Bush touchs is doomed!
Why didn’t Bush leave Clinton’s US attorneys on the bench! Answer that, Jake !!
Lam was doing the job she was hired to do. Foggo was and is a criminal who was part of the Hookergate scandal. Duke got convicted and gave information since the GOP let him hang. Lam had enough proven facts to indict Foggo she noticed her bosses. Follow the dates. Once the AG’s office and Karl knew of the indictment she was to be fired before she could file the indictment. The Hookergate case is part of the bigger scandal in the White House. After looking at each lawyer fired by AG it is found that they were to stop charging GOP/Friends but only file false charges against Democrats for headlines and to control the elections. Once the White House had completed getting GOP for all branches of Senate, Congress and House all charges would be dropped. Yes the plan was to have the United States of America with a one party system Then only Republican Judges and lawyers would be appointed. Rubber check policies would return and Halliburton would have no problem getting the money they need to continue building the pipe lines in the Middle East. As for the US Treasury no problem there would be no middle class system as the next GOP President would raise the taxes to pay for favors and new invasions. Most likely the draft would be for only chosen Americans who aren’t worth the government time. Yes poor family would watch their children die for the Greed of the new White House.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI hope this is just an allegtion..but if it turned out to be true,then our justice system is in deep trouble.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:35 pmI see smoke…
March 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pmJust what I was thinking, Bluedog.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:36 pmDriver…
…follow that cab!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pmHey Jakester. I just want you to know that I don’t believe all the rotten crap Patrick1 posted about you yesterday.
Also, Roger_Roger says you scream like a friggin’ girl when you get pissed. His words, not mine, buddy. I’m just saying.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pmDo you think this means the Bush Abomination may have lied to us regarding the reason the USA’s were fired? I find that hard to believe given Bush’s devout “christian” beliefs. Isn’t there a commandment about not lying? Or is that in the Boy Scout creed? One of the two. Anyway, I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you to learn that Bush may have lied. Shocked.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSampson Memo is definitely a “smoking gun” and indicative of some real problems being outed through Lam’s investigation.
Just watched on C-SPAN Waxman’s hearing on the gag order of Hanson (of global warming notoriety) and it was very telling on the policies of this government, the hiring of ex oil people to the office of the environment, etc. Very damning evidence of “fixing the science around the policy” once again…..we saw that same strategy around the run up to war; that is “fixing the evidence around the policy”. This twisted group of megalomaniacs really believes that they are omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (aka GOD), don’t they?
We have an appalling amount of cronyism in every appointed position in this government; essentially, we’ve been overtaken by charlatans and quacks who are equally deluded as those in power. Perhaps they also “hear voices” which tell them they are right????
It’s time the taxpayers take a total review of where our money is going; after all, these fools are being paid by you and me.
The real fool of this hearing was a young dude (23) sitting, without any scientific background whatsoever, who wrote emails espousing his personal/religious paranoid views about what should be done with the global warming issue and disallowing Hansen from appearing on NPR. They made chopped liver out of this guy as well they should since he knew that he was not qualified for his position and took it any way. The ones hiring this fool are the ones who need to be on the chopping block and interrogated intensely. It’s such a transparent ploy of putting a “fool” into this Confederacy of Dunces….
March 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pmDamn this water is heavy
March 19th, 2007 at 2:43 pm#46 Thanks for the reminder about HOOKERGATE. This is something else which needs investigating.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pmFor the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Cheney gives Wade 140 K, Wade gives 140 K to Cunningham, Cunningham goes to jail for corruption.
Now that’s the kind of simple math that any troll or faux news robot can easily understand.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pmWar4sale @ 38- your mouth to g*ds’ ears!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pmHmmm… why would Cheney (or Scooter) want to use MZM as a pass through to a corrupt committee chairman? What exactly did Duke have that Shooter needed?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm#57 This is a case of “tainted money” making the circle jerk; unfortunately, it enamanted from the white house and, like a dog chasing it’s tail, returns back to haunt this white house. What goes around, comes around they say!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:53 pmEvery one of these daily scandals have either Cheney’s fingerprint or Bush’s fingerprint (or both sets) on them….amazing how these two guys are at the bottom of every rotten pit of decaying democracy, isn’t it?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThe White House has been adamant that there it is not illegal for the President to fire Federal Prosecuters at will.
And they’re right.
Under most circumstances.
There is one circumstance however, where the firing of a US Federal Prosecuter is illegal.
If the Prosecuter was fired to circumvent an investigation that prosecuter was working on, then that does constitute a crime.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmMitchell Wade + Katherine Harris - Big time corrupt bed buddies….let’s see how this works itself into the stolen election in Florida of 2000 now, shall we?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm#5 Thanks for the url. Very interesting stuff!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pmAvast!
March 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe Duke-Sir, she sails agin’!
AAARGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#62 Thanks for the clarification - some boobs on these thread can’t seem to comprehend anything that’s not of a room temperature IQ level. Absolutely looks like a charge of “obstruction of justice” by the commander in chief which will, no doubt, be the conclusion reached at the end of this investigation. Not only will it be one charge of obstruction of justice, it will result in multiple charges against Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al. It will be great to say “ta ta” to all of them.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pmKatherine Harris has all but vanished from the radar BUT she is not forgotten. Her ties to Dukie Cunnigham and Mitch Wade go way back and some money was funneled to her campaign from these mobsters. We need to get crankin’ on the facts that involve Katherine Harris which will reveal some pertinent facts about how Bush stole the election in 2000 from Al Gore. We now know (The Tail of the Exit Polls) how the announcement of Gore’s win was reversed while we slept as well as the allegations that Gore was threatened when he called Bush to renege on his concession once some of the pertinent facts were revealed to him. Where does Kath Harris fit into this scheme? Where does brother Jebbie fit in? People know they are involved but just how….hmmm…..
March 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm[…] Read more […]
March 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pmI wonder if they teach furniture making in prison?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pmVeritas,
I think you’re right. Once Cheney’s gone, impeachment will be back on the table, but that’s a just dessert!
First we must finish our appetizer of hot buttered subpeonas before moving to our second course - Roast Cheney with Indictment sauce.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pmVeritas, agreed.
People might think Bush is untouchable, but I can assure them you don’t interfere with a federal investigation. Bush knows this, so does Rove, and thats why they and Gonzales lied, which just got them into worse trouble.
The President is free to hire and fire Federal Prosecuters at will. But if they determine it was to block an investigation, then we’re looking at a crime. Its not a crime to fire one for political retribution. But it is a crime to fire one to block an investigation.
And since we all know thats exactly why Carol Lam was fired, I think we are now seeing the beginning of the end for the Bush regime.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmThere are times when reading the blogs is inspiring, times when it is frustrating, and times when tears flow freely and without warning.
From Pandagon
March 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pmwe’ve never gotten to how Duncan Hunter figures into the Dusty Foggo, Duke Cunningham, MZM, Lewis scandal - he’s been mentioned on the edges of the scandal all along, do you think Ms. Lamm has something on Duncan Hunters involvement? Its there.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm“Was the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski?”
Hey “jake” are you trying to make comparisons between a man impeached by Congress and this President?
Fine by me.
And by the “jake” Clinton fired all 93 at the beginning of his term just like most if not all President have done.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pmmaybe they wanted to fire all other U.S. attorneys at the same time to cover the Lam firing.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pmWas the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski?
Comment by Jake
that taling point was debunked last week and yet Jake posts it on EVERY thread about the atouney firings.
I guess the old goat has dementia and forgets from day to day.
Jake, just because you cannot remember from day to day, that is not our problem, try a new point that has not been debunked.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmNot that you will remember tomorrow either…….
PC:
Not all Presidents have fired “all” U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of their terms.
The Artist Formerly Known as WORFEUS:
So, if I can prove to you that every Democrat President fired at least one U.S. Attorney in response to an investigation that prosecuter was working on, then why weren’t all those Presidents impeached?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pmDid anyone catch the hack job on the scandal done by leaning right talk of the nation’s neil conan - with many unchallenged lies by whitehouse apologist Doug Kmiec?
http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=8994894
March 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pmBush is also facing hearings on Iraq, and the outing of a CIA agent so he and Cheney could sell intelligence to the world that the CIA had already told them was not credible, so they could invade a foriegn country.
Once it is on record how Bush and Cheney tried to discredit Joe Wilson so they could sell intelligence they knew was bad, outing a CIA agent in the process, we could see impeachment hearings on that count too.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:37 pmwayne:
Just because you think firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys to cover for the 1-2 “political reasons” is somehow better than what Bush did, doesn’t mean my point that “U.S. Attorneys were fired by Clinton for political reasons” has been debunked.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pmJake is the “marathon troll”, who like the Energizer Bunny, just keeps going and going and going… oblivious to anything (i.e truth, rebuttal) that might stop him from repeating his talking point.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pmThis sounds like the same Mitchell Wade of Katherine Harris fame:
In February 2006, the trial of Duke Cunningham bagman Mitchell Wade revealed that Harris had received $32,000 in illegal contributions from Wade’s firm, defense contractor MZM. Just days later on March 4, the Washington Post reported that Harris in 2005 requested $10 million in funding for a Navy intelligence program in her district at the urging of Wade.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm“doesn’t mean my point that “U.S. Attorneys were fired by Clinton for political reasons†has been debunked.”
And it doesn’t make it right EVER.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pmDid Kmiec explain how Reagan never fired all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:46 pmJake - Reagan fired all of Jimmy Carter’s U.S. Attorneys also. Debunk that.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmSo, if I can prove to you that every Democrat President fired at least one U.S. Attorney in response to an investigation that prosecuter was working on, then why weren’t all those Presidents impeached?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Well, your so called “proof” aside, unfortunately for you they’re not the ones on the hot seat right now.
Bush is.
LMAO
March 19th, 2007 at 3:47 pmP.S. to Yikes:
I thought it was O.K. when Clinton did it though. Usually Presidents would wait until there was a vacancy or the 4-year term was up. Either way, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Are you saying that Bush did not have the power to fire Rumsfeld? Does he have the power to fire Gonzales?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:48 pmPinson:
See NPR link above — Kmiec for Attorney General!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pmThere is a problem with the timeline. Sampson first targeted Lam in 3/2/05. Lam did not start her investigation in June of ‘05.
Did the Wh know that she could be a problem before she launched the investigation?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI thought it was O.K. when Clinton did it though.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Yea?
We’ll alert the media.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pmMan, Jake, how can you type around the goat in your face?
March 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pmAre you saying that Bush did not have the power to fire Rumsfeld? Does he have the power to fire Gonzales?
Comment by Joke — March 19, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Hmmm….. so you’re saying you don’t know the difference between a Federal Prosecuter and the Secretary of Defense?
:|
Try Sylvan. I hear they have great night classes in Poly Sci.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm“I thought it was O.K. when Clinton did it though. Usually Presidents would wait until there was a vacancy or the 4-year term was up. Either way, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. Are you saying that Bush did not have the power to fire Rumsfeld? Does he have the power to fire Gonzales?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 3:48 pm”
Jake, let’s do the math for you…..
GHWB appointed attorneys during his term…. How many terms did GHWB have? One….. How many years are in a term????? FOUR.
So by what YOU just stated above!!!!! Clinton fired the Attorney’s at the 4 year mark, hence at the end of their FOUR year term.
There was NOTHING political or ILLEGAL about that, as did the previous presidents do the same thing.
Now put a sock in it!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pmThor, the suspicion that has been raised does not arise because of the general investigation or when it began but that on May 10, Lam sent in a urgent report that her office would subpeoneaing Foggo (dirty CIA executive director) .
March 19th, 2007 at 4:01 pmWORFEUS:
If the President cannot even fire lowly U.S. Attorneys, how can he fire Cabinet heads? Seriously, I want to test out this new standard: assuming Gonzales called press conference today to announce he was investigating Cheney, could Bush fire Gonzales?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pmRemoveBush:
Are you saying that Bush did not have the power to fire Rumsfeld? Does he have the power to fire Gonzales?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pmAll of this criminality is wearing me out.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm“If the President cannot even fire lowly U.S. Attorneys, how can he fire Cabinet heads? Seriously, I want to test out this new standard: assuming Gonzales called press conference today to announce he was investigating Cheney, could Bush fire Gonzales?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:02 pm”
Jake, does the CONGRESS have to approve of the Cabinet heads????
Your trying to compare apples and oranges….
Try again!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pmJake, Jake, Jake,
Listen up Grasshopper. If Gonzo were to announce he was going to investigate Cheney it would a clear conflict of interest due to his extensive ties with Bush and Cheney as WH counsel.
So, he would have to appoint an independent counsel.
However, if Bush fires Gonzo for doing so and their was indeed something to the suspicions regarding Cheney and that firing Gonzo was an attempt to halt or otherwise influence the investiagtion then that would Obstruction of Justice.
I believe that is an impeachable offense by the way.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pmFrom:
http://www.answers.com/topic/obstruction-of-justice
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
Obstruction of Justice
“A criminal offense that involves interference, through words or actions, with the proper operations of a court or officers of the court.
The integrity of the judicial system depends on the participants’ acting honestly and without fear of reprisals. Threatening a judge, trying to bribe a witness, or encouraging the destruction of evidence are examples of obstruction of justice. Federal and state laws make it a crime to obstruct justice.
Obstruction of justice in the federal courts is governed by a series of criminal statutes (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1501-1517), which aim to protect the integrity of federal judicial proceedings as well as agency and congressional proceedings. Section 1503 is the primary vehicle for punishing those who obstruct or who endeavor to obstruct federal judicial proceedings.
Section 1503 proscribes obstructions of justice aimed at judicial officers, grand and petit jurors, and witnesses. The law makes it a crime to threaten, intimidate, or retaliate against these participants in a criminal or civil proceeding”
And firing a US Attorney to prevent them from continuing an investigation is not this???? Trolls???
March 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm“RemoveBush:
Are you saying that Bush did not have the power to fire Rumsfeld? Does he have the power to fire Gonzales?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:03 pm”
Sure he does….. However, not to the extent that if it was to prevent a crime from being investigated…… If it was his entire political team, there would be questions but if it was found that those people were about to tell Congress that Bush was committing Treason against the US, then of course he would be questioned….
Just as is the case now!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmIf the President cannot even fire lowly U.S. Attorneys, how can he fire Cabinet heads?
Comment by JackOff — March 19, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Are you intentionally stupid or is this a heredity thing?
Please go back, and show me where in my statments above, I indicated that the President cannot fire a “lowly” Federal Prosecuter.
Show me ONE place, where I said that.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmThere is a problem with the timeline. Sampson first targeted Lam in 3/2/05. Lam did not start her investigation in June of ‘05.
Comment by Thor’sHammer — March 19, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Well, I think you’re referring to the Lewis investigation, which this is not about.
This is about the FACT, that Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she was going to execute search warrants on several CIA officials as part of a corruption investigation she was working on.
The VERY NEXT DAY, a DOJ offical emails the White House telling them to fire her.
Thats what this is about with Lam.
But remember.
Carol Lam is just ONE of the Federal Prosecuters fired under suspicious circumstances. Stay tuned.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI’ve heard this, and believe it to be true. This is exactly the reason this scandal is so insidious and needs to bring down the house.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pmDictators dont break laws. Why? Because they make the prosecutors and judges nothing more than political lackys. If that happens in America then our freedoms will depend on our political loyalty to whoever is currently in office.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI’ve heard this, and believe it to be true.
Comment by R — March 19, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
No belief necessary.
Lam writes the DOJ, says she’s cutting warrants.
Next day, DOJ emails the White House, tells them to fire her.
Bush fires her.
No belief necessary. Its historical now.
:|
Or hysterical.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pmI am well aware of the actions on 5/10/05, but Lam did not start any investigation on the Dukester until June of 2005. In several emails from Sampson, he listed Lam for replacement in early ‘05. This started in March 2, 2005.
If Lam had not started any investigation that could eventual lead to the White House or to Lewis until 6/05, why was she targeted on 3/2/05?
This could be a coincident, and then the shit hit the fan on the 11th, but either way, the initial reason for targeting was due to a lack of immigration investigations.
Maybe they just got lucky?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pmOnce more. You are talking about her onset of the Lewis investigation.
This is about the DOJ emailing the White House, the day after she notified them that she was executing warrants on high level CIA officials.
Which part of that am I not being clear about?
March 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pmThor, what are you basing your start of the investigation date as 6/05?
A press conference?
Is it not reasonable that there may have been preliminary investigations taking place before the 10th, or the 11th?
Just asking since I have not seen a news story of any investigation start date and it is very likely that I missed it since I don’t live in San Diego.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#102 You are correct. Don’t let the neocon truth twisters pretending to be sincere posters here at TP hijack the discussion. You’re right and this is the tip of the straw which will break the back of this administration. Obstruction of Justice charges will be forthcoming to each member of this cabinet.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pmWell, we seem to have from the right that it is ok to fire US Attorney’s for not being sufficiently political in the pursuit of their jobs. 8 out of 93 were apparently fired for not meeting Bush administration criteria for political pursuits. How’s about flipping that situation can we assume that the other 85 were using their offices in a manner that was politically pleasing to the Bush regime? Has anyone heard of any reports looking at the controversy from this particular angle? Is this one more function that the Bush regime has completely politicized and fooked up? Is it beyond repair?
Oh, and they cling to the but CLinton did it too talking point, becauuse of habit and its all they’ve got.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pmIt’s clear that Carol Lam was amidst “multiple” investigations - the bulk of which were targeting corruption of high officials of this administration along with key leaders of the Rethug party. Stay tuned for the truth - as it will prevail - and soon.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:44 pmI’ve been thinking - everyone in the administration keeps saying these ttorneys “serve at the pleasure ofthe president”. Well, doesn’t that mean that they must have been fired at the “pleasure of the president”. Clearly, the president must not have been pleased with them and so he had them fired. My point is this - if laws were broken in the process of firing these individuals, isnt the president the ultimate perpertrator of those crimes?? I mean, these people would not have been fired if they were performing as the president wished them to perform, right? They must have been doing something that the president was displeased with or else they would not have been fired. Isnt the administration hanging itself with its own rope by repeating this ridiculous statement over and over about “serving at the pleasure of the president”???
March 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm#105- Well, there you have it. I call the act of firing Lam treasonous.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pmJake, this is off-topic, but could you please point out all of the good things that this administration and the previous Congress have done for America? The things that make you so blindly loyal to these people who wouldn’t spit on you to put out a fire?
Oh, and I bet you cheered on the Clinton BJ Impeachment trial, because that is a critical thing that needs addressing, whereas massive Republican corruption is nothing to worry about it because hey, its happened before right?
You’re pretty pathetic man.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#105 If your timeline is accurate (and it appears to be so from the material evidence) Bush is certainly at the bottom of this attempt to muzzle an investigation which translates into “Obstruction of Justice” in it’s highest form. I believe that this is one of the “highest crimes” possible by an officer of this country.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pmHey Mark - bingo!! You’ve hit the nail on the head. Now that we know that the 8 were sent packing because they “were doing their job” which was NOT consistent with the Bush political agenda, it can safely be calculated that the other 93 were in synchronicity with the level of corruption we know now to be occurring. Perhaps it’s the other 93 attorneys we need to turn the hairy eyeball on now?? Perhaps it’s time to take a little peek into their activities….(I can hear the shredding machines now! ) …. I believe this is a fair assumption to make.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pmLet’s press congress to call into question the activities (investigations or lack thereof) of the ones purportedly to be “doing Bushies job” satisfactorily because we now are beginning to see the picture that what that means is that they all were “complicit” in this scandal.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pmThis could be a coincident, and then the shit hit the fan on the 11th, but either way, the initial reason for targeting was due to a lack of immigration investigations.
Maybe they just got lucky?
Comment by Thor’sHammer
Or Bush’s incompetence finally bit him on the ass. Lam said in an interview with the San Diego UT that the reason she couldn’t be more agressive with immigration investigations was that she wasn’t provided adequate resources by Justice to persue such cases, as it would have meant not pursuing other, more important cases.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pmDontcha just love the way the resident idiot troll keeps blaming Clinton for all of the horror of this administration. I guess you have to when you have nothing positive to report…duh!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pmClearly, jake-off is totally out of touch with reality. Isn’t one of the questions shrinks ask people to see if they are sane: Who is the President of the United States? Jake-off apparently thinks it’s still Bill Clinton. ahahahahah!
March 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pmJosh over at TPM has post up on this.
The June 2005 start date came from an article I read:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/ news/ politics/ cunningham/ 20051129-9999-1n29duke.html
Here is the quote:
She (Lam) said the investigation began after a Copley News Service article appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune questioning the 2003 sale of Cunningham’s Del Mar-area home.
That June 12 story reported that in November 2003, Cunningham and his wife sold their home for $1.675 million to a company owned by Washington, D.C., defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who later sold the house at a $700,000 loss.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pmMaybe they just got lucky?
Comment by Thor’sHammer
And as we were heading into the ‘06 midterms, Duncan Hunter wanted to be able to crow to his constituents about border enforcement, but instead he had to deal with Cunningham’s mess. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he was very effective at tamping down reports of scandal and excess connected with the war effort. Bush would want to keep him on his side, for sure.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:58 pmEverybody,
This bears repeating:
Jake’s career is what made him what he is today.
He worked as a crash dummy for the NASA Rocket Sled program.
After each run they would scrape his brains off of the base of the sled into a bucket, turn him upside down, put a funnel into each nostril and pour them back in.
He still sloshes when he nods or shakes his head.
Every once in a while, the air relief valve at the back of his head malfunctions and a little grey matter drips out. Of late, no one notices any difference when that occurs.
Jake claims to have an IQ of 86, but that is doubtful as his short term memory span is considerably less than 11 hours.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pmveritas:
I don’t think either Carter or Clinton are President or did anything wrong in this regard — the fact that both of them fired U.S. Attorneys involved in Democratic politician investigations — without the kind of reaction and calls for resignations / impeachment, is slightly relevant though, don’t you think?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pmOops,
March 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pmIn my post #124, hours s/b minutes.
Ah, Jake old man…
You know, they teach classes about your logic. They are called Fallacial Reasoning….or more to the point, Intellectual Dishonesty.
Still, it’s quite enjoyable, even if it is only a 3 note song and dance routine. By all means keep it up…the harder you try, the more obvious it is that it’s all load of crap…
March 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSo keep it up, Buddy !
— the fact that both of them fired U.S. Attorneys involved in Democratic politician investigations — without the kind of reaction and calls for resignations / impeachment, is slightly relevant though, don’t you think?
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
No. Its not. Bush did the same thing when he took office. It is common when a President takes office to put their own prosecuters and other officials. It is expected.
But to do it well into the second term, to his own appointees, REAKS of corruption. It REAKS of tampering with Federal Investigations. Even if we DIDN’T have the emails, the surrounding circumstances were suspicious enough. Unfortunately for you however, we DO have the emails.
:P
sUks2BU
March 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pmTroll News Flash:
Bush IS President, Clinton IS NOT President
I know all you GOPer trolls want to bash Clinton for current events, but your boy has been in charge for sometime now. Wake up!!!
And why do you all pick Clinton as the ultimate example of what a President should or should not be? Do you consider him the greatest President ever and you gage Baby-George against his example? Why not use Bush 1, or Ford, or Kennedy, or…
You all are so incredibly stuck on Clinton. Are you jealous? Do you wish you could have done what Monica did? Does the thought make you sort of weak in the knees?
Grow up and judge Baby-George by his own actions. He is utterly incompetent all by his lonesome. I don’t need to compare him to anyone else to reach this conclusion. His decisions are disastrous and his administration puts us all at risk every day. See how easy that is? I didn’t have to mention Lincoln, Washington, Jackson, Truman, none of them. Baby-George is just a total failure of a President and a failure as a man — just roll the 9/11 footage of him sitting in that elementary school. How shameful and un-American is it that anyone would support this loser.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm#6 Jake:
Was the U.S. Attorney fired by Clinton investigating Congress, specifically Dan Rostenkowski?
Shorter Jake: “Clinton did it too, so it’s OK….” The tu quoque argument. But, considering that you RW foamers thought that the Clinton administration was the most criminal ever, aren’t you setting the bar rather low?
But:
1). Clinton did this in the en masse replacement of all USAs at the beginning of his term. It wasn’t a mid-term replacement of his own attorneys that had displeased him.
2). Rostenkowski was indicted by Clinton’s new USA in 1994, an election year, and lost his leadership and his seat later that year. Had Rostenkowski been indicted sooner (and not in the run-up to an election), perhaps the bloom would have come off the indictment by the time of the elections. Hard to square that with some kind of political machinations. Rostenkowski was convicted and served time.
3). You wankers impeached Clinton for “obstruction of justice”.
Here’s more on the Republican hypocrisy.
Cheers,
March 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pmScrewBush:
I don’t think either Carter or Clinton were great Presidents by any stretch of the imagination — the fact that both of them fired U.S. Attorneys involved in Democratic politician investigations — without the same kind of reaction and calls for resignations / impeachment, is slightly relevant though, don’t you think?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pmCould Carol Lam have been looking into this?…
It just occurred to me that Carol Lam could have been investigating allegations of bribery stemming from a San Diego water treatment deal. I broke the story with Miriam Raftery a while back, and the WSJ later “broke” it again (because crediting othe…
March 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pmWorfeus:
Carter fired Marstan in 1978, not in the beginning.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:22 pmIf Lam had not started any investigation that could eventual lead to the White House or to Lewis until 6/05, why was she targeted on 3/2/05?
Comment by Thor’sHammer — March 19, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Thor
I wanted to revisit your post.
Because your own timeline is incorrect. You incorrectly state that the Lewis investigation started in June 2005. Thats not correct. It started earlier than that.
In fact, on May 11th 2005 the New York times was already writing about the investigation.
Also keep in mind, the investigation spawned from an earlier corruption probe.
Where are you getting your dates from?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pmUhh Jake.
What are you a TrollBOT?
You said that exact same thing 5 posts ago.
Turn off the auto-responder.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pmJake,
Hey retard, dubya didn’t fire old man Rumsfeld he resigned.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pmWorfeus:
Carter fired Marstan in 1978, not in the beginning.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Well tell you what there Matlock.
Write your congressmen, and ask him to launch a criminal investigation into the Carter administration.
Then write us, and let us know how that works out for you.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pmJake,
My views are on this topic are well covered by many of the posts here. Try reading #130 or the many others. You can keep saying “Clinton did it too” until you turn blue, but you’re still comparing apples to oranges. If you don’t understand this then keep reading the many posts that explain this difference.
I used to hate Trolls like you coming into OUR blog. But recently after carefully reading every post in several long threads, i realized how helpful you guys are. Through the entire life time of a thread i watched how arguments evolved. I saw how entirely new ways to frame issues took shape; I saw how insights were being picked up, propagated, and sharpened into better arguments. I saw how your poking at the left actually helps strengthen us because we actually look up facts, use critical thinking, and above all we question everything.
So Jake, thank you sincerely for making us stronger.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:34 pmArne Langsetmo:
I agree that Clinton did this in the en masse replacement of all USAs at the beginning of his term too. Clinton also replaced own U.S. Attorneys that had displeased him as well. Look into the history, why don’t you.
Rocks911:
Bush “reluctantly accepted” Rumsfeld’s resignation — i.e. he was fired — unless you are saying that Carol Lam did not submit her resignation too?
WORFEUS:
I just want a consistent standard, that’s all.
ScrewBush:
That’s why I’m here — to actually look up facts, use critical thinking, and above all question everything.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pmWORFEUS:
I just want a consistent standard, that’s all.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
So your “standard”, is that if someone else gets away with a crime, everybody else from then on should get away with it too?
Thats what passes for logic in your family?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pmThat’s why I’m here — to actually look up facts, use critical thinking, and above all question everything.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Now THATS funny.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pmTo all those who voted in the Democrats last November…CONGRATULATIONS… you just may have saved the Country. Go Get’em Waxman.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pm#137 - Jake,
March 19th, 2007 at 6:07 pmMarston was a late appointee from the Ford admistration. Carter was still just cleaning out the stables from the $hit left behind by Nixon and Ford. No investigation was foiled as a result, one may actually be helped since the guy was a total a$$.
I’m still waiting for Porter Goss and the DC madam to tie into all of this somehow.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWaltTheMan:
I never said Marston was a Carter appointee, and you know that Cunningham was still convicted (I’d bet whomever else Lam was investigating will be too), right? That aside, is the new standard whether the U.S. Attorney was a total a$$ or not? I know a few Minuteman-types who think Lam did a very poor job with immigration enforcement ; )
March 19th, 2007 at 6:19 pm#144 last sentence says that Jake will stick to the talking points regardless of what the facts really are.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pm#138 Jake:
Clinton also replaced own U.S. Attorneys that had displeased him as well. Look into the history, why don’t you.
No. Name names. And why they were fired (oh, you know, like biting someone (and that one resigned under fire).
Cheers,
March 19th, 2007 at 7:04 pm#144 Jake:
I know a few Minuteman-types….
Suhpraaahhhzz, suhpraaahhhzz!!! Jake knows Minuteman-types. Why, Jake, we’d never have guessed.
Cheers,
March 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pmJake,
March 19th, 2007 at 7:15 pmDavid Iglesias = Immagration excuse, Carol Ames = Prosecution of endangered Republic scam artists. Repeat this to yourself for at least 12 hours and perhaps your memory will improve. You need to keep these Republic scams sorted out.
Carol Ames, or Carol Lam?
March 19th, 2007 at 7:30 pmJake,
March 19th, 2007 at 7:36 pmCarol Lam, I was thinking of a former HS girl friend. I was center on the basketball team and she was hot! I am 5 inches taller than you by the way (6′7″).
An on-going criminal conspiracy involving, inter alia, bribery and a cover up could and should be pursued under R.I.C.O. (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Doc Rock
March 19th, 2007 at 7:43 pmOh, O.K. Walt — I have no idea if Iglesias had performance issues re: immigration enforcement as well, but Carol Lam (here in San Diego) definitely did. Just goes to show you I am not following anyone’s talking points. Now, is the new standard whether the U.S. Attorney in question was a total a$$ or not?
March 19th, 2007 at 8:07 pmThe VP is implicated!
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/03/could_carol_lam.html
March 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pmEverytime I open the paper they get dirtier. At what point do they finally impeach?
March 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pmThis really is the mother of all Republican corruption scandals. The big picture here is that guys like Abramoff/Wade/Wilkes created virtual businesses designed to have no-bid contracts (primarily defense contracts) awarded to themselves. In turn, a lot of this money was funneled back to the Republican Congressmen and a tithing to the RNC (well, probably a lot more than a tithing) for re-election campaigns. You know all those $2500.00-a-plate fundraisers? I suspect that they were laundering a lot of this taxpayer money back to their campaigns, using this as a vehicle.
Here’s a prime-rib example of how this worked: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilkes-doolittle-dinner/
PerfectWave sounds like a $38MM PerfectScam.
Read up on TPM’s West Coast Republican scandals here…Doolittle, Lewis, the WH….
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/brent_wilkes/
And Jake, read up on that Rostenkowski “scandal”….kitting paychecks and cashing in stamps is the kind of classic corruption we’ve always had. He went to jail for small change. We’ve always had free-lancers from both Parties who have traded influence for $. But this is a whole new animal…this is Organized Crime masquerading as a political party…one that almost succeeded in killing our election system, thus installing themselves as rule by one Party.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm[…] Think Progress » Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing? […]
March 19th, 2007 at 10:04 pmBush is a oil corp pimp
March 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm#152 - Jake,
March 19th, 2007 at 10:47 pmI did not realize that all of those high level Republics on the take were less important than imigrants. But then who cares about a few million bucks here and another few million there. You really have to go after the peons working 12 hour days at $3.00 per hour for the same scumbags. I would guess that you and I have a different set of priorities. A bit more than a century ago, there were no illegal immigrants (Unless you ask a native American.), only mindless bodies to man the factories, work on the infrastructure and tend the fields. Actually some of those bodies rose to fuel the progress of our nation in all fields from industry to science.
From 1933 to 1944, FDR brought this nation from total decline to the most powerful on Earth. In six short years, GWB has reversed that process.
TAKE IT AWAY, Carol “Mary Poppins” Lam:
“In ev’ry job that must be done
There is an element of fun
You find the fun and snap!
The job’s a game
…..And ev’ry task you undertake
Becomes a piece of cake
A lark! A spree!
It’s very clear to see
That a…
Spoonful of SUBPOENAS helps CHIMPEACHMENT go down
CHIMPEACHMENT go down-wown
CHIMPEACHMENT go down
Just a spoonful of SUBPOENAS helps CHIMPEACHMENT go down
In a most DELIGHTFUL way!
A FAT-F*CK Rove SHREDDING HIS FILES
HAS TONS and TONS of PILES
While GATHERING his WITS
And GETTING A CASE of the SHITS
Though quite intent in his ESCAPE
Rove has a MERRY TUNE of CONFESSION to MAKE!
He knows his CONFESSIONAL song
Will MOVE CHIMPEACHMENT a-longgggggg…..
For a…
March 19th, 2007 at 10:54 pmSpoonful of SUBPOENAS helps CHIMPEACHMENT go down
CHIMPEACHMENT go down-wown
CHIMPEACHMENT go down
Just a spoonful of SUBPOENAS helps CHIMPEACHMENT go down
In a most DELIGHTFUL way!!!!”
Let’s not get all dewy-eyed about Danny Boy Rostenkowski. He went to prison for the crimes they could prove, and if the ones they proved were small, that’s no reason to believe there was nothing more behind it.
Bush’s handling of the AG’s is off-the-charts compared to Clinton. I’m not trying to support Jake. I just don’t want people pretending Danny Boy was a choir boy. He was a scumbag.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pmMy #157,
March 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pmimmigrants deserves two(2) m’s.
With all this heat, who will be the first to out the Cook? Even the higher Father will not save his carcass.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pmI’m going to say another somewhat anti-Clinton thing here, so I want to ask for some patience, since I’m not a regular poster here (though I have a long line of comments at FD