U.S. Attorney Touted Work For Bush Campaign To Get Nominated
U.S. Attorney Touted Work For Bush Campaign To Get Nominated
Greg White is currently serving as the U.S. attorney in Cleveland. New documents reveal that in 2002, White campaigned heavily for the position, touting his loyalty to the Bush campaign in 2000. From an 8/21/02 e-mail White wrote to Brian K. Hicks, chief of staff to then-Gov. Bob Taft (R-OH):
Brian, I talked to the governor at the Lorain County Fair today. I am concerned that we have not heard anything regarding the U.S. attorney position. … This is very frustrating for me. I believe that my record speaks for itself and I doubt there too many county chairs for the Bush campaign that worked harder. Do you think that the governor would be willing to call the president on this issue? I doubt that anyone has the broad-based support that I do.
White acknowledged that the U.S. attorney selection process is “a little like making sausage” — you don’t want to see the dirty work get done. Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, DC, said that the White-Hicks e-mails “are relatively mild compared to conversations I have been privy to.”
White is not the only U.S. attorney who touted his right-wing credentials to become a U.S. attorney. Tim Griffin, the former U.S. attorney in Arkansas who recently resigned, was a former protege of Karl Rove and research director at the Republican National Committee. Not surprisingly, his appointment was “important to Harriet [Miers], Karl [Rove], etc.”
Additionally, Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, was handpicked by the Justice Department because of her personal connections, rather than her professional qualifications. She “was a special assistant to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, worked as a senior counsel for deputy attorney general Paul McNulty and is best buds with Monica Goodling.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Anyone who still thinks that the justice system in this country hasn’t been completely compromised isn’t paying attention.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmYep — this guy sounds exactly like what the Bushies want. I assume that “work(ing) hard” means that he’s willing to do caging work, challenge the outcome of all elections where a Democrat wins, and investigating all elected Democrats from his district perpetually, like a pit bull.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmI guess disbarment is all you can do with lawyers that are crooked and tell the world they are biased and unfit. probably be our next AG
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pmI agree with you tripmaster. Its mind-boggling that you can see the pattern of abuse and back-scratching so plainly if you just connect the 100’s of pieces together. No aspect of the administration is immune from the political manuevering and influence peddling.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmDon’t any of these people have any shame? And don’t they realize that it doesn’t take much work to find out their inter-connectedness? How can they possibly be so blatant and arrogant about it. Jeez, if this was happening under a Democratic President, the cons would be screaming to high heaven about it!
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmIs it Christmas because Im hearing a lot of HO HO HO’s in the background? This is joke, right?
Yessir, Bush is the first POTUS who has ever appointed people who support his views. Never happened before, nope, not once in our entire history.
You would think Clinton would have wanted to review the qualifications of all those AG’s he released before actually releasing them; guess he must have been worried about their political views rather than their professional qualifications when he fired every single one.
You peeps are pathetic, robotic droidlets if you think that dems dont do the same thing.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmThese are APPOINTMENTS, not elections and the pres can APPOINT any person he desires. Thats how the system works.
Now I know that you trolls (who are ruining this site) are frothing hysterical over this but really, there isnt anything there.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmthe cons would be screaming to high heaven about it!
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — July 23, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
They are screaming all right, mostly nothing to see here, and Clinton did it too, see post 6 & 7 for further details.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:42 pmAnd someone is surprised by this?
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmSounds like he was saying,
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmThere isn’t any other candidate who has kissed as much repukelicking ass as I have, therefore, I am the most qualified!
And it’s probably true, given this administration’s priorities.
Long, long ago in a nearaway land, there was a thing called a Justice department.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmIt prided itself on being above politics, and was in charge of making sure that NONPARTISAN justice was being served by the federal judiciary.
And they didn’t live happily, nor everafter the Bush regime.
The end.
Career Progression: Attorney, Republican functionary, Prostitute, US Attorney.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 pmYou peeps are pathetic, robotic droidlets if you think that dems dont do the same thing.
Comment by Mucho Gusto — July 23, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Uh…Clinton did it too?
The difference here is that Clinton got his BJ from a woman.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pmIt seems that he is more than qualified for the job.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pmLets see….does this guy have an (R) after his name?
He does?
CONSPIRACY! HANG HIM!
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmNow I know that you trolls (who are ruining this site) are frothing hysterical over this but really, there isnt anything there.
Comment by Mucho Gusto — July 23, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Prove it. You can’t. Know why? Obstruction of Justice. Cover up. Just ’cause you can’t see it, don’t mean it’s not there.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmLets see….does this guy have an (R) after his name?
He does?
CONSPIRACY! HANG HIM!
Comment by Edward — July 23, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Yes!
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pmThe difference here is that Clinton got his BJ from a woman.
The first lib man ever to do so. Even so, youre lying.
Clinton specifically said, “I did not have sex relations with that woman”, at least that was what he told a grand jury.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pmIt seems that he is more than qualified for the job.
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
I’m sure he’s professionally qualified. The question is, will he break the law and/or compromise his professional ethics in order to get the job? Apparently, the answer is yes.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmYes!
Dont you want to have a trial first, or should we just erect a gallows and throw up the rope?
Nice to see youre consistent in your Chavistic attitudes.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe difference here is that Clinton got his BJ from a woman.
The first lib man ever to do so. Even so, youre lying.
Clinton specifically said, “I did not have sex relations with that womanâ€, at least that was what he told a grand jury.
Comment by Mucho Gusto — July 23, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
When did this happen?
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pmJust ’cause you can’t see it, don’t mean it’s not there.
And if its not the libs will just make something up.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 pmYes!
Dont you want to have a trial first, or should we just erect a gallows and throw up the rope?
Nice to see youre consistent in your Chavistic attitudes.
Comment by Edward — July 23, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
This would be the most efficient course of action.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm“It seems that he is more than qualified for the job.”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
If the job description was “Bush Loyalist”, yes. However, the job description actually entails upholding the Constitution and the laws of our land.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 pm“And if its not the libs will just make something up.”
Comment by Mucho Gusto — July 23, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Like the Cons did with Whitewater?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmBush is not the first POTUS who has appointed U.S. Attorneys who share his ideology. Pretty much all presidents do that — if, for example, a president happens to be a fervent believer in a citizen’s right to own firearms with no questions asked, he’s probably not going to appoint an attorney who has built his career in zealously enforcing gun control laws. Or vice versa. This isn’t the problem.
What IS the problem? U.S. Attorneys have been fired in unprecedented numbers (for mid-term) — and there is significant evidence that many of them were fired because they refused to engage in illegal or unethical activities (such as caging, or looking the other way whenever a Repub got his hand stuck in the cookie jar) for the Bush administration. OR they got fired to make room for a bigger sycophant.
Furthermore, the current WH occupants are not only breaking records for cronyism not seen since the Harding administration, they aren’t even being subtle about it anymore — instead wielding their power with an open “because we can” attitude.
We have no problem with appointees sharing the same political views as the person doing the appointing. We should have a VERY big problem with appointees being installed for the purpose of committing crimes to further a twisted political agenda.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmWhy are libs jumping to conclusions, White undoubtedly put in the work to earn this position. He should not be assumed incompetent or criminal just because he supported Bush 5 years ago.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:07 pmIt is incredible that people are still using the “Clinton did it too” argument. Either they are purposely obfuscating or are woefully misinformed.
Every new administration, particularly if it is from the other party, routinely cleans house by purging the roles. Clinton did it with 93 District Attorneys as did Bush.
When asked about the firings, Attorney General Gonzales did not simply say that it was the President’s prerogative. He said they were fired for “poor job performance.”
The DAs took exception to this. They certainly knew as political appointees they could be replaced with no explanations; but they were not going to accept “poor performance” as a reason, and they had evaluations to back them up.
The Attorney General, it seems, is so used to dissembling that he did it when he didn’t have to. Since he did, and the DAs complained, the Congress has every reason to investigate. In light of what they have found out so far, it’s a good thing that they are continuing to demand explanations.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm“You peeps are pathetic, robotic droidlets if you think that dems dont do the same thing.”
Mr. Macho Mucho Gusto, you’re very predictably neglecting the real nature of the situation here, which has nothing to do with the fact that it’s been entirely customary and normal for all Presidents to replace US attorneys from prior administrations when they first take office.
It’s that it’s entirely unusual for sitting Presidents to replace US Attorneys that they themselves appointed for anything other than outright malfeasance of duties or criminal actions. Kyle Sampson himself admitted as much in testimony, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.â€
Given that the fired US Attorneys in question—all Bush appointees—have been revealed to have been fired for refusal to prosecute bogus vote fraud charges or other partisan charges, and that all of them had been given favorable reviews prior to their firings, it’s entirely appropriate to look askance at US Attorneys like White, who crow about their partisan work on behalf of a Presidential candidate.
So in other words, I think those of us who inhabit the fact-based world know who the real “pathetic robotic droidlet” is. (Nice Star Wars reference, by the way. Got your Luke Skywalker costume on? Are you waving your light saber around right now, taking on the evil libruls? )
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pmBill Clinton never told a grand jury, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman — Monica Lewinsky.”
He made that statement before television cameras, which are not allowed in grand jury proceedings — anywhere.
What’s more, if one accepts Clinton’s definition — and that of most people — that “sexual relations” means intercourse, his statement was absolutely true.
If one considers fellatio as “sexual relations,” then his statement was false.
One also should recall that, just before she left California for her White House internship, Lewinsky reportedly told friends that she had “packed my presidential kneepads.” Make of that what you will.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm“Either they are purposely obfuscating or are woefully misinformed.”
Comment by Administrator — July 23, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
Why not both? :-)
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pmPresident Clinton should have had David Vitter as a lawyer.
It’s been reported that Senator Vitter was actually praying with those unfortunate women. Sources close to the situation reportedly overheard him saying, “Yes! Oh, God! Yes!”
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pmI love this Clinton quote:
Another Slick Willy Classic!
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm“Another Slick Willy Classic!”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
This thread is about partisan U.S. attorneys, troll. Please stick to the topic.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmWantabe with a bush approval. What a goal.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pmI see the trolls are doing their usual thing — they can’t defend the Bushies on the topic of the thread, so they are dragging out The Clinton Sin (even though it’s all dusty and moth-eaten by now).
Yes, Clinton used an excessive amount of twisted spin to worm his way out of a question he was asked about his sex life. A question he shouldn’t have been asked in the first place.
Yet no matter how much wrongdoing, lies, and corruption continues to bubble up from this administration, the trolls will continue to use the “Clinton lied” defense — as if this one item trumps the entire Bush/Cheney list.
“Bush and Cheney lied to get us into war” — “yes, but Clinton lied, too”
“Bush is illegally using executive privilege to avoid subpoenas for his staff” — “yes, but Clinton committed perjury”
“Cheney’s staff leaked Valerie Plame’s covert identity to punish Joe Wilson” — “yes, but Clinton lied”
“Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, et al, fired U.S. Attorneys because they refused to engage in the unethical activities asked of them by the Bushies” — “yes, but Clinton had sex with an intern and lied about it”
“Bush and Cheney” authorized warrantless wiretapping of American citizens” — “yes, but Clinton lied to the American public”
I could go on and on, but it’s become apparent to everyone that the trolls can’t come up with a list of Clinton transgressions that even BEGINS to compare with Bush and Cheney’s misdeeds.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pmthe sickening thing about these creepy immoral Rethugs is that they have NO ETHICS OR MORALS at all. They try to claim that other Presidents have done “the same things” which is an out right LIE. NEVER before have a whole list of EXCELLENT USAttorneys been outted in the MIDDLE of a term because they wouldn’t file ILLEGAL cases or wouldn’t participate in trumped up ILLEGAL election “voter fraud” charges. These people are so unethical they have destroyed our Justice Dept. and our entire Govt. has been contaminated by these incompetent criminals and their lowlife PSEUDO Christian racist backers. They should all rot in hell for their slimy behavior. IMPEACH THEM ALL and start with GONZALES the Bush licking PIG
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pmrethug slimeballs always try to equate Clinton’s PERSONAL malfeasence with Lewinsky with this current CRIMINAL MALFEASENCE and ruination of our govt. There is NOTHING similar about the two situations. Clinton lying about a personal matter is NOTHING, lying our country into an unjust war, cheating and stealing our tax dollars to line the pockets of Halliburton through govt. sanctioned WAR PROFITEERING and subverting our ENTIRE Justice Dept. are crimes that require PRISON. They ALL should be tried in the Hague. They all deserve to pay for their sins against all mankind.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmAny idiot who thinks Clinton’s blowjob is in ANY WAY similar to the horrific manipulation and destruction of our country by these criminals in the WH is dumber than dirt AND a lemming.
another loyal Bushie…nice.
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:22 pm