Shortly before the 2006 election, the U.S. attorney in Wisconsin, Steven Biskupic, went after Georgia Thompson, an aide to Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D). Biskupic accused Thompson “of steering a state travel contract to a firm whose top officials were major campaign contributors to Doyle.” The case was a boon to the Republican gubernatorial candidate in the 2006 election, who “ran a barrage of attack ads that purported to tie Ms. Thompson’s ‘corruption’ to Doyle.”

In a “stunning reversal,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the conviction in April “within hours of oral arguments due to a simple lack of evidence.” Federal Appeals Judge Diane Wood said that the “evidence [was] beyond thin.”

A new report in the Isthmus Daily Paper shows that Biskupic “repeatedly offered to go easy on her [Thompson] if she were to implicate others in the administration of Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle,” indicating that Biskupic’s case was based on partisan politics. Similarly, Thompson “repeatedly rejected the plea agreements because she said she had no information” about improprieties in the Doyle administration:

“It was the only time in my career that, after the person was sentenced, the prosecutor has called to renew the discussion,” says [Thompson's lawyer Stephen] Hurley, who’s been a criminal defense attorney for more than three decades. “I’ve never had that happen before.”

These offers, though not necessarily indicative of improper conduct, suggest that Biskupic and his staff prosecuted Thompson as part of a larger agenda, with potential political overtones.

Documents indicate that Biskupic went after the Bush administration’s political opponents to avoid the Justice Department’s list attorneys targeted for removal. In 2005, the Wisconsin state Republican party prepared a report for Karl Rove that attacked Biskupic for not going after voter fraud aggressively enough.

The Bush administration set out to replace U.S. attorneys in at least nine battleground states. In at least seven, “U.S. attorneys were fired or considered for firing as Republicans in those states urged investigations or prosecutions of alleged Democratic voter fraud.” It appears that Biskupic was able to keep his job because he was willing to go after the Bush administration’s adversaries on thin evidence.

After previously refusing a request to appear before Congress, “ex-EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman abruptly reversed herself Friday and agreed to testify before Congress on her agency’s response to the environmental fallout of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks…On Sept. 18, 2001, then-EPA head Whitman released a statement declaring the results from air monitoring tests in New York showed ‘their air is safe to breathe.’” It was not.

In the wake of reports stating that the U.S. is trying to weaken the language of a G8 climate change declaration to be released at next month’s G8 summit, 15 House chairmen issued a letter today to President Bush urging him not to weaken the declaration.

The G8 Summit should be an opportunity to galvanize international support for addressing this looming threat, not an opportunity to prevent and undermine international action. The leaders of the world’s largest economies must let the rest of the world know that they are serious about addressing the threat posed by global warming and are committed to meaningful action to reduce global warming pollution. U.S. leadership is critical to tackling this global threat.

Read the full statement below. Read more

During Wednesday’s press briefing, Tony Snow implied that James Comey’s testimony was somehow inaccurate, claiming he “gave his side of what transpired that day.” Today, spokesman Tony Fratto suggests Comey may have been “out of line” for discussing a classified program:

Q If you won’t comment on that issue because of the classified nature of the program on which it was focused, it seems like you might think that Comey was out of line in discussing it.

MR. FRATTO: You can draw conclusions.

Q I mean, is there any possibility that Mr. Comey will be charged with divulging classified information for discussing this? I mean, if the President is not willing to discuss this, and it’s improper to do so, then wasn’t it improper for Mr. Comey to discuss this?

MR. FRATTO: I think that would be a question for the Department of Justice.

“It’s important for any public official to have as much confidence as he can garner,” says White House spokesman Tony Fratto. “And that’s going to ebb and flow, but it will not ebb and flow with this President and this Attorney General.”

When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales first testified to Congress about the U.S. attorney scandal on April 19, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) reacted with indignation, telling Gonzales that “the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.”

But now, despite the variety of reasons for Gonzales to resign, Coburn appears to have backed away from his stern approach to Gonzales. Asked today whether Coburn would support a vote of “no confidence” for Gonzales, Coburn’s spokesman John Hart said no, calling the measure “a silly partisan stunt.” Hart said:

However, some Republican senators who have called on Mr. Gonzales to resign said they would not vote for Mr. Schumer’s no-confidence measure.

“If that were brought to the floor, I think Dr. Coburn would bring a vote to the floor calling for a vote of no confidence in Congress’ ability to balance the budget,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican.

Mr. Coburn told Mr. Gonzales in a public hearing last month that the attorney general should resign, but Mr. Hart said the senator thinks Mr. Schumer’s no-confidence measure is “a silly partisan stunt.”

If Sen. Coburn really had the courage of his conviction that “the best way to put this behind us” is for Gonzales to resign, then he would support the “no confidence” vote, which is a reasonable move towards creating a Gonzales-free Justice Department.

Digg It!

about vetoing troop pay raises and benefits for military widows.