Charges of political interference in U.S. attorney firings not reported by networks' evening newscasts
SUMMARY: Many
news reports on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys
have suggested
political interference in the justice system, but none of the broadcast networks' evening news programs
has even mentioned the
case.
In December 2006, the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys and reportedly replaced several of them with interim appointments drawn from the administration's "inner circle." Three of the dismissed prosecutors were, according to a March 1 Washington Post article, "conducting corruption probes involving Republicans" when they were asked to step down, while another has claimed that, in mid-October 2006, he felt pressure to speed up an investigation involving local Democrats. Many news reports have suggested political interference in the justice system, and the House of Representatives issued subpoenas to four of the fired prosecutors on March 1. However, none of the broadcast networks' evening news programs -- ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, and NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams -- has even mentioned the case in the past three months, according to a search of the Nexis news database and a review of the programs' March 2 broadcasts.*
One of the dismissed prosecutors, Carol Lam in San Diego, was investigating allegations of corruption stemming from the bribery case involving former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA). That investigation recently resulted in indictments against defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who face charges including wire fraud and bribery. In addition, David C. Iglesias, formerly the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, has alleged that two members of Congress -- reportedly Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) -- "attempted to pressure him to speed up a probe of Democrats just before the November elections."
Initially, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales claimed that each U.S. attorney had been fired for reasons related to their performance in their jobs. But, as Media Matters for America noted, at a February 6 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty conceded that performance played no role in at least one case: the forced resignation of H.E. "Bud" Cummins III as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Cummins was replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, a former research director for the Republican National Committee and aide to White House senior adviser Karl Rove. As Media Matters noted, Griffin has since said he will not seek Senate confirmation for the permanent post, although a recent change in U.S. law allows Griffin -- and all "temporary" replacements for the other fired U.S. attorneys -- to continue as an "interim" U.S. attorney until the president decides to replace him.
Lam, meanwhile, was replaced by the executive assistant U.S. attorney in her district, Karen Hewitt. According to a February 26 New York Times column by assistant editorial page editor Adam Cohen, Hewitt's résumé "shows almost no criminal law experience, but includes her membership in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group."
Moreover, as Media Matters noted, a February 14 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that "at least five of [the U.S. attorneys] received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down." For example, a February 8 Seattle Times article reported that one of the fired U.S. attorneys, John McKay, of the Western District of Washington, received a "glowing performance review" from the Justice Department seven months before he was forced out. " 'McKay is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader of the [U.S. attorney's office] and the District's law enforcement community,' the team of 27 Justice Department officials concluded, according to a copy of their final report obtained by The Seattle Times."
More recently, a March 2 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that, in mid-October 2006, Domenici and Wilson called Iglesias to "press [him] for details" of a "federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator," according to unnamed sources. McClatchy reported that Iglesias believes he was fired because "he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment," and he provided further details about his allegations in a March 1 interview on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. As the McClatchy article noted, Wilson was, at the time, "in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast." As noted by the weblog TPMmuckraker.com, Iglesias confirmed that, in "an e-mail to a friend," he "described his dismissal as a political 'fragging,' " according to a February 28 Albuquerque Tribune article.
On March 1, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Iglesias, Lam, Cummins, and McKay, ordering them to testify at a March 6 hearing before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
A March 3 Washington Post article reported that "[t]he White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys" -- apparently excluding Cummins' termination -- "late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues," according to "White House and Justice Department officials." According to the article, officials said the actions were "part of a routine process" and that, despite previous assertions that the firings were "performance-related," "the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter." The list of whom to fire was reportedly "based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers." The article also reported that, according to Domenici's office, the senator specifically complained to the Justice Department about Iglesias -- though without commenting on Iglesias' allegation of pressure.
*March 2 broadcast review was conducted by reading the March 2 Factiva transcripts for World News and the CBS Evening News, and watching the video of the March 2 Nightly News. Nexis database search was for December 2, 2006 to March 1, 2007, in the "ABC News Transcripts," "NBC News" and "CBS News Transcripts" sources for "show(Nightly News or World News or Evening News) and (Iglesias or U.S. Attorney or US Attorney or Cummins or Griffin or subpoena! or (Carol w/2 Lam!) or (Heather w/2 Wilson) or (Pete! w/2 Domenici) or McNulty or prosecutor or Cummins or McKay)"

















Of course they didn't report on the possible political motivations for the removal of these attorneys. Lapdog replacements will keep the media conglomorates' misdeeds and derelictions from greater possible scrutiny.
This is all going to end up like Watergate. Just before the real investigations get results and the secret deeds of this administration are exposed, pardons all around.
Just like Watergate
Wrong scandal. There was only one pardon involved in the Watergate scandal: Richard Nixon. This is more like Iran-Contra, where pardons were handed out to all those who lost their appeals. Oliver North and John Poindexter's convictions were tossed because of the ill-advised grant of limited immunity by the Congressional committee investigating Iran Contra. Former SecDef Caspar Weinberger and five others drew pardons (lobbied for by Sen. Bob Dole), thus ending the matter.
I know why...
None of 'em were a dead blonde ex-Playmate.
That's why.
Or, maybe the corporate MSM owners are scared schitless of AG Alberto.
I'm sure he's got a file on them. Wonder if he likes women's fashions too?
MSM will ignore this
Since it has nothing to do with Anna Nicole.
The nuts and bolts of governmental "systems" are beyond the average joe. Nothing to see here, move along, is how the media treats these complex and ultimately unsavory elements of political power. Fighting the power means the power will come down on them, as Drafted succinctly put it.
This is the most corrupt administration ever
PERIOD!
I could be getting my corruption scandals mixed up, but is the only reason they are able to pull off these shenanigans is because of a provision slipped into the Patriot Act?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/ap/politics/mainD8NJ46H80.shtml
Good memory. Politics as usual. The Dems would do it if they had the chance.
The Dems would do it if they had the chance.- leatherhelmet
Ladies and Gentlemen, the astounding speculating out of his tar-hole clairvoyant act of Leatherhelmet!
"The Dems would do it if they had the chance."
Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the Republicans did do it... and in their usual heavy-handed way.
So many of these Republicans remind me of the infamous (and now geriatric) Al Davis, the slimey owner of the NFL Oakland Raiders who cultivated the thuggish image the Raiders once had... Davis' motto: "Just win, baby!"
If we're on this web site, we probably already know how the corporate-controlled media betrays the trust of the American people. The problem is too many Americans don't yet realize how bad the situation is.
That's why I'd like to appeal to MediaMatters readers to share this web site with their friends and family.... and to support the work of MediaMatters, Democracy Now!, and their local community radio stations.
* * * "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Meade
Another step is possible, and possibly more direct in addressing the problem (aside from my frequent rants to damage Corporations in general): get behind, get your like-minded friends behind - MORA*!
The Corporate Media Monolith is real; the minor cosmetic differences among the outlets are exactly cosmetic, and minor. The message is uniform, regardless of the gender of the messenger, and is always that those who support the Corporate Media (and by extension, the Corporations) are good people, and will be rewarded; those who oppose are terrorists, or at least liberals, and must be destroyed, since they are too dumb to be persuaded. The only hope for change, for avoidance of the constant repetition of this media assault on our freedoms, is to break up that monolithic creation, and MORA* is probably the best tool to do that.
*Media Ownership Reform Act, submitted annually for at least four years through 2006, by Rep. Hinchley, D-NY. Not yet submitted in 2007 - a call or letter to Rep. Hinchley might serve to hasten that happy day. (The letter per day that *I* send might not so serve, after 60 or so iterations.)
The story will get out... eventually.
Long after Bush has left office some former insider will write a book revealing all the sordid details... meanwhile Bush and Cheney will be giving speeches for about a million dollars a pop. No one will give a shiet except a few outraged burned-out liberals... and American Idol will still reign supreme What a great country...!
And the Judicial Branch will be stocked with good Neocon zombies.
Those attorneys who actually try to prosecute crimes- they're as bad as them "activist judges". You know , the ones who actively use their judgement.
George Bush, paid speaker -
considering his amazingly articulate command of the English Language, somehow, I find that to be very, very funny. I just cannot say I can imagine someone paying Bush to speak. I mean, the man cannot even say NUCLEAR. To this day, I am embarassed that this man is the President of this country. Absolutely, completely embarassed - not so much for me - I didn't vote for him - but embarassed that so many did.
"considering his amazingly articulate command of the English Language"
All part of his appeal... besides in Republicoworld you're probably considered a "f4ggot" if you talk too pretty.
MEDIANE said:
"That's why I'd like to appeal to MediaMatters readers to share this web site with their friends and family.... and to support the work of MediaMatters, Democracy Now!, and their local community radio stations. "
The problem seems to be that everyone has either gotten really cynical about this whole thing, or thinks it sounds way too ridiculus to be even remotely true:
"There's the far left, ranting again!"
"There's that silly Nader, running for President again!"
"There's that German kid [me] with his weird socialist [they'renot] opinions, again!" Have you heard, Mitt Rommney is planning to 'run against France'??! -WTF
Last week, Domenici told the AP “I have no idea what [Iglesias is] talking about.” Then yesterday, Domenici admitted calling Iglesias, but that he "never pressured [Iglesias] nor threatened him in any way.”
Thank you for telling the truth, Pete...I'm satisified. (cough cough)
Well, you have to give the news media a break. After all, there was that guy who dismembered his wife and tried to escape in the snow with no shoes on. Then there was the case of those pot-smoking toddlers caught on tape. How can you expect them to cover ho-hum government corruption when they can carpet-bomb the airwaves with juicy stories like this? I mean...really!
Dog bites man...?
Maybe Republican corruption is so commonplace it just isn't news anymore. Ever hear that maxim from Journalism 101 that goes something like this? "Dog bites man" is not newsworthy. "Man bites dog" is newsworthy. ;>)
Perhaps the reason the big networks are not playing this up could be that it is a non-story? Sounds like media bias from other media players who are making a big deal of it. This line from the cited CBS article sums it up:
Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired for any reason _ or none at all.
Gray, that's absolutely true... they all serve at the pleasure of the President. However, it's the degree that ideological purity and strict party allegiance are prerequisites for appointment by the White House that annoys. When people were interviewed for civilian positions in the rebuilding of Iraq party allegiance and ideological purity were reortedly required. What difference did an applicant's stand on abortion have to do with rebuilding Iraq? According to published reports, many young, inexperienced Republicans with great Republican Party credentials and family ties were selected to important positions although their actual qualifications were more than just suspect.
But in this particular matter of prosecutors being replaced there is allegedly an added, more sinister element. Was any prosecutor replaced, in reality, for being too enthusiastic in prosecuting Republican politicians, or for not being enthusiastic enough in prosecuting Democratic politicians? If so, that's problematic because there's that pesky Constitutional thing about separation of powers.
How is separation of powers an issue when the prosecutors in question are employees of the Executive Branch and the President, at whose pleasure they serve, is head of the Executive Branch? These are not independent prosecutors or judges so I do not see that separation of powers is an issue. What I am looking at here is a strict legal perspective, not "how it looks."
Two points to consider: