Morris assumed voter fraud as fact in claiming that U.S. attorneys were fired "because they wouldn't prosecute" it
SUMMARY: Dick Morris asserted that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys
"because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud and other crimes." In
fact, two of the fired prosecutors
have said that they
investigated such allegations, but found insufficient evidence to warrant
prosecution or a grand-jury investigation.
On the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris asserted that the Bush administration ousted eight U.S. attorneys "because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud and other crimes." Morris' statement assumes that there was sufficient evidence of voter fraud to warrant prosecution. In fact, two discharged U.S. attorneys who Republicans claim neglected voter-fraud prosecutions both maintain that they investigated such allegations, but found insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution or a grand-jury investigation.
Indeed, Media Matters for America has noted the example of John McKay, former U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington. McKay testified during a House hearing that he did not convene a grand jury to investigate charges of voter fraud in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial race because he and the chief of the Justice Department's Election Crimes branch had conducted a preliminary investigation and determined "there was no evidence of voter fraud." A March 19 Washington Post article reported that the allegations of fraud in the governor's race -- which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by a margin of 129 votes after three recounts -- originated with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative group based in Olympia, Washington, as well as with several Republican leaders.
From McKay's testimony during a March 12 House hearing on the U.S. attorney firings:
McKAY: It is very true that the controversy surrounding the 2004 governor's election was one that had a lot of public debate. I was aware that I was receiving criticism for not proceeding with a criminal investigation. And, frankly, it didn't matter to me what people thought. Like my colleagues, we work on evidence, and there was no evidence of voter fraud or election fraud. And, therefore, we took nothing to the grand jury.
In addition, a March 13 Seattle Times article on the House hearing reported that McKay "wanted to make it clear that he pressed ahead with a preliminary investigation, despite the hesitation of Craig Donsanto, the longtime chief of the Election Crimes branch of the Department of Justice, who ultimately concurred with McKay that no federal crimes had been committed in the election."
Another dismissed prosecutor -- David C. Iglesias, former U.S. attorney for New Mexico -- set up a voter-fraud task force in September 2004. But as the March 19 Post article explained, the task force failed to identify any significant violations, and Iglesias -- in concurrence with the "election-crimes branch of the Justice Department's public integrity section" -- decided to shut down the operation:
In the New Mexico case, two prominent Republican attorneys, Mickey Barnett and Patrick J. Rogers, met last June with [Attorney General Alberto R.] Gonzales's senior counsel, Monica Goodling, to complain that Iglesias was inattentive to voter fraud. Goodling met with them after a colleague sent her a note saying, "It is sensitive -- perhaps you should do it," an internal e-mail exchange shows.
Iglesias said the fraud allegations are baseless. He formed a bipartisan task force to examine possible vote fraud in September 2004 -- two months before that fall's elections -- after hearing reports of "lots of low-level fraud going on. ... I figured where there was smoke, there was fire. I wanted to sound a message: We need to have integrity in our election process."
A toll-free telephone number set up by the task force and operated by the FBI generated about 100 calls, three or four of which involved possible violations, Iglesias said. He said he considered prosecuting one case involving a woman signing up voters who put false information on registrations. But, Iglesias said, the case had "evidence problems" that made it difficult to prove the woman was trying to skew the election's outcome.
He said he conferred with the chief of the election-crimes branch of the Justice Department's public integrity section, who was "very lukewarm. So we kind of, in collaboration ... decided to shut it down."
The Post article also reported that Iglesias was "one of two chief federal prosecutors invited to teach at a 'voting integrity symposium' in October 2005. The symposium was sponsored by Justice's public integrity and civil rights sections and was attended by more than 100 prosecutors from around the country." According to the Post, Iglesias said that "the agency invited him back as a trainer last summer, just months before a Justice official telephoned to fire him."
From the March 19 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Does Gonzales have to resign?
MORRIS: No. I think the administration may want him to resign, but they shouldn't. The administration should show some guts for a change and stand up and say, "We have the right to fire any of these guys. We fired them because they wouldn't prosecute voter fraud and other crimes. It's our right to enforce the president's policy on U.S. attorneys. That's why they're appointed and not civil servants, and you guys can go fly a kite." And that's what the administration should say. Where are their guts?
COLMES: Do you think it's OK to fire attorneys because they're not prosecuting enough Democrats and prosecuting too many Republicans? I know he has the right to do it, but do you think that's a good system?
MORRIS: Because they're not prosecuting whoever the president -- because they're not prosecuting whoever the president wants. We have an appointive system of the Justice Department of prosecutors. And we do it because it's an instrument of presidential policy.
We do it because we want the president to be able to determine what crimes should be prosecuted, which ones are more important than others, and putting in good prosecutors into place. And to second-guess it was like when they tried to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing the secretary of war. It's a congressional outrage. The White House should stand up on this.
HANNITY: And you're right. The Republicans need a backbone here. They serve at the pleasure of the president. They haven't pointed out the double standard. And they're allowing this to become an issue.
MORRIS: Their terms are expired.
HANNITY: I agree.
By failure to investigate voter fraud, Morris was talking about compromised and/or faulty voting machines, illegal voter roll purges and other methods of suppressing or falsifying vote counts, right? Oh, wait...
Did they omit anything here?
I don't recall ever hearing Morris talk on any subject without some kind of Clinton segue.
Or talk about the republican poster girl Coulter well documented voting troubles. Morris is still mad for getting fired by Clinton.
I think where Morris screws up really badly on this is when he speaks about the US Attorneys prosecuting what the Bush administration think is most important crimes. I thought that the US attorneys, although appointed by each different administration, prosecute cases on which they have strong evidence, and or have cases which are indictable. And that they are actually independent of the administration which put them there. If we have an administration politcally manuevering the US attorneys to prosecute this certain case, or that certain case, doesn't that overrule the rule of law?
I understand Bush administration.........But what is this "Rule of law" and how does it apply to our current President?
Are you speaking Arabic or some ancient evil pagan language?
Say, speaking of voter fraud, how's the prosecution of Vote-Fraud Annie going?
You have to love the idea that Morris thinks that Bush should show some "guts." After six years and counting of trampling over the Constitution and the rule of law, Morris says what we need is an administration with the backbone to keep doing it for two more.
Dick,
I don't know what the Clintons did to piss you off, but I think it's time for a little forgiveness and a lot of fact checking.
Randy
Morris is just saying what his new employers are paying him to say. Tom Hartman reported today that new evidence of Republican voter fraud has surfaced in Ohio. I'm sure Gonzo is chomping at the bit to investigate that...right?
The Dick Morris hasn't been right about anything since he chose the wrong pedicurist. Why does he have a voice in anything? Dick toed you so it must be correct, right Sean? Sorry I meant TOLD you, not toed you.
Morris may put his foot in his mouth now and then, but he always promptly replaces it with someone else's.
That was really good.
I was hoping someone would go there. ;->
I thought that the dismissed Attorneys were quiet about this firing until the White House gang began reporting that they "did not meet standards." The lie from the White House brought this to a boiling point
Everyone knows that the reason for even the marginal success of the Democratic Party, even in the second-term mid-terms, was solely due to the 50 million or more, illegals, who unanimously voted Democratic straight tickets, despite the earnest efforts of the Repugnants to purge those - and the felons - from the voter rolls where partisans had ensconced them.
I heard it was 50 billion illegals.
You could be a red-neck! I mean, right!
Actually, the Democratic success was primarily due to Republican ineptness and the Dems won by default as the only alternative. And they will win by default again in 2008 because Republicans are more inept than before. But don't kid yourself into thinking Dems actually gave a majority of people a reason to vote FOR them, other than as the alternative to what we now have.
Perhaps. They have given me no reason to come back to the party. However I have noticed a kind of pendulum effect in politics. They give conservatives a shot, then dont like whats going on give liberals a shot, get fed up and the pendulum swings back. I think that is what we are seeing. What you said is also spin, which could just as easily be described as now that the electorate sees the GOP for what they are they are responding and dont fool yourself that the GOP isnt sinking like rock. The conventional wisdom pushed by the media has always been socially liberal and economically conservative. I think the largest part of Americans see themselves as fiscal conservatives and socially more liberal. The press has been a whole lot harder on Dems than the GOP since about the 80's, I think thats obvious. They never treated Bush like they did Clinton. They never treated Reagan like they treated Carter. Even WITH that advantage the GOP is hurting and I think you are right about 08 it will be hard for any Republican to beat any Democrat. Events can always change things so we will see but I think we will see at least a decade of the GOP as the minority party. Bush has screwed up really badly
True, but that's how the Republicans got power in the first place. Since when has a political party been anything other than inept?
I agree with that Bruce. The last election was not a positive mandate for the Dems, but a rebuke against the Repubs IMO. The danger is when elected leaders mistake votes against the other guy as votes for themselves.
Democrats should accordingly restrict their legislative agenda to issues with broad support if they want to instill some trust in the people who voted for them. I think the Dems are doing a pretty good job so far. Time will tell.
I disagree, this is DNC's talking point. I think they should go with programs that DEFINE their differences with the GOP. I think Americans want a party to LEAD and are willing to give new policies a shot to see if they can make things better. Timidity is not the avenue toward garnering longterm electoral support.
Yesterday a poll came out that gave the new Democratically led congress a 28 percent approval rating. That's right, Bush has better numbers than the Democrats.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/20/poll_approval_rating_of_dem_controlled_congress_sinks_to_28
What was the approval rating of Congress BEFORE the Dems took over? Gotcha.
it was hovering about 11%
Leather, what the poll probably means is that people are disappointed that Congress hasn't figured out a way to get us out of Iraq yet... or impeached Bush.
they won because they ran a bunch of republicans as democrats which is why they can't win a vote on anything.
Another long ago debunked talking point. Do you get paid by the post by the RNC, Skin Chapeau?
Oh yeah republicans like outright liberal Sherrod Brown, Socialist Bernie Sanders, (I know he isnt a dem but EVERYONE knew he would caucus with them) Wellstone protege Amy Klobucher, and not ONE SINGLE LIBERAL incumbent lost an election. Your tired weak talking point has ZERO merit. I urge you to keep repeating it in the vain hope it will magically become true.
I guess Amy Klobucher is next to die in a "mysterious plane crash."
Partially right - everybody knows that it's in the Democrats best interest to keep as many people on the public payroll as possible through government programs, thereby keeping their voting block indebted to their good nature and intact to pulling the lever for the "D" candidates.
If everyone KNOWs that why didnt it work for Bush who has expanded the federal government far beyond any other president? Because it was a dumb rightwing talking point without merit. There are plenty of core Democratic values voters agree with.
Because Iraq defined the last election and Bush's screw-up cost him and his party big time.
Keep pretending the GOP is the party of the people yet there are MORE registered Dems than Republicans. Go figure.
Solon, What are the core Democratic values that most voters agree with?
That we are in this together. That those in need should be helped. That the middle class is the backbone of society and working people should be supported. Both parties have sections of their platforms that resonate with the electorate.
So Tommy, you just got your copy of "Republican Talking Points Manual, 2007" in the mail today?
Is chapter 4, "Explaining how Liberals made up the WMD's in Iraq claim" or is it "How liberals a racist bigots and conservatives care about the poor?"
I asked a simple question, your snarky reply reveals a nerve must have been struck.
No it doesnt becoming annoyed by mindless propaganda repitition is no evidence of a NERVE being struck.
Ask your liberal friend then, because you answered the question. He did not. He went on about talking points, and racism and some other such irrelevant points to debate - when all I did was ask a pointed, simple question.
Obviously he couldn't answer it.
He did answer the question, about democratic core values that most Americans agree with, Tommy. I'll throw in my $0.02 as well:
Reproductive choice, individual rights, civil liberty, the "Safety Net," protecting the middle class, fair trade, environmental stewardship, citizen involvement in government.
That's not accurate. It is a myth that Democrats want bigger government. Under Clinton the federal government shrunk, under Bush it's ballooned. It's also a myth that Democrats want to create a dependent society so they keep getting re-elected. That's just another phony right wing excuse for Democrats popularity, when they are popular that is. I'd concede the past election was more a statement on the current administrations policies and the lack of over sight than core Democratic values. However, the crop of Dems that won do have the qualities that appeal to this Democrat. Health care, job security, other populist themes and of course proper over sight of the executive branch. Let's not forget Democrats controlled congress for many many years before the "Contract on America." Democrats lost their way and perhaps they needed to lose power to get their groove back.
Tommy, despite what the main stream media perpetuates, it is an absolute falsehood that Democrats want bigger government and want to raise taxes to keep power. There isn't any logic behind that assumption.
Partially right - everybody knows that it's in the Democrats best interest to keep as many people on the public payroll as possible through government programs, thereby keeping their voting block indebted to their good nature and intact to pulling the lever for the "D" candidates.
Right. I thought we were elitists? You gotta get your smear straight. Trying to paint us with two diametrically opposite brushes comes off as insanity.
In reality, the people most hurt by Republican policies don't vote in high numbers. They are infected with apathy. That's why there are always a larger portion of the population that identifies as Democrat rather than Republican, even though the elections are closer.
I have to hand it to cons. They've learned how to game the system. They vote more with their dollars than they do with the election lever. The key for Democrats in the future is twofold. First, get more people out to vote. Secondly, Dems need to find a way to counter the huge money machine that is the Republican party. I think under the circumstances, the Dems hold their own very well considering the people their policies are helping don't have a lot of money to contribute to campaigns.
Actually, due to me hitting the wrong button at the wrong time and the fact that I don't have unmoderated posting priveliges yet, what you see above is just a copy of Tommy's misguided RW Talking Point of the second. Eventually what I really wrote should appear.
Short version of the story, we agree, sorry about the confusion caused by my clumsiness.
Sorry, you sarcasm was a little too on-target I guess.
Hannity and Morris- Two peas in a pod.
Every time Morris is on TV they should scroll text over his face that says "will pay to suck your toes." Anybody that would trust anything that comes out of this jackals mouth is suffering from brain damage.
"We do it because we want the president to be able to determine what crimes should be prosecuted, which ones are more important than others, and putting in good prosecutors into place. And to second-guess it was like when they tried to impeach Andrew Johnson for firing the secretary of war. It's a congressional outrage. The White House should stand up on this."
They didn't teach me that in my upstate NY public funded civics class. The president decides what's worthy of prosecution? That's rich. If Colmes had a spine he would have jumped all over such an absolutely absurd and unAmerican remark.
memo to scammity........when a government uses it's justice department to eliminate it's political opponents, it's illegal. done. end of story.
Could someone tell me just how many of the current U.S. Attornies are Bush appointees? Are all of them Bush appointees or did he keep some from the Clinton years?
OH on topic. Morris is an idiot. No credibility at all. Why do they keep using him since he is wrong all the time?
Why do republicans have to rely upon lies all the time?