It’s been a fairly eventful afternoon for the purge scandal; let’s consider the latest news.<\/p>\n
* Bush is scheduled to address the controversy at 5:45pm (eastern). CNN reports<\/a>, however, that we shouldn’t expect too much in the way of actual news: “What is expected from the president is that he will say that Attorney General Gonzales has his full, unyielding support.”<\/p>\n * Karl Rove is apparently getting a little touchy<\/a> about the ongoing affair. Rove accompanied Bush during a visit to a GM plant in Missouri this afternoon, and a reporter asked the advisor what he thought about rumors that former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth could replace embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “How about you go over there and do your job,” Rove replied, pointed back to the media pool.<\/p>\n * Here’s the letter<\/a> from White House counsel Fred Fielding on the Bush gang’s no-oath, no-transcript, no-camera offer to congressional Democrats. The “interviews,” Fielding said “should be conducted, if needed, only after Congress has heard from Department of Justice officials about the decision to request the resignations of the U.S. Attorneys.”<\/p>\n * Neither Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) think much<\/a> of Fielding’s offer.<\/p>\n * The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has a new report which should put to rest the “Clinton did it” argument once and for all: Bush’s purge is without precedent<\/a> in U.S. history. As CAP’s Scott Lilly explained: “It is clear that of the four administrations that controlled the executive branch of government during the past quarter-century, only the current administration has held the view that U.S. Attorney can or should be removed absent serious cause. In no instance is there any indication of a removal because a U.S. attorney failed to meet certain political criteria, such as prosecuting cases that were considered too sensitive to partisan issues or failing to prosecute cases that would be helpful from a partisan perspective.” * Former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), a month before pleading guilty to accepting bribes, criticized<\/a> U.S. Attorney Carol Lam’s “lax” handling of immigration crimes. Lam was pursuing Cunningham at the time.<\/p>\n
\n
\n* As recently as April 2004, former New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was held in such high regard by his superiors that he was on the short list<\/a> for being promoted to be the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney. An email from Kyle Sampson listed Iglesias among U.S. attorneys who “might be enticed to leave their districts and come to Washington to run EOUSA.” Iglesias, who is Hispanic, appeared on the list as a “diverse up-and-comer; solid.” A year and a half later, Iglesias was fired, allegedly for poor job performance.<\/p>\n