What have we learned over the last half-day or so about the prosecutor purge scandal? Plenty.<\/p>\n
* We learned a couple of weeks ago that the White House considered a proposal to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Yesterday, NPR explained why<\/a>: “NPR now has new information about that plan. According to someone who’s had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of<\/u>. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.”<\/p>\n * Kyle Sampson testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not have specific replacements in mind for the purged prosecutors. That wasn’t true<\/a>.<\/p>\n * Karl Rove’s top assistant, J. Scott Jennings, told his colleagues in late February, just as the story was breaking, that “[Sen. Domenici’s Chief of Staff Steve] Bell said Domenici’s idea is not to respond [to Iglesias’s accusations], and hopefully make this a one day story. They have already been contacted by McClatchy … They have not confirmed to the reporter they were one of the Members.” Sure enough, Domenici lied to reporters<\/a> the very next day.<\/p>\n * We’ve been following the unjustified prosecution in Wisconsin last year, brought by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic, with great interest<\/a>, and it appears to be an increasingly significant piece of the puzzle. Apparently, Biskupic was slated to be fired<\/a> along with the other purged prosecutors, but mysteriously was able to save his job. <\/p>\n How? There’s ample evidence that he proved himself to be a loyal Bushie by bringing a bogus corruption charge against a low-level bureaucrat in Gov. Doyle’s (D) administration shortly before the election, which is just what Karl Rove and the GOP machine wanted. If it can be proven — and, at this point, the evidence is strong but circumstantial — this would be huge: it’d be direct evidence that the White House was helping dictate partisan prosecutions, without cause, to influence elections.<\/p>\n As Josh Marshall concluded<\/a>, “This will be big.” Another document — internal Justice Department “talking points” about the fired prosecutors — shows that Justice officials used identical language to describe alleged shortcomings in immigration enforcement by two U.S. attorneys. <\/p>\n About Carol S. Lam of San Diego, the memo said: “Regardless of what was done by the office in this area, she failed to tackle this responsibility as aggressively and as vigorously as we expected and needed her to do.” The same sentence was used for David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, except that “her” was replaced with “him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These talking points, apparently written by Monica Goodling, frequently veered into the idiotic. One of the other talking points said that 19 members of Congress “complained about [Lam’s] ‘catch and release’ policies.” That, of course, doesn’t make any sense. As Paul Kiel explained<\/a>, “Catch and release refers to the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of releasing captured aliens with a notice to appear before an immigration judge. It has nothing to do with U.S. attorneys.” Oops.<\/p>\n * The NYT notes that, in addition to the “loyal Bushie” test, the Justice Department judged U.S. Attorneys on blatantly partisan grounds<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.<\/p>\n The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n* When trying to rationalize the decisions to fire these prosecutors, the Bush gang got so lazy they barely changed<\/a> talking points from U.S. Attorney to U.S. Attorney, hoping that one excuse could serve all.<\/p>\n