Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.
Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam’s dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link.
“We have stated numerous times that no U.S. attorney was removed to retaliate against or inappropriately interfere with any public corruption investigation or prosecution,” he wrote. “This remains the case and there is no evidence that indicates otherwise.”
Well, she might be. Meanwhile, the right-wing blogosphere is still unable to prove definitively that Dan Rather is not the Queen of the Space Unicorns.
Waxman melts down as Toensing defines “covert” as a matter of law.
So, the Justice Department fired Lam for going after someone in the CIA, because of Bush’s cozy relations with the Agency.
The investigation was of Kyle Foggo, appointed by Goss, a Bush appointee. Hrmmmm. Cozy.
Foggo’s home was apparently searched on May 12, 2006 by Federal agents. Foggo was indicted on February 13, 2007. On whom was Lam supposed to be executing search warrants?
Someone in this story seems to be a tranny. Or at least, tri-sexual.
(via clarice feldman)
Someone needs to get back to work on the Grand Unified Field Conspiracy Theory, stat.
Currently when all the variables are fed into Deep Blue, it answers with a graphic that closely resembles Alan Colmes right nostril in extreme close up.
That can’t be right, can it?
Foggo. The article you linked said:
“Feinstein said Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin “Dusty” Foggo, who’d resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA.”
Two days later, his home was searched. In the intervening day, we have Sampson’s “real problem” email. Just a cozy coincidence.
Emmadine, I made a joke about an upcoming massive earthquake on the afternoon of October 17, 1989.
Just a cozy coincidence?
You know how they say that animals can sense an earthquake coming…
Depends. Were you in contact with Karl Rove prior to that date?
Lam was going after the top political appointees in the CIA, like Foggo and Porter Goss, who were both Bush loyalists. Whatever the sentiment of the agency as a whole, the political appointees at the top were closely connected to the administration, as most top appointees are. I can’t wait until Gonzales resigns and you start telling us about what a maverick loose cannon he was.
Lam was going after the top political appointees in the CIA, like Foggo and Porter Goss, who were both Catholics. Whatever the sentiment of the agency as a whole, the Catholic appointees at the top were closely connected to the administration, as most top appointees are. I can’t wait until Gonzales resigns and you start telling us about what a maverick loose Catholic he was.
Point being that you don’t provide any reason for Lam to go after Foggo and Goss. You do however, feel constrained to point out that they were Bush loyalists. Now I know this is not where you were going with this – that Lam was going after them for being Bush loyalists – but substituting another affiliation for Bush loyalist does illustrate the logical disconnect in your statement.
BTW: I have no idea whether they are Catholics or Zoroastrians. I do know it’s a stretch to call Goss a Bush loyalist though.
Oh, c’mon JPT. “Bush loyalist” is a tag that can be pasted on practically anyone who doesn’t reflexively hawk a loogie at the Prez.
Goes without saying. I wouldn’t see any disconnect in what Badger said if he’d seen fit to mention the real reason Lam was going after Foggo and the fact that initiative has been ongoing despite the issue of Lam’s tenure. Badger’s point is very difficult to pick out.
You know, this particular trope seems to have more facets than a disco ball. At first, Lam was shitcanned for going after Jerry Lewis, wasn’t she?
Wake me when the ball stops spinning. I can’t keep up with it.
JPT:
Sorry if my point wasn’t clear. Dan Collins was trying to argue that, because the CIA is viewed as being a bunch of disloyal liberals by the White House, there’s no way they would tell DOJ to get rid of Lam for investigating top CIA officials.
My point is that the CIA officials being investigated were, like most top political appointees, Administration loyalists and the White House had a strong interest in discouraging their prosecution.
The fact that the investigation continued after Lam’s dismissal is unsurprising. The investigation already had way too much momentum to be stopped without unfathomable political consequences. But if you’re a USA somewhere in America and you catch wind of crimes perpetrated by people with close ties to the Bush Administration you get the message loud and clear: This Investigation Could End Your Career.
Far be it to take issue with you and your … very fine hat, but of the investigation was going to continue anyway, why bother firing her?
“…even though your successor will be able to continue the investigation unmolested.”
Coupla things:
I don’t see that at all. But it’s Dan’s prerogative to respond.
You would be on less shaky ground applying this logic if the accusations were of political nature. Short form – Foggo is accused of corruption, accepting bribes for political favors. There’s no reason, and more importantly to your argument, there is no indication, none, that Administration loyalists and/or the White House had any interest in discouraging his prosecution. That simply makes no sense. Another point to make is that Goss is not suspected of collusion in the bribery. It’s misleading to say ‘their’ prosecution. The fallout concerning Goss’ is limited to questions of poor judgement in elevating Foggo to 3rd man at the CIA.
There isn’t any such message. The message is to support the emphasized legal initiatives of the administration that appointed you or find another job. This is the same message implicant in every appointment of a USA by any administration. Any USA who doesn’t get the right message at this point is doesn’t understand that Lam’s prosecution of Foggo is an entirely separate matter is dumber than a rock.
read:
Any USA who doesn’t get the right message at this point AND doesn’t understand that Lam’s prosecution of Foggo is an entirely separate matter is dumber than a rock.
Jeez, this isn’t complicated. How many USAs are going to want to sacrifice their careers for the sake of one corruption investigation. Maybe the fact that it will continue offers some consolation for their political suicide, but exactly how many lawyers out there do you think are like that? And even if it’s true that the promise of a continuting investigation will make USAs want to do such a thing, is it at all compatible with American democracy for only those prosecuting the political allies of the President to face such consequences?
The White House doesn’t have an interest in its top political appointees being charged with bribery? It doesn’t have a strong incentive to avoid political embarassment by making sure such crimes aren’t investigated? Somehow I doubt you would make similar statements if we were talking about Bill Clinton firing Mike Espy’s prosecutor.
That’s funny. Last I checked public corruption was a top FBI priority. Are you really saying that the Bush Administration fired the USA’s because they were uncovering too much political corruption as if that supposed to make some kind of sense? And the DOJ brass never got around to informing any of the USAs of this until after they were gone? And that they not only didn’t tell the problematic USAs that they were on the bubble, but gave many of them positive performance evaluations?
And even if that is a valid principle: what of the fact that the only USAs with such “misplaced priorities” were the ones investigating Republicans? We’re just supposed to believe that this is a coincidence? This doesn’t strike you as something resembling the legal system of a third-world country?
Well, Foggo’s going to jail. Good.
What do you make of this? Or this? Or this?
So what’s the message again, Badger? It’s suicide to open a politically sensitive investigation, and to work it until its momentum is too great to stop?
Because the fascists in the Bush Administration won’t do any damn thing to you before the momentum gets unstoppable?
Until people start asking, you know, questions.
Logic 101
The whole paragraph containing this statement only holds together if you accept this statement at face value. Since there’s no reason to believe this based on factual evidence, the rest of the paragraph can be discarded as based on a faulty premise.
I would expect the same interest in well-founded charges of bribery in appointees left over from the prior administration. If you asking does it make them uncomfortable that Foggo was appointed on their watch I’d have to say yes. The implied connection between this attitude and firing Lam still hasn’t been made.
This is a presumption. Again, there is no factual support for the statement.
I would not presume that he did to deflect a criminal investigation unless there were factual evidence of same.
Sorry, but the process it takes to arrive at your interpretation of “The message is to support the emphasized legal initiatives of the administration that appointed you or find another job.” is something I can’t quite grasp.
I’m afraid that this fares far beyond the realm of logical inconsistency and fallacy and into the realm of either making things up or parroting things you’ve read in some echo chamber as facts without any attempt at verification.
And so, on that note, into the Bozo bin you go.
But they’ll happily risk political embarrassment by axing the prosecutor who opened the investigation?
You really havgen’t thought this through, have you?
Who appointed Lam?
I’m not assuming, as you apparently do, that the top DOJ officials are monitoring every investigation by every USA office in order to be able to kill investigations early on. In this instance it seems apparent that they became aware of the implications of Lam’s investigations snowballing and picking up bigger fish, like Rep. Jerry Lewis, when they read it in the LA Times, a point at which, yes, there was too much momentum to just kill the investigation outright. What they could do, though, was to remove Lam, cripple her career by claiming it was for non-existant performance reasons, and make sure that the other USAs got the message loud and clear that collecting GOP scalps was incompatable with keeping your job.
You’re right that this was hardly the perfect crime, but our nation’s prisons are filled with people who didn’t think things through enough. And keep in mind that they came damn close to escaping scrutiny. Many MSMers are now admitting that if it hadn’t been for left-wing blogs keeping the story alive and making connections that it would have passed relatively unnoticed.
Spare me the pedantry. You are ignoring the context. McGhee’s argument already accepted the premise by arguing that it was inconsistent with the fact that the investigations were pursued to convictions. Therefore, in responding to his critique of my argument, I can reiterate my premise, without specific justification, in order to address his alledged inconsistencies.
I need “factual support” to demonstrate something that is a basic political reality? Presidents and all leaders have an incentive to sweep politically embarassing or inconvenient things (such as a felony investigation of a top political appointee) under the rug. That’s simply true. They don’t necessarily do it as often as they’d like to, because the Founding Fathers had enough foresight to anticipate this and ensure that there were institutions (Congress, free press) in place capable of uncovering such concealment.
Your inability to address my question in any way beyond ad homenim attacks only demonstrates the weakness of your own.
Dan,
I assume you’re referring to the argument that Lam didn’t have jurisdiction over the Jerry Lewis investigation. The Lewis investigation had spun off from Lam’s investigation of Cunningham and Wilkes (Wilkes was connected to Lewis). The fact that Lam’s investigation was snowballing into the jurisdictions of other USAs gave the White House/DOJ more of a reason to get rid of her, not less.
Really? Lam was investigating Jerry Lewis? Wow, I thought that was that OTHER Asian US Attorney in California. Guess they look alike to you, eh?
Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but you seem to be really, really far behind the information curve.
Right. Be more careful after the milk is spilled; that’s the ticket.
Ah, I think I see, now. Badger is evidently of the opinion that where there’s dirt, there’s more dirt. And that where there’s dirt, it’s dirt that Bush doesn’t want turned up.
Fine. I don’t agree, and I think that such suppositions are almost entirely 100% opinion. In other words, not worth arguing, either way.
Slartibartfast,
Christ, will you just read what I wrote? I am aware that Lam wasn’t spearheading the Lewis investigation. That’s why I said:
…in response to an article stating that, indeed, it was a different CA USA who was pursuing Lewis. However, this investigation came about because of the links between Wilkes and Lewis, and Wilkes was put in prison by Carol Lam. Therefore, her investigation was “snowballing” into “bigger fish” and providing either top DOJ officials or top White House officials plenty of reason to punish her and let the remaining USAs know that toppling Republican dominoes is not in their job description.
You’re more than welcome to criticize me for mixed metaphors though.
Yeah, yeah. I read it right after I posted about three posts in a row, one of which I was writing when you posted that last bit about Lam. Sosume.
Upthread, it was entirely unclear that you were aware of that fact, though.
Anyway, my apologies. Insults and claws retracted.
Still, all of those cause-and-effect relationships reside, to date, mostly between your ears. I think you’ve convinced yourself, but it’s a bit more of a stretch to convince me.
I am addressing the context. Repeatedly in each of my comments. You are trying to draw a conclusions from an anecdotal premise and run with it. One single sentence sums it up. “How many USAs are going to want to sacrifice their careers for the sake of one corruption investigation. “.
One more time. You have NO factual basis for implying that Lam’s dismissal is because she was investigating Foggo. You haven’t presented any. You haven’t tried to support your premise. You want us to presume it is factual and address your reasoning based on that premise accordingly. As long as you cling to the presumption that Lam went down because she was investigating Foggo any conclusions you draw from that premise are not arrived at by either deductive or inductive reasoning. It’s logically impossible for a conclusion to be demonstrably true based on a premise that can’t be supported.
It makes the rest of your arguments logically suspect. It makes the position you took in your first comment in the thread suspect (as I pointed out in my first comment in the thread.) As long as you base your positions on false supposition, it makes your positions in every comment on the subject suspect.
Focus. You need factual support that Lam went down because she was investigating Foggo. That’s the question you have refused to support from the start. Provide that factual support first. Then declaim on causal relationship to political realities.
Look up what an ad homenim is for starters – I am not attacking the messenger. I am pointing out that the message – ‘…only USAs with such “misplaced priorities†were the ones investigating Republicans’ – has absolutely no basis in reality. You jumped from an unsupported claim that one USA went down because she was investigating Foggo, to claiming that all the USAs in question went down because they were investigating Republicans. And I’m supposed to address that as a reasonable statement. And if I don’t, it’s because I know my position is weak? You, on the other hand, can demand that statement be taken at face value. Nope. I don’t have the requirement of proving your premise(s) false in order to initiate debate. You have to support your premise(s) in order to bring them into debate. Pointing out that I don’t consider them worth addressing as long as you won’t, don’t and can’t support your premise(s), but insist on using them to support your position, is not ad homenim.
JPT
There is plenty of “factual evidence” for what I am arguing.
It is a fact that Carol Lam was investigating Foggo.
It is a fact that this investigation was politically embarrassing to the White House.
It is a fact that Carol Lam was pushed out of her job by the Bush Administration in a virtually unprecedented manner, given that she had committed no serious misconduct.
It is a fact that on the day the LA Times reported the investigation of Jerry Lewis, a very powerful Republican congressman, the DOJ CoS sent out an e-mail arguing that Lam’s term not be renewed (as is customary) but that she posed a “real problem”.
It is a fact that Lam had received positive performance reviews from DOJ prior to her dismissal and had never been informed on any issues with her performance prior to being pushed out.
It is a fact that Lam was one of several USAs dismissed around the same, many of whom also had positive performance reviews, who the White House claims were dismissed for poor performance. Most of these USAs had been involved in actions what were politically unfavorable to the Republican Party.
Does all this amount to an open-and-shut case? No. Is it possible that there’s an innocent explanation for all of this? I guess. But does the pattern established by the facts make such an explanation unlikely? Definitely. Does the White House’s inability to stick to a single explanation for the firings also indicate that their true motives were not publicly defensible? Yes.
You seem to be confusing the premise of my argument and the argument itself. Either way, in my initial post, dismissing Dan Collins’ theory that Bush wouldn’t have any reason to have a problem with a USA investigating top CIA political appointees, Lam being fired for political reasons is not a necessary premise. It’s absurd to think that, just because the rank-and-file of the CIA is (supposedly) disloyal to the Bush Administration, doesn’t mean that the Bush Administration doesn’t have an interest in discouraging the indictment of its political appointees at the top.
Rhetoric 101
Accusing someone of arguing dishonestly or plagarizing their argument and them calling them a “Bozo” is an ad homenim argument.
Unless of course they really are arguing dishonestly, or plagiarizing their argument.
Your list does not begin to support the conclusion that Lam went down for investigating Foggo. Not even close. Not just not open and shut. Ludicrous under the most casual application of common sense.
The Bozo bin is an expression meaning ignore from this point on – does not make serious arguments.
McGehee,
Uh huh. Of course since you’re not a mindreader you’d never really be in a position to truthfully make such an accusation. Wouldn’t be “factual”.
Just another lazy excuse for having no argument to make. That’s exactly what a fallacy is.
And where are the “facts” for your argument anyway? I don’t see you offering any plausible explanations for DOJ’s actions here, even though I left the door wide open for you. it’s just “doesn’t even begin to” “ludicrous” and “bozo bin” from you. And I thought making well backed-up arguments was so important to you.
Keep reading that over and over badger, eventually it might start to soak in.
Did I make an accusation or an observation?
Why are you accusing me of making an accusation?
I did my best to post an ambiguous response to an ambiguous statement. Why are you accusing me of accusing you?
I already did. At 9:42am in this thread. Very plausible. Agrees with the DOJ position.
You didn’t like my explanation. Too simple. Too common sensical. Too logical. Doesn’t pander to BDS. So you ranged further and further into supposition. (Did drop the Goss claim though). And ended up here:
the statement that caused me to dismiss you as not interested in making a serious argument.
It’s a asinine claim. Fantasy, pure and simple. Devoid of any scintilla of truth. Can’t be supported. In short, you pulled it out of your ass.
Is it, now? You know this how, exactly?
So let’s see… Lam’s four-year term was up; she was serving at the pleasure of the President. She was eventually asked to resign. This is completely routine.
When Clinton came into office, he fired all the US attorneys, including those who were still in their four-year term. This was completely unprecedented.
Which one does the left shrug off? Which one does the left declare an unparalleled scandal?
JPT:
The explanation you offered at 9:42 doesn’t match up with the facts of the case, especially the positive performance reviews and lack of prior notification.
Lam was denied a second USA term in an 8-year presidency, which is extremely rare for a USA not who isn’t caught doing something embarassing to his or her office. E-mails show that this was not simply a routine denial, as Kyle Sampson, the DOJ CoS, referred to her as a “real problem” the day after her investigation’s expansion into other CA GOP reps hit the newspaper.
You know, hearing this old “Clinton Did It To” defense does force me to compliment Slartibartfast and JPT, who obviously know better than to keep trying to peddle this tired line. Clinton did the same thing that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all did at, in one form or another, at the beginning of their Presidencies. However, removing a select group of USAs in the middle of a term, USAs that the President himself had appointed in the first place, has never happened before, except in cases of gross misconduct. Kyle Sampson himself admits this in the released e-mails.
Again, you know this how?
Oh. If Kyle Sampson says it, it must be true. He’s an amateur archivist, you know.
Until recently, Kyle Sampson was the Chief of Staff for the United States Department of Justice. He can be reliably cited as an authority in the personnel practices of DOJ for the last few decades, especially in e-mails not intended for public consumption. In fact, I can think of few sources as uniquely qualified.
You want to say Mr. Sampson and I are wrong? Fine. Just find one example of a scandal-free USA being removed from office by the President who appointed him or her in the middle of their term. Bonus points if they were involved in politically sensitive investigations at the time. Admittedly, even if you found one, you’d have to find 6 or 7 to argue that Bush’s actions are truly precedented, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
You want to say that you’re right? Fine. Prove it.
Part of the job description, is it, that Sampson be versed in why USAs have, in the past, been replaced? By other Presidents? You’re reaching, here.
If you can’t even be brought around to admitting that top DOJ officials are likely be familiar with the USA hiring and dismissal practices of prior DOJs I don’t see any point to wasting any time trying to prove anything more complicated.
I’ve laid out my arguments and the facts and I’ve yet to see anyone here do anything but complain about me not “proving” it. Because I haven’t posted a youtube link yet of AG twirling a moustache and plotting to undermine American democracy. I laid out a set of facts and put forward a theory that would account for all of those facts. No one else here has proposed a theory that is not directly refuted by those facts.
Yes, because it’s the DoJ that makes the hiring/firing decisions. Got it.
And the chief of staff of the DoJ? An anal-retentive amateur archivist who’s absolutely, dependably accurate when he’s not a lying sack of shit. Got that, too.
Bunk. You haven’t made anything resembling a causal relationship between the indictments and Lam’s dismissal. Break the causality assumption and you still have a theory, minus causation, that’s not refuted by the facts.
But, hey, you have yourself convinced, and that’s evidently all that’s required in debate.
Nope. Because you continue to champion a presumption you arrived at based on a premise that even you admit is only a best fit as long as one discards the DOJ position. Like I told you before, you can’t arrive at a demonstrably true conclusion using deductive reasoning if you can’t prove the premises you use along the way.
No, you laid out a set of suppositions based on your interpretation of events, not facts. There’s a huge difference. Because you just know that the overt explanation of the DOJ can’t be true, your interpretation dismisses that explanation. A position that discards inconvenient data in order to stay internally consistent is opinion, not theory. Opinions are all well and good, but if you can’t support them with empirical data, and moreover discard inconvenient data, they remain just that, opinion at best.
You’re demanding that the other debaters provide facts to counter your opinion. The response is to repeatedly point out that the overt DOJ explanation of their motives has more currency than your interpretation of their motives – your opinions that you insist are facts. You dismiss the rejoinder that you should have to defend your position with more than supposition.
Well, yes, they have. Here it is again. The USAs were dismissed because they were not addressing the administration’s emphasis on what they perceived as public concern. Your rejection of their account of their reasoning doesn’t refute it when your position is based on the supposition that their motives must be something other than what they say as long as one accepts your interpretation of their motives at face value.
Let’s take a look at some of the observations you made that you feel should be accepted as the factual underpinning for your position.
“It is a fact that Carol Lam was investigating Foggo.”
Yes it is. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It was not the only investigation she was handling. In other words, unless it were the only investigation she were conducting, or there’s some evidence that it was the reason she was dismissed, it’s merely an observation.
“It is a fact that this investigation was politically embarrassing to the White House.”
One has the presuppose this. Since Foggo was appointed by Goss, not the White House, it’s more accurately framed as politically embarrassing to the CIA.
“It is a fact that Carol Lam was pushed out of her job by the Bush Administration in a virtually unprecedented manner, given that she had committed no serious misconduct.”
The timing is not the usual to be sure. But the given you attach to it to qualify it is irrelevant. USAs are dismissed en masse at the start of any new administration for reasons that have nothing to do with misconduct. The assumption that standard is the only one applied in reappointing USAs during the course of an administration has far less currency than the assumption that the the original appointment standards were applied – that the USA emphasize the administrations legal initiatives.
“It is a fact that on the day the LA Times reported the investigation of Jerry Lewis, a very powerful Republican congressman, the DOJ CoS sent out an e-mail arguing that Lam’s term not be renewed (as is customary) but that she posed a “real problemâ€Â.”
Which problem you believe must be related to the investigation based on the ambiguous content and the timing of one email despite other emails in the same time period addressing concerns about Lam not emphasizing administration initiatives.
“It is a fact that Lam had received positive performance reviews from DOJ prior to her dismissal and had never been informed on any issues with her performance prior to being pushed out.”
Performing well as a prosecutorial manager does not equate to emphasizing a current administration initiatives. That’s true whether it’s a USA, or a DA in NYC.
“It is a fact that Lam was one of several USAs dismissed around the same, many of whom also had positive performance reviews, who the White House claims were dismissed for poor performance.”
This is the core of the controversy surrounding McNulty and Gonzales. McNulty and Gonzales are likely history soon. Their choice of terminology leaves them open to the charge of poor communication, but that’s all at this point. That’s been corrected in subsequent releases to qualify that the poor performance should be understood to mean not emphasizing administration initiatives, not the application of the USAs talents as prosecutors.
“Most of these USAs had been involved in actions what were politically unfavorable to the Republican Party.”
Undoubtedly one could find current investigations in those jurisdictions concerning criminal wrongdoings by republican, democrats, and independents. There is no reason to presuppose that one is more relevant than another unless one is predisposed to assume endemic paranoia on the part of the administration.
In short, you’re doing no more than recasting a set of isolated observations to support your interpretation of their relevancy to your position, filtering out interpretations that don’t, and claiming that you’ve then presented facts that require refutation or concession. I’ve been watching this thing unfold, and so far there’s nothing to support your theory being anything more than a flight of fancy.