Patterico’s Assignment Desk
What ever became of those prosecutions the Bush Administration was allegedly trying to affect with the U.S. Attorney’s firings? Were prosecutions against Democrats suddenly jump-started after the firings? Did prosecutions against Republicans die on the vine?
I’m kind of thinking that the answer is no. Career prosecutors are unlikely to have their work affected on a significant ongoing political prosecution by replacing who is in charge of the office.
But the only specific I remember off the top of my head is that Foggo got indicted.
I’m looking for facts and links, folks. Facts and links. If someone, or a collection of you, can compile a good list, with links, I’ll post it.
I know that the comments will likely be filled with arguments about whether it should matter who is in charge, whether the firings ought to have had an effect, were intended to have an effect, and the like. I can’t stop you from making these arguments. But what I’m really asking for is facts and links.
Don’t think of it as laziness on my part. Think of it as a chance to participate!
Although really, it’s just laziness on my part.
P.S. (OK, really, I’m just pressed for time and busy with other things. But it’s funnier to say I’m lazy.)
In other words, you want your readers to do the job that the Los Angeles Times just won’t do.
Jake Gittes (dab029) — 3/27/2007 @ 6:22 amThe real question is;
If the master manipulators could pimp Congress and
the American People into the Iraq war, why couldn’t they wriggle out of the Plame affair?
Could be rampant incompetence.
semanticleo (75845c) — 3/27/2007 @ 6:30 amThe fired U.S. Attorneys know the answer. Has anyone asked them?
Perhaps they can’t name names or discuss ongoing investigations. In which case, how will this information become known without jeopardizing the investigations?
Curtiss (c03bd7) — 3/27/2007 @ 6:46 amHomeworks been assigned and you can hear the cricket chirping
EricPWJohnson (695c44) — 3/27/2007 @ 9:32 amI figured AF would be all over this….
Brad (081dae) — 3/27/2007 @ 9:37 amOf course, the critics of Bush’s firings will argue that you shouldn’t restrict your review into just the prosecutions of those with an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ after their name, that it would be equally contemptible if there were drops in the number and scope of prosecutions of Administration ‘favorites’ (i.e., Halliburton, energy companies, despoilers of the environment) and increases in the number and scope of prosecution of Administration ‘targets’ (i.e., anti-war non-profits, illegal immigrants).
Having said that, shouldn’t there be some changes in the number and/or type of prosecutions? What would be the point of Bush replacing US Attorneys (or, for that matter, any employee) if he wasn’t expecting to see the new guys (as well as the other USAs who are paying attention) do things quite a bit differently than the guys he fired?
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/27/2007 @ 11:22 amFoggo was indicted while Carol Lam was still serving. She was granted a 15-day extension until Feb 15. You seem to be looking for ‘before-and-after’ comparisons. Foggo was ‘before.’
You should consider when the new people came in. Rachel Palouse (sp?) in Minnesota was only sworn in mid-March. Griffin was sworn in mid-December.
The Commissar (ed14a5) — 3/27/2007 @ 12:33 pmHaha… ‘they’re not corrupt, just sort of dumb and really bad with the public’. Even when it’s true, which I think it almost always is, it’s still sort of sad.
David N. Scott (71e316) — 3/27/2007 @ 1:10 pmWikipedia has a surprising amount up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
It sort of seems from that that most of the people haven’t been replaced and so things haven’t restarted, but Carol Lam in particular looks sort of bad.
David N. Scott (71e316) — 3/27/2007 @ 1:16 pmCrickets chirping is right. Where is everybody?
DubiousD (497748) — 3/28/2007 @ 1:36 am