Latest WH Lie: All U.S. Attorneys Suspect for Not Investigating Voter Fraud

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:57:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The lastest lie from the White House is that all 93 U.S. Attorneys were being considered for firing by the President for not appropriately investigating voter fraud. Today's New York Times, White House Said to Prompt Firing of Prosecutors, ¶ 2:

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday.

This is an absolute and utter sham.

In the case of the fired U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, it is almost the ultimate hypocrisy, short of the Iraq War, and every other lie the White House has told. Tim Griffin, the replacement U.S. Attorney, has been implicated in voter fraud in the stolen Florida Presidential election in 2000.

The firing of Bud Cummins, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas brought this to light when Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a vocal opponent of the firings was interviewed in the press. Griffin related in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [the archives of which are not free] on February 7th that he met with Senator Pryor about going through the confirmation process. Pryor related that he wanted Griffin to answer questions about Griffin being a Rove political operative involved in "push polling" in Florida in the 2000 elections where African-American voters were mailed letters at the address on voter registation, and, if the letter was returned, the Republicans challenged the voter. Griffin's role in "push polling" for Rove is well documented on the Internet, so he could not hide it: see, e.g., Time.com and BBC. AllThingsDemocrat.org even has recent posts on this matter. Just Google "Tim Griffin push polling."

And so it goes. The White House wants to put the fox in the voter fraud henhouse. What a sham.

(I've been working too hard lately, and I'm in a six week jury trial. I'm not gone; just overworked. I'm on the Internet in the courtroom.)

< The "Netroots" on Iraq: Defunding Takes Republicans | PFAW - Gonzales Should Resign or Be Removed >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Latest WH Lie: All U.S. Attorneys Suspect for Not Investigating Voter Fraud | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

deus ex machina? (none / 0) (#1)
by profmarcus on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:40:25 AM EST

hearing accusations of voter fraud emanating from the white house should be the stuff of a daily show riff, but, unfortunately, it's not... however, that doesn't make it any the less hysterical... as things continue to unravel, perhaps we'll see the deus ex machina we've all been hoping for... i've got my fingers crossed...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

You should be pretty careful (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:57:44 AM EST

in accusing people of being "implicated in voter fraud" in stolen elctions. that might well be construed as more than an expression of opinion and as a statement of fact.

At least careful enough to have your links refer to something related to the subject.

The Time and BBC links appear to deal exclusively with nsty use of opposition research.

Do you have a personal beef with Griffin as you are both from Arkansas?

You also rather severely misstate the case for the WH lie. By no possible interpretation could it be construed to assert that the WH considered all U.S. Attorneys for reasons relating to not adequately investigating voter fraud. It seems to be pretty clear that the discussion about replacing all of them were not based on the allegation all of them were "deficient" in that regard.

Now, if you were attempting to be a little more thorough before tossing stuff off, you might have suggested that the talk of replacing 93 was premised on the unspoken premise that canning all of them might have helped conceal why the ones they really wanted out were purged.

I'm sorry but I don't read the article the same... (none / 0) (#3)
by cal11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:57:53 AM EST

way that you do. Wasn't the idea to replace all US Attorneys floated and rejected in early 2005? If so, how does that square with your assertion?

What about Carol Lam? (none / 0) (#4)
by Che's Lounge on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:07 AM EST

San Diego obediently votes Republican every election (Only the border district has sense enough to keep re electing Bob Filner, bless his heart. Voter fraud investigations here are a WOT, especially for republicans. Why bring unnecessary attention to a victory?

First they told us Lam's firing was over her lack of aggressive pursuit of immigration laws. Now it's voter fraud. Both are total BS.

Lam was fired for investigating Dusty Foggo, who was the #3 man in CIA, and his defense industry corporate twin, Brent Wilkes. Both are criminal war profiteers with ties to the Bush administration.

More Bush lies.

Hypocracy in the raw (none / 0) (#5)
by Electa on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:17:40 AM EST

Bush appointee for US prosecutor for the Southern District of WV resigned under pressure because he and his brother, then head of the WV GOP, were involved in voter fraud....voters resurrected from the grave.

that's QUITE inaccurate (none / 0) (#6)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:33:55 AM EST

The "voter fraud" investigations ALL dealt with Democratic politicians in southern Wv engaging in voter fraud-- almost exclusively in primary elections against other Democrats. (there is almost no Republican party in those counties)

No official reason for the u.s. attorney's departure was ever released but contemporaneously with his departure a state legislature investigation uncovered an e-mail in which the USA discussed channeling a political contribution to a candidate for a local prosecutor's office through relatives so it couldn't be traced back to him. (That candidate won the election but was just recently forced out office himself)

[ Parent ]

You are correct (none / 0) (#8)
by Electa on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:12:17 PM EST

that there was no official reasons cited for Warner's "sudden" resignation "> after the disclosure of voter fraud by Democrats led to accusations that he and his brother were also involved among other things.

[ Parent ]

: He's perhaps an example (none / 0) (#9)
by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:18:51 PM EST

of why we might want U.S. Attorneys to be easily removed.
He wasn't entitled to have the allegations against him proven or even to any due process. He just had to go and go quickly. Of course, that same power to remove can be used in a way some consider abusive.
The answer though is not necessarily to remove the power because it can be abused but to hold the persons responsible for abuses accountable themselves. That appears to be happening here with Gonzalesand I'd rather see it resolved in this way through political action than by having broad structural changes enacted which might well hurt more often than help.

[ Parent ]

Indeed... (none / 0) (#7)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:36:46 PM EST

Mr. Sampson predicted that dismissals might stir debate. "Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval," he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. "U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.

Prescient, that.

Although the final paragraph of the article is questionable:

This week, the United States attorney dispute will be aired on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to roll back a provision of the antiterrorism law that allows President Bush to appoint interim United States attorneys indefinitely.

"Indefinitely" seems to imply that there are no constraints on the length of service of the interim USAs when in fact they serve at the pleasure of the Pres, and they'd likely be replaced by the next Pres.

Also, imo, by using Bush's name, the sentence is biased.

A more accurate end neutral sentence might read:

This week, the United States attorney dispute will be aired on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to roll back a provision of the antiterrorism law that allows a President to appoint interim United States attorneys without Senate confirmation.