Reid: DoJ Was Set to Use LoopholeOne of the central issues of prosecutor purge scandal is whether the adminstration was planning to install party loyalists in place of the fired United States attorneys — a scheme made possible by a law change slipped into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill last year.
There is a host of evidence that that’s in fact what the administration had intended to do, and though it seems to have gone largely unnoticed, the plainest proof of this was offered yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Speaking to The Las Vegas Review-Journal, Reid “said he understood the [Justice Department] planned to take advantage of a loophole and fill its new vacancy in Nevada without submitting its choice for customary Senate review and confirmation.” He then is quoted saying: “That’s what they told [former USA for Nevada Daniel] Bogden.”
Really? Who’s “they?” And when was Bogden told this? When I asked, a spokesman for Reid’s office declined to elaborate, calling Reid’s conversation with Bogden a private conversation.
Bogden has already testified to the House about a conversation he had with acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, who told him that he was being bumped to give someone else a chance to “build their resumes.” Perhaps Mercer also told him that the administration planned to circumvent Senate confirmation? It’s not clear.
The Review-Journal goes on to cite a “legal source familiar with the appointment process” who told them that “it seemed clear that the administration was preparing to ‘parachute in’ a new U.S. attorney in Nevada, possibly from outside the state, under the Patriot Act umbrella.”
But Bogden’s case isn’t the only one where there are indications that the administration was preparing to “parachute in” a replacement.
During Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) questioned four of the ousted prosecutors as to when the Justice Department had begun interviewing for a replacement for each of them.
San Diego’s Carol Lam, who was fired December 7th, said that “I don’t think interviews began until approximately two weeks before I left office [on February 15th]….approximately almost two months after I received the phone call.”
New Mexico’s David Iglesias, who also got the call December 7th, said “in early to mid- February of this year.”
Seattle’s John McKay, also fired on December 7th, said “the first request for interviews in my district took place on approximately January 16th… I recall it because it was about two days before the attorney general testified before this committee.”
Arkansas’ Bud Cummins said simply “I don’t think there were interviews.” He was replaced by Karl Rove’s former aide, Timothy Griffin.
Sen. Feinstein concluded:
Yes, that is significant, because the outside person was clearly brought in. In the other four cases, there were no interim interviews begun until the cases became very publicly known. And I think that’s led us to believe that it was quite probable that outside individuals were going to be brought in to take these positions.
