Not what they were looking for apparently. This just out from the San Diego Union-Tribune …
The Bush administration has quietly asked San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam, best known for her high-profile prosecutions of politicians and corporate executives, to resign her post, a law enforcement official said.
Lam, a Bush appointee who took the helm in 2002, was targeted because of job performance issues â in particular that she failed to make smuggling and gun cases a top priority, said the official, who declined to be identified because Lam has yet to step down.
Lam has had high-profile successes during her tenure, such as the Randy âDukeâ Cunningham bribery case â but she alienated herself from bosses at the Justice Department because she is outspoken and independent, said local lawyers familiar with her policies.
We’ll have more on this.
Update: Some context here.
Is the whole ‘surge’ plan a set up? Check out this nugget that Sullivan found in John Burns’ latest piece.
Over at TPMmuckraker, Paul has been following the nasty, brutish (and short) Senate battle over earmark reform. Democrats had barely taken down their election-season “Ethics Reform” banners before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went bare-knuckled against a bipartisan push to make public the sponsors of billions in “earmarked” expenditures.
Reid’s proposal would have only required sponsors of earmarks for state and local projects — a new tennis court, an updated rec center — to identify themselves. Of course, those are just the earmarks that lawmakers already take credit for — it’s part of how they stay in office. And though he sure did try, Reid couldn’t corral his fellow senators to help his plan succeed.
Let’s put this in context. This was never an argument about what should be reported, this was an argument over what lawmakers tell the public. In the Senate (and the House) there are, I guarantee, meticulously detailed records of who asked for which earmarks, which were granted, and how much they were worth. Earmarks — pork, if one’s feeling uncharitable — are the most basic unit of political favors, and they aren’t doled out without the expectation that at some point, the favor will be returned. With some 14,000 such favors being passed out each year, the granters would be foolish not to keep lists somewhere.
If it’s so important to the lawmakers, isn’t it important to the voters also?
Update: Whoops. While I was writing this, a chagrined Reid acceded to the will of the majority. With a few tweaks, he’s withdrawing his objections to the tougher earmark reform rule.
New CNN poll: Sixty-six percent against escalation; on question of whom Americans have confidence in when it comes to handling Iraq, Congressional Dems hold 17-point edge over Bush.
So Joe Lieberman, now that he’s been reelected, doesn’t think it’s worth pursuing the administration’s disastrous handling of Katrina.
What do Louisiana and Gulf Coast lawmakers think about it? the ’08 hopefuls? Lieberman’s Senate colleagues? We’ve been calling around to get reactions, and we got our first: Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA).
The Senate as it stands now: seven Republicans against escalation, nine more with their toe in the water.
Harvard lecturer and former TPMCafe America Abroad blogger Juliette Kayyem appointed Massachusetts Director of Homeleand Security by new Gov. Deval Patrick.
There’s our first hint of what happening.
From the NYT: “A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.”