Soon to be ex-US Attorney Carol Lam

There has been an interesting bit of U.S. Federal Prosecutor politics going on. Carol Lam, (a Chinese-parents from Hong Kong if I remember right) is (soon to be past tense, “was”) the US Attorney for San Diego. She made the mistake of prosecuting a powerful Republican congressman (my congressman, Randy Cunningham!) and for her diligent efforts—President Bush will fire her.

Here is the news item from the San Diego paper. I guess this news has also been in the papers here in Taiwan.
signonsandiego.com/news/metr … 12lam.html

Well—I am sorry for her as a person, but—you make a deal with the devil (President Bush) you got to expect a bad ending. I never had to worry about such things as I was always a California state court prosecutor–we were free and independent (actually not–we fucking answered to the Sheriff of Imperial County…and to some extent the voters).

Oh and as for prosecutor independence in the Federal Courts----please do not make me laugh. Two friends of mine from law school still work in the San Diego office…

Take care,
Brian
ex-Small Potatoes Imperial County Prosecutor

Particularly revealing:

[quote]U.S. attorneys are usually appointed by the president and require Senate approval. They typically serve the same term as the president that appointed them, and are replaced when a new president is elected.

However, a provision in the Patriot Act that was revised last year allows the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for indefinite terms when vacancies arise, without Senate confirmation. Filling interim vacancies had been the responsibility of the district court.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., criticized the Bush administration yesterday for “pushing out U.S. Attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy.”

“We don’t know how many U.S. Attorneys have been asked to resign – it could be two, it could be ten, it could be more. No one knows,” she said in a statement.

Feinstein said the administration was abusing its executive power by trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. She and two colleagues proposed legislation yesterday to restore appointment authority to the district court when a vacancy occurs and an interim leader is needed.

Lam is one of several prosecutors who have either resigned under pressure or been told to leave in recent months. [/quote]

Looks like more Republican abuses of our republic a la Plame. She went after their boy and she got punished for it. I find the official reason for her dismissal comical:

[quote]Lam, a Bush appointee who took the helm in 2002, was targeted because of job performance issues – 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.

[…]

When she took over, Lam made it clear that she planned to focus less on low-level smuggling cases in favor of public corruption and white collar crime, which would mean fewer but more significant prosecutions.

[…]

Lam, 47, has been criticized by members of the Border Patrol agents union and by members of Congress, including Vista Republican Darrell Issa, who accused her office of “an appalling record of refusal to prosecute even the worst criminal alien offenders.” [/quote]

Since Bush was my governor in Texas, he has always opposed the more conservative elements in the Republican party by taking a soft stance on illegal immigration. Well smuggling and drugs are the inevitable result of a wall-less, open border. Does the Adminstration really expect us to believe they are dismissing her because she is soft on prosecuting the crimes they know will result from their own policies? Idiotic.

At least two sides to every story.

But don’t you find the other side’s position stretches credulity to the limit? Prior the Patriot Act it was not even possible for president’s to make interim appointments. If you read that article in its entirety you will find that Bush has already used that power to dismiss US attorneys who didn’t tow the party line to be replaced with cronies. Why was that provision put into the Patriot Act? How does it serve national interest? Why forgoe the checks and balances previously in place that required Senate confirmation? I would argue that bypassing the Senate is a deliberate ploy to avoid checks and balances…and obviously so.

Dimissing government attorneys willy-nilly to be replaced with friends and ideological allies is something I expect to see in Caracas or Quito, not D.C.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]…Bush has already used that power to dismiss US attorneys who didn’t tow the party line… [/quote]TOE the line! Arghhhh!!!

This message brought to you by the Orwellian Society for Politics and the English Language.

Let me introduce you to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco.

Its politics…dirtiest game in town. Once you accept that fact things look a lot clearer. Not to say a bit of righteous indignation won’t pop up on occasion. But it makes it easier to beat its head back down and see whats hiding behind it.

[b]Let me introduce you to the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco.

Its politics…dirtiest game in town[/b]. Once you accept that fact things look a lot clearer. Not to say a bit of righteous indignation won’t pop up on occasion. But it makes it easier to beat its head back down and see whats hiding behind it.[/quote]

Even if that is true, that wouldn’t excuse this unAmerican aspect of the Patriot Act nor the Bush Administration’s treatment of Lam…who is being rewarded for bringing a corrupt official to justice by getting fired, because that corrupt official is a friend of the Adminstration’s.

Address the issue at hand. If you support the Bush Administration’s actions then say so. If you think they are being undemocratic cronyist* shitbags, say so. If something else, say so. I am curious to know what your position is.

*How do you like that neologism, Professor Jaboney? :wink: