Two Pieces Of Garbage Bush Is Leaving Behind Challenge Obama and Holder To Do Something About Them

Mary Beth Buchanan (extreme right) refuses to give up her office at DOJ

Bush appointed a lot of real slime throughout the government but few were as a dangerous to America as the ones he used to politicize the Justice Department, among them the worst contemptible partisan hacks imaginable. And none were as bad as fanatic wingnuts Mary Beth Buchanan of Pittsburgh and Alice Martin of Birmingham, each of whom has decided to refuse to give up their offices and are daring Obama to evict them. They claim they have lots of Democrats they want to prosecute and that they are entitled to stay right where they are. Personally I hope each is arrested and charged with trespassing on government property and with abetting terrorism by interfering with the functioning of the Justice Department. Long jail sentences would send a much-needed message to fellow Federalist Society saboteurs that the new administration intends to start protecting the rights of American working families from GOP predators. Scott Horton at the Daily Beast has the full-- and shocking-- story.

By tradition, political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president, and when a new president comes to office those who held their commissions from his predecessor tender their resignations. This year, however, Buchanan and Martin appear girded to make a last stand like Japanese soldiers who never got word that the war was over.

Last month, Buchanan released a letter stating that she had no intention of submitting her resignation. An ideologically committed Federalist Society member, Buchanan is close to former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who actively promoted her as U.S. attorney. Following her appointment in 2001, Buchanan quickly gained the favor and approval of the White House. In the key period of 2004-05, while groundwork was laid for what later became the U.S. attorney's scandal, Buchanan served as director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the key position at Justice that oversaw all the 94 U.S. attorneys. A later internal Justice Department probe, in which Buchanan figures prominently, highlights the role played by that office in Karl Rove’s plan to sack U.S. attorneys.

Back in Pittsburgh, Buchanan made a name for herself with two prosecutions. One was Operation Pipedream, a $12 million program designed to criminalize and put out of business Internet vendors of water pipes. She prosecuted famed actor Tommy Chong, one-half of the comedy duo of Cheech and Chong, because of his support of a company founded and run by his son. Chong had no criminal record, his activities were not (and are not) considered criminal by many legal experts, and Chong’s dealings had no connection to western Pennsylvania. But Buchanan used heavy-handed threats to compel Chong to agree to a guilty plea. In her sentencing memorandum, Buchanan insisted that Chong do prison time because he had starred in a number of films in which the use of marijuana was portrayed and prominent Republican political figures were ridiculed or mocked. The case is the subject of a popular documentary produced in 2005 entitled a/k/a Tommy Chong.

The second case is a corruption prosecution of one of the country’s most prominent medical examiners, Dr. Cyril Wecht, also not coincidentally a leading figure in Pittsburgh Democratic politics. The charges brought against Wecht involve a long list of petty accusations, including that he used his office telephone and fax machine for personal matters. These charges happen to bear remarkable similarity to accusations of petty improprieties that flew around Buchanan’s mentor Santorum in the two years before Pennsylvania voters retired him from public life in 2006. Buchanan, however, opted not to pursue any of the accusations surrounding Santorum. Wecht’s defense counsel, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, who served under George H.W. Bush and was governor of Pennsylvania, testified before a House Judiciary inquiry that Buchanan’s prosecution was improper and politically motivated. "It is not the type of case normally constituting a federal 'corruption' case brought against a local official," said Thornburgh. "There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht ever solicited or received a bribe or kickback. There is no allegation that Dr. Wecht traded on a conflict of interest in conducting the affairs of his selected office." The case was originally tried before a judge appointed by George W. Bush who, though close to Buchanan, refused to recuse himself and forbade defense counsel in any way from referencing Buchanan’s political motivation. The trial ended in a hung jury, which divided sharply in favor of Wecht’s acquittal. Afterward, individual jurors harshly criticized Buchanan’s conduct and she responded by sending FBI agents to “interview” them.

Notwithstanding broad appeals from the Pennsylvania legal community for Buchanan to drop the case, she has pledged to continue it. The judge who originally oversaw the case, meanwhile, has been removed by order of an appeals court. Buchanan cites the supposedly unresolved Wecht case as a reason why she must stay on as U.S. attorney.

Buchanan’s colleague in tenacity is Alice Martin [pictured here on the left in a blood red dress], the U.S. attorney in Birmingham, Alabama. Martin gained a nationwide reputation through two failed prosecutions: the first of HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy for fraud relating to the collapse of the former health insurance giant; and the other of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Her conduct has been the subject of repeated investigations by Congress and the Justice Department’s ethics office, several of which are still pending. In the course of the last year, Martin has undertaken sweeping investigations targeting a large part of the state’s Democratic legislators and the Democratic mayor and city administration in Birmingham. She manages these cases in close collaboration with friendly Republican oriented media, which usually feature detailed accounts of her investigations and her proposed proof as the investigations conclude and arrests are undertaken.

Martin has a flair for drama. One of her targets is a 63-year-old retired social studies teacher from Huntsville named Sue Schmitz, who was taken from her home at the crack of dawn and manhandled by five FBI agents who tore her skin and left her bleeding as she was dragged out of her bathroom. Schmitz was accused of underperforming on a contract to teach underprivileged children for which she was to receive $50,000 per annum. Why was a retired social studies teacher suddenly the object of a massive multi-million dollar federal prosecution? Critics say the answer to that question is easy: she is a Democratic member of the state legislature and the Republicans want her seat. At Schmitz’s trial, any discussion of political motive was suppressed by the judge, but the case ended in a hung jury. Martin has promised to retry the case, at a cost of further millions of dollars. Other targets of Martin’s campaign to rid the state of corrupt politicians, which appears to target only Democrats, include Birmingham mayor Larry Langford and State Sen. E.B. McClain. She is reported to be preparing charges against as many as a dozen other Democratic members of the state legislature.

Martin previously coveted an appointment as a federal judge, but her efforts fell flat, largely as a result of mounting questions over her prosecutorial record. With the new administration approaching, she made clear her desire to hold on to her post as U.S. attorney for another year of prosecutions. Her Kafkaesque argument: she is targeting corrupt Democratic politicians and investigating others. Therefore, her removal under these circumstances and replacement by an Obama appointee would be “unseemly.” Martin has enlisted the support of Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, a member of the Judiciary Committee, in her bid to become a holdover. [Martin has been a generous contributor to Sessions' campaings over time.] Alabama Democrats, however, led by Cong. Artur Davis do not cotton to Martin’s scheme. They recently sent the Obama transition team a slate of recommendations, focusing on candidates with strong federal prosecutorial experience and a minimum of political baggage.

I might add that Mary Beth Buchanan has been a major donor to Republican politicians for many years and among the candidates she's given money to are Rick Santorum, of course (once giving more than the legal limit), Arlen Specter, Mark Kennedy, Michael Steele, Conrad Burns, Melissa Hart, Bill Shuster, and George W. Bush, as well as to the Republican National Committee and to a Santorum front group called America's Foundation.

According To Arizona's Other Right Wing Nut, Jon Kyl, Obama Gets No Honeymoon

Steve Benen at the Washington Weekly keeps a careful eye on Federalist Society extremists and he noted today that Jon Kyl, the Senate minority whip under Mitch McConnell, is already ignoring President-elect Obama's plea for going beyond narrow partisanship to solve the country's problems together. Kyl, one of the most mean-spirited ideological and vicious gut fighters in Congress, is already threatening to obstruct Obama's campaign promise to move the Supreme Court back towards the political mainstream and away from the far right extremism Kyl and the Federalist Society revel in. Hissing menacingly about a filibuster, Kyl promised to derail Supreme Court nominees like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer and derided Obama's judicial philosophy:

"He believes in justices that have empathy," said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

Think about that. The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, just a few days after the election, is already talking about blocking Supreme Court nominations that haven't been named, in response to Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist.

I'd add, by the way, that Kyl was one of the conservative Republicans who, in 2005, supported the "nuclear option," which would have declared that filibustering a judicial nominee was against congressional rules. That, of course, was when Bush nominees were in jeopardy.

I doubt many voters think too hard about the Supreme Court one way or the other. But, according to CNN exit polls, those who claimed that the Supreme Court was a factor in their decision in the presidential election, broke for Obama 53-45% and voters who called future Supreme Court appointments the most important factor went for Obama even more strongly-- 57 to 41%. The issue, of course, was central in People For The American Way's support for Obama's candidacy. Their president Kathryn Kolbert sounded a decidedly different tone than Kyl's:

“Its time to put to rest the notion that the Supreme Court is only an issue for conservatives.  This week, voters had the Supreme Court in mind when they chose the next president, and they elected someone who has said he will nominate justices who will protect their personal freedoms and ensure every American equal access to justice. They said it was time for justices who will keep faith with our core constitutional values of liberty, equality and opportunity for all. Americans said it was time for a change, time for judges and justices who will make decisions based on the law and the Constitution, not on a political agenda."

On related note, this is why it is so important to support the recount for Al Franken, an honest count for the Alaska Senate seat and the run-off election for Jim Martin in Georgia. Good outcomes would make Kyl's hysterical, reactionary threats irrelevant. The American people have spoken and they have made it clear that they want Republicans to work with Obama on his agenda. They didn't vote for Obama to appease the ideologues of the far right and they didn't vote to have the ideologues on the far right obstruct Obama. Kyl isn't up to re-election until 2012-- when Obama runs for his second term-- but before then every member of the House has to face the voters again, as do vulnerable obstructionist senators like Richard Burr (R-NC), David Vitter (R-LA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Kit Bond (R-MO), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

Surprise, Surprise: McCain And Bush Are The Bobbsey Twins Of Judicial Philosophy

Every nonpartisan examination of the 2000 election results have shown that George W. Bush was not elected to the presidency of the United States. For the last 8 years we have lived under an illegitimate government that appointed by an ideological right wing Supreme Court. Yesterday Bush-- struggling to keep his approval rating in double digits through January-- embraced McCain's promise to appoint more right wing extremists to the bench as he accused Democrats of contributing to a broken confirmation process for federal judges.

In front of a crowd of extreme and overwhelmingly deranged right-wing Federalist Society lawyers, Bush bragged about his atrocious appointments in Cincinnati, reminding them (and us) that the garbage he appointed to the bench make up more than a third of the federal judiciary.

"I appreciate that many people listening today and here in this room have worked hard to recruit more Americans to this cause. This work is in all our interests, because the truth of the matter is, the belief in judicial restraint is shared by the vast majority of American citizens."

Bush's remarks, delivered on the opening day of the new Supreme Court session, appeared to be aimed in part at highlighting the issue of judicial appointments during the final weeks of the hard-fought presidential campaign between McCain (Ariz.), the Republican nominee, and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), his Democratic opponent.

It's these dangerous extremists in the Federalist Society who have contributed much of the $8,248,032 McCain has gotten this year from lawyers and Bush has given them a virtual veto power of his judicial nominations, just as McCain would do. They swoon at the thought of more like John Roberts and Sammy Alito. They claim Bush hasn't done much because not enough judges died or retired and that it will take a McCain-- or Palin-- to really transform the courts into what they want-- a full blown nazi pseudo judiciary.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, said that 10 of the nation's 13 federal appellate courts are now "dominated by conservatives" and that Roberts and Alito are part of a "conservative juggernaut."

"This administration has cemented a transformation of our federal judiciary begun by Ronald Reagan, which has resulted in less freedom, less privacy and fewer constitutional protections," Aron said.

...Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said in a statement that the "balance on our nation's federal courts is precarious," with 60 percent of the federal bench appointed by Republican presidents. "We cannot afford more of the same if Americans' rights and liberties are to be preserved," Leahy said.

The job of reclaiming the Justice Dept. from the Bush regime's wrecking ball is too big and too important to wait for a Democratic administration

As wacky as any of the other Federalist Society
wackos: Chief Justice John Roberts

On the one hand, you could argue that the executive-power-grabbing megalomaniacs of the Bush regime, while undeniably ruthless and insatiable in their lust for power, are in the end clueless morons. Because what happens if they actually succeed in overturning the Constitution and piling up all the power of the federal government in the executive branch -- and then have to turn all that power over to a Democrat when the country turns them out of office?

The other hand would be, I guess, that they don't worry because: (a) they don't believe any Democrat would dare try to assert the powers they've gathered unto themselves, which are actually for use only by far-right-wing Republican presidents, and (b) in any case they're prepared to turn on a dime and argue with equal ferocity and ruthlessness that for a Democratic president even so bold an act as drawing a breath would represent an intolerable usurpation of constitutional authority.

After all, we're not talking about people who are known for either rationality or consistency. They're only about getting their way, and I've got a feeling the day Chimpy the Prez ends his eight-year illegal squat in the White House, that will be the last we hear about the mystical -- and wholly mythical -- Unitary Executive, the all-powerful executive branch, until the next time wingnuts feel the Oval Office is again within reach of their beady clutches.

"Unitary Executive" -- or don't the wingnut law-mongers call it "the Doctrine of the Unitary Executive"? The better to make it sound as if there actually is such a thing. A "doctrine" indeed! Except that there is no such thing, not in or in any way connected to the Constitution. It's just a sick fantasy made up by dangerously psychopathic right-wingers, an authoritarian melange of bogus constitutionalese, gobbledygook, and garden-variety megalomania. What it seems to come down to is that these people for whatever reasons would like to recontour the model of government outlined in the Constitution to something closer to what you can find in Mein Kampf, with a president who's more or less interchangeable with the Reichsfuehrer of the Third Reich.

Apparently this is the sort of thing that passes for serious legal philosophy among the increasingly influential membership roster of the loony-tunes Federalist Society, which under the Bush regime has become, appallingly, a breeding ground not only for federal judges at the district and appellate levels, but for the Supreme Court itself.

I can't help feeling that most of this legal insanity is being let loose on the land because growing numbers of terminally repressed men have no safer or saner outline for all those raging hormones. In other words, the Republic has been put in peril because all these closet cases -- hetero as well as homo, they seem equally ashamed of and self-loathing over their sexual impulses -- need to be reintroduced to their trusty right (or left, as the case may be) hand?

Well, to judge just by Dick Cheney, he apparently doesn't get enough reinforcement of his manhood from hunting. Probably not enough, you know, release -- at least not of the kind he needs, not to be confused with the kind that puts his victims in the hospital.

Which brings me back to the U.S. attorney scandal. (Oh, you didn't realize that's what this was about?) For me, one of the greatest outrages of the Bush regime has been the systematic polliticization of the Justice Department, and one of my most agonized sources of frustration has been the inability to make this the raging issue it should be to ordinary voters -- why they should care, for example that U.S. attorneys, the legal point men who supervise the cadres of federal prosecutors in their districts, who oversee the administration of federal law, apparently have been transformed into bone-cracking enforcers, not prosecutors of the law but persecutors of the regime's political enemies. (And from what statistics we've been able to see, the Bush U.S. attorneys have gotten the message that their job is to prosecute almost exclusively Democrats.)

It's not an easy concept to define, this "rule of law" that we know instinctively is one of the fundamental components of our freedom. But it's pathetically easy to establish that when enforcement of the law is based, not on the fairest and most uniform possible application of law, but on the wishes of the people who control the legal system, you the rule of law is kaput.

No thanks to the regime's customary penchant for secrecy, we know by now that the wholesale firing of U.S. attorneys was pure and simple a political purge, and that it was moderated only by the realization that too flagrant a sweep of the "undesirables" among the USAs would draw the public attention that the firing program managed for so long to escape. But from what has been revealed, we have abundant indications that the only considerations according to which USAs were put on (or, rarely, taken off) the famous List were political.

And as many people have pointed out, the only thing scarier than the thought of purging competent USAs for insufficiently zealous political partisanship is the thought of what the un-purged ones did to keep their jobs. There are probably some honest and competent USAs who escaped the vengeance of (as best we can tell) Karl Rove, and if I were one of them, I would be as outraged as the good men and women who were improperly fired, because surviving the purge should be a mark of shame.

Oh, there are hardy warriors who haven't given up the fight, including watchdog groups like CREW and Judicial Watch. And the House Judiciary Committee is still trying to enforce its subpoenas of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to probe the firing process.

Yesterday the AP reported that "twenty former U.S. attorneys from both political parties sided with Congress and asked a federal judge on Thursday to settle a subpoena fight with the White House."

Ex-prosecutors side with Congress in subpoena case

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Twenty former U.S. attorneys from both political parties sided with Congress and asked a federal judge on Thursday to settle a subpoena fight with the White House.

The former prosecutors filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit over whether Congress can demand documents and testimony from President Bush's closest aides.

The House Judiciary Committee wants to know whether some U.S. attorneys were fired for political reasons, an issue that helped lead to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The White House says the president's former counsel Harriet Miers and chief of chief of staff Josh Bolten do not need to comply with the subpoenas, citing executive privilege, the principle that one branch of government can't make another branch do something.

Congress wants a judge to settle the issue but the Bush administration says the courts should not wade into a political dispute.

The list of former U.S. attorneys who filed the documents in U.S. District Court includes David C. Iglesias, who says he was fired as New Mexico's top prosecutor for political reasons. The prosecutors said that, without congressional oversight, presidents would be free to meddle in prosecutorial decisions.

"If permitted to enforce its subpoenas for documents and testimony, Congress has a unique ability to address improper partisan influence in the prosecutorial process," the former prosecutors wrote. "No other institution will fill the vacuum if Congress is unable to investigate and respond to this evil."

The prosecutors who signed on to the document are: Steve Sachs, who was appointed by President Johnson; George Beall, an appointee of President Nixon; Roxanne Conlin, James K. Robinson, Atlee W. Wampler III and Edward G. Warin, appointees of President Carter; Leon Kellner, Dan K. Webb and J. Alan Johnson, who were appointed by President Reagan; William Braniff, an appointee of the first President Bush; Zach Carter, Edward L. Dowd, B. Todd Jones, Doug Jones, Donald K. Stern, Sheldon Whitehouse and Alan Bersin, who were appointed by President Clinton; Bush appointees Iglesias and Matthew D. Orwig, and Richard Rossman, who was appointed by the court in 1980.

Four watchdog groups filed their own court papers Thursday also siding with Congress. Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Rutherford Institute joined the Brennan Center for Justice and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, both liberal groups.

#