Using the recently-disclosed internal White House/DoJ emails, Keith connects the dots and produces a cohesive narrative that shows how intimately inv
Using the recently-disclosed internal White House/DoJ emails, Keith connects the dots and produces a cohesive narrative that shows how intimately involved the White House was in the politically-motivated purge of insufficiently loyal and partisan USAs.
An Op-Ed in today's New York Times examines what the excuse "insufficiently pursued allegations of voter fraud" really means:
In its fumbling attempts to explain the purge of United States attorneys, the Bush administration has argued that the fired prosecutors were not aggressive enough about addressing voter fraud. It is a phony argument; there is no evidence that any of them ignored real instances of voter fraud. But more than that, it is a window on what may be a major reason for some of the firings.
The United States attorney purge appears to have been prompted by an array of improper political motives. Carol Lam, the San Diego attorney, seems to have been fired to stop her from continuing an investigation that put Republican officials and campaign contributors at risk. These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections. It does not justify their firing; it makes their firing a graver offense. Read more...