Bald faced lying when everyone can see you are lying:

Domenici then got on the phone for a conversation that lasted "one to two minutes," Iglesias recalled. "Are these going to be filed before November?" Domenici asked, Iglesias testified, referring to the kickback case. Unnerved by the call, Iglesias said he responded that they were not. "I'm sorry to hear that," Domenici replied, according to Iglesias, who added that the senator then hung up. . . . Domenici stressed in a statement issued yesterday that Iglesias "confirmed" that the senator never mentioned the November election and that he had no idea why the prosecutor felt "violated."

Amazing.

Republican "federalism":

Another prosecutor, John McKay of Seattle, said he received a call in late 2004 from Ed Cassidy, a former chief of staff to Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington. At the time, Mr. McKay was weighing whether to convene a grand jury to investigate accusations of voter fraud in a close election for governor. He said Mr. Cassidy called to inquire about the status of the investigation. . . . In remarks after the hearings, McKay said that officials in the White House counsel's office, including then-counsel Harriet E. Miers, asked him to explain why he had "mishandled" the governor's race during an interview for a federal judgeship in September 2006.

It gets even better:

Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove’s assistant, the President’s pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas . . . was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election. Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. . . .

Via TPM Muckracker:

The department also said that Michael Battle — a senior Justice official who directed the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and who had personally informed the ousted U.S. attorneys of their removal — would leave his post March 16.

Battle, who has held his post since June 2005, notified U.S. attorneys of his decision in January and had informed the department last summer that he wished to pursue opportunities in the private sector, the department said. Battle was not involved in the actual decision-making that led to the prosecutors' ouster, the department said.

The Justice Department says the resignation is not related to the embroglio. I'm not buying it.

An AUSA and reader of TPM explains:

I'm an Assistant United States Attorney in [*******], and am, of course, outraged by the U.S. Attorney purge, as most AUSAs are. I appreciate all the work you've been doing on this story. My own sense is that this purge has to be viewed as part a much larger story on the devastating impact of this administration's policies on the institution of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

. . . I strive every day to make sure that the Fourth Amendment rights of evn the worst criminals are scrupulously observed, only to learn that the folks I work for view those rights as disposable, inconvenient anachronisms. I operate in a criminal justice system properly designed to maximize due process for even the worst criminals, only to watch the administration kick and scream when forced to provide even the most basic due process rights to suspected terrorists.

And now the purges. So they've slashed U.S. Attorney's budgets, trashed rights we have sworn to uphold, and now, tried to toady-up the ranks of our leadership by firing some of our best and brightest, apparently to make room for wingnut-annointed political hacks. Folks who do stuff like this deserve to get caught.

Read the whole thing.

Bump and Update: CREW has filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Domenici.

Today Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) violated Senate Rules by contacting the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque, New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, and pressuring him about an ongoing corruption probe.

Also, see this Albuquerque Tribune article:

Ethics rules permit members of congress to request a status report on a case from federal agents if they're doing so at the behest of constituents.

In his statement, Domenici seemingly moved to insulate himself from ethics charges, saying he'd received a "growing number of inquiries from constituents" about the courthouse case.

*****

Sen. Domenici Admits Urging DOJ to Fire Prosecutor

New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici today acknowledged not only calling U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to inquire about the progress of a corruption case against a Democrat, but recommending to DOJ that he be fired.

A few years ago, I frequently wrote about the trial of San Francisco marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal. In 2003, Sherry Colb at Findlaw had a good synopsis of the case.

First, Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana for sick and dying patients. Second, Rosenthal acted as an agent of Oakland, California's program to dispense marijuana to people whose doctors have prescribed it. Third, California's Proposition 215 expressly authorized the program.

At Rosenthal's trial, the defense sought to tell the jury these facts, but the judge ruled them inadmissible. As a result, Rosenthal was convicted by a jury whose members believed he was an ordinary marijuana grower.

The jurors were horrified to learn afterwards that Rosenthal had been a licensed marijuana dispenser.

More...

Democrats subpoenaed four fired U.S. Attorneys to a hearing on Tuesday to determine if they were fired for political reasons.

The Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law approved the subpoenas for former prosecutors in Arkansas, New Mexico, Seattle and San Diego -- all of whom will be required to appear for testimony at a hearing Tuesday. The Senate Judiciary Committee announced plans for a similar hearing on the same day.

David Iglesias of New Mexico charged his firing was retaliatory for his refusal to prosecute Democrats before the November election.

Margaret Chiara of the Western District of Michigan is the latest U.S. Attorney to get the ax from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Chiara was praised by the Judges of the District.

"This is a very classy, distinguished, highly regarded public servant," said Bell, who was appointed to the bench during the Reagan administration. "She's one of the best United States attorneys we've had in this district, and all of my colleagues agree. . . . To have her suddenly disappear without warning catches us all flat-footed."

So, why are these U.S. Attorneys being fired?

Nearly all of the dismissed prosecutors had positive job reviews, but many had run into political trouble with Washington over immigration, capital punishment or other issues, according to prosecutors and others. At least four also were presiding over high-profile public corruption investigations when they were dismissed.

The prosecutors' views on the death penalty may be a factor:

They just will not let it go. And rightly so, because it will haunt their reputations forever. Yes, Bush v. Gore:

Three of the five Supreme Court justices who handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 say they had no choice but to intervene in the Florida recount. Comments from Justice Anthony Kennedy and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor are in a new book that was published this week. Justice Antonin Scalia made his remarks Tuesday at Iona College in New York.

. . . "It's water over the deck _ get over it," Scalia said, drawing laughs from his audience. His remarks were reported in the Gannett Co.'s Journal-News. . . . "Counting somebody else's dimpled chad and not counting my dimpled chad is not giving equal protection of the law," Scalia said at Iona. . . . "A no-brainer! A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case," Kennedy told ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg in her new book, "Supreme Conflict."

Kennedy said the justices didn't ask for the case to come their way. Then-Vice President Al Gore's legal team involved the courts in the election by asking a state court to order a recount, Kennedy said.

O'Connor said the Florida court was "off on a trip of its own." Still, O'Connor said the outcome of the election would have been the same even if the court had not intervened.

Every bolded statement is unquestionably false. First, Bush went to court first NOT Gore. Bush filed a federal lawsuit challenging the recount. Second, the Florida Supreme Court decided SOLELY state law. It made NO ruling on federal law whatsoever. Third, if the view of equal protection expressed by Scalia is TRULY his view, then he has been lying in every OTHER EPC case he has opined in. Fpurth, Gore would have won if the recount would have been allowed. In all scenarios where there was a statewide recount that included overvotes, not dimpled chads issues. Just the overvotes.

But let's face it, what is left for these Justices to say? There are no fools here. Their actions in Bush v. Gore were beyond despicable - they undermined democracy and they undermined the Supreme Court as an institution. It is not at all clear we will ever get over what they did. Of course, one can play pop psychologist and see in the SCOTUS decisions of the past 6 years guilty consciences in Justices Kennedy and O'Connor. Lawrence, Hamdi, Rasul, may be the handiwork of that guilt. But we won't forget Bush v. Gore.

SAT Question time:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

The question:

Alberto Gonzales is to the office of Attorney General as:

a. George Bush is to the office of the POTUS
b. Donald Rumsfeld is to the office of the Secretary of Defense
c. Harriet Meirs is to the Supreme Court
d. All of the above.

At Balkinization, Brian Tamaha writes a terrific piece on Judge Richard Posner's "pragmatic realism":

His views on these two topics can be summarized as follows: Posner believes that judging on the Supreme Court is almost entirely political, and he believes that judging on the Court of Appeals (his court), and judging generally, is substantially political. This view of the political nature of judging is widely shared among legal academics and political scientists, although many judges disagree. Posner, furthermore, advocates that judges should decide cases in a pragmatic fashion, oriented toward rendering the most reasonable decision in a given case (all things considered).

Posner seems to, unfortunately, correctly describe the current state of affairs. But he is wrong to believe that it should be this way. I'll explain why on the flip.

Via Federal Defender David Beneman in Maine:

New Federal Rules take effect December 1, 2006.

Criminal Rules 5, 6, 32.1, 40, 41, and 58.

Evidence Rules 404, 408, 606, and 609.

Appellate Rule 25 and new Appellate Rule 32.1

Criminal Rules: