None of these Republicans ever voiced concern about Karl Rove being Bush's Chief of Staff aand any conflict of interest there while Rove was Bush's campaign manager ....

Wow. It takes some guts for Republican Senators to offer this argument after so many years of Republican Senators running (or simply preventing) investigations into what was happening inside a Republican Administration, while at the same time officials in that Republican Administration were raising money for and otherwise supporting their Senatorial campaigns, and vice-versa for the 2004 Presidential campaign.

The only real conflict of interest has been the abuse of the Justice Dept to interfere with elections and try to assure Mr. Rove's permanent Republican majority.

Check our the actual numbers:

New Study on Political Profiling by U.S. Attorneys' Offices in the Criminal Investigation and Indictment of Democratic Elected Officials and Candidates Sheds Light on the Recent Spate of U.S. Attorney Firings and Shows Firings are only the Tip of the Iceberg

Donald C. Shields, Ph.D., and John F. Cragan, Ph.D.

For the past six years, the Bush Justice Department has engaged in a policy of Political Profiling, targeting Democratic local elected officials for investigation and prosecution at a rate of 85% to 12% Republicans. Based upon the respective percentages of local officials belonging to each Party, the likelihood of such a disparity of investigation and prosecution occurring by chance is 1 in 10,000.

This data - compiled by two retired university professors - is presented in their electronically published article in the media journal, Epluribus Media (http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html).

Appendix A of that report presents the total federal investigations of all elected officials reported in the media from 2001 through 2006 numbering 375 - of which (Observed Frequency) 298 were Democrats and only 67 Republicans (10 were Independent). Although Democrats comprise only (Expected Frequency) 50% of total elected officials, they are more than 80% of those investigated or prosecuted. Republicans are 41% of elected officials but underwent only 18% of the investigations/prosecutions by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000, as the Chi-square goodness-of-fit was 72.23 with 2 degrees of freedom.

Appendix B shows state-wide and Congressional cases only. The results show a close relationship between Observed and Expected Frequencies - although the recent impact of the Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals had created a small Republican "bump". Here 36 Democrats and 30 Republicans were investigated and/or indicted federally, a difference that was not statistically significant from the goodness-of-fit data. Chi-square was 0.00.

Appendix C shows the clearest evidence of Political Profiling. The state-wide and Congressional level cases draw national media attention. It would be difficult to disguise a significant disparity in investigation or prosecution at that level. Subtracting those cases has the effect of subtracting the scrutiny that comes with national media attention. Investigation of local officials is almost invariably treated as a "local" story. Appendix C shows that what has been buried as 309 local stories since 2001 is actually a major national story of Political Profiling of Democratic local officials and candidates by the Bush Justice Department - a policy that the authors conclude has been successful because it occurred beneath the radar of the national media.

As Appendix C indicates, of the 309 local officials investigated or prosecuted, 262 were Democrats and only 37 were Republicans. Although they comprise only 50% of local officials, Democrats were 85% of those investigated, while Republicans who made up 41% of local officials were the recipients of just 12% of the investigations and prosecutions, and Independent/Other elected officials and candidates comprised 1 percent of those investigated by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Once again, the possibility of such an anomaly occurring by chance is 1 in 10,000. Chi-square is 85.37; p is less than or equal to 0.0001 and the variation from the goodness-of-fit is highly significant.

A policy of Political Profiling should raise serious concerns. It mis-uses the resources of law enforcement who must engage in often frivolous "investigations". As well, it harms the political process because the "leaks" of even frivolous investigations undermine the fund-raising ability of a candidate or political party. Worse, target-based investigations can be extremely expensive in resources and manpower, resulting in frustration and pressure to produce results consistent with prosecution. Decisions that should be made independent of political influence - such as whether to pursue a line of inquiry or what evidence or testimony to be submitted to a Grand Jury - are improperly influenced, also. The pursuit of justice by the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys is replaced by the pursuit of politically favorable headlines in local news sources.

These harms are exacerbated when U.S. attorneys who have been confirmed by the Senate are fired for not investigating sufficient Democratic elected officials and candidates and are replaced by Interim Permanent U.S. Attorneys, as the Bush Justice Department has done since the renewal of the Patriot Act. The political cause of the December firings of prominent U.S. Attorneys is illuminated by the data contained in Appendix A and the following analysis:

Fired U.S. Attorney
Office Location
Democratic Elected Officials & Candidates Investigated/Indicted 2001-2006
Republican Elected Officials & Candidates Investigated/Indicted 2001-2006
Independent/Other Elected Officials & Candidates

Investigated/Indicted 2001-2006

Bud Cummins
Arkansas, E. Dist.
00
00
00

Paul Charlton
Arizona
00
02
00

Carol Lam
California, So. Dist.
04
02
00

Kevin Ryan
California, No. Dist,
04
00
00

Debra Wang
California, Cent. Dist.
23
04
01

Daniel Bogden
Nevada
11
01
01

David Iglesias
New Mexico
01
00
00

John McKay
Washington, W. Dist.
01
00
02

Iglesias, as reported in the media, seems to have been fired for not investigating/indicting enough Democratic elected officials in a timely manner (before the 2006 elections) and the same would appear to apply to Charlton, Cummins and McKay.

Conversely, Bogden, Charlton, Lam, McKay, and Wang also all appear to have indicted at least one too many Republicans.

Of course, one could conclude that Democratic elected officials and candidates are just intrinsically more corrupt than Republicans and thus deserve greater investigation, although the data says not true to being more corrupt at the state-wide and national level (see Appendix B). Also, the latest stock market and public accounting scandals would seem to belie such a notion of intrinsic Republican innocence on its face.

Donald C. Shields, Ph.D.

1225 W. 69th St.

Kansas City, MO 64113

(816) 237-1617

sdcshie@worldnet.att.net

John F. Cragan, Ph.D.

3824 W. Calhoun Parkway

Minneapolis, MN 55410

(612) 929-2675

jecragan@aol.com

Oh, oh, Trent Lott is upset! Go lay another wreath on your hero, Strom Thurmond's, grave, Trent. We know all about your high moral standards.

Who cares what Trent Lott says or what Specter says? These Republican senators have given Bush a blank check so much so that our country is in such a mess. Bush has severely damaged America's reputation and credibility and goodwill among the peoples of the world. Republican senators and congressmen have been willing accomplices to the dishonesty and power grab by Bush and Cheney. Democrats are no longer the polite wimps that Republicans used to deride.

I imagine Karl Rove has to be laughing his ass off at this ridiculous "conflict of interest" ruse -- and the way this idiot Paul Kane mindlessly regurgitates it.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Schumer and the Dems: hypocrisy being only the most obvious. But this isn't one of them.

I think Karl Rove has a direct conflict of interest and is the worst possible person to be on the point. The Democrats have no chance to win a free and fair election so long as Karl Rove has his own personal terrorist surveillance program political payback machine. Paul Krugman has done some excellent reporting on the Bush mafia pursuing Democrats on a national scale in low-profile cases which avoid media attention.

First, to peter - mindlessly calling someone childish names only reveals your own inability to address whatever issue it is you take with Mr. Kane... after you're out of kindergarten, you should spend some time learning some manners. Paul Kane, far from an idiot, is a great guy who has invited you into his house. So, grow up, show some respect, and learn to articulate your ideas with a little more maturity.

Secondly, to Sen. Specter, what the hell is your angle on this one? As a former prosecutor you must know what an unbelievably difficult a position Iglesias must have been put in by that call from Domenici. You must also know the decision made by any prosecutor about whether to pursue an indictment or not must be made on legal grounds, and that political considerations have no place in those deliberations. Given that these are concepts you are not unfamiliar with, and taking into consideration your public statements expressing concern about the Justice Department' handling of the firings, I can only conclude that your swipe at Schumer, as reported by Capital Briefing, is nothing more than partisan hot air. Nice try Senator. I think it is very much to your credit that you aren't any good at these partisan broadsides, so why don't you just leave the mudslinging to the professionals...like the 'gentleman' from Mississippi.

Lastly, to Schumer, Poersch, et al... if you have to resort to the sleazy, low-life rhetoric found in your email in order to raise money, then there is truly no hope for the Democratic Party, or for this great country of ours. The entire email is nothing more than manipulative crap, but I find the following statement to be particuarily pathetic and wrong...

"Now, there is news that Sen. Domenici has retained the same lawyer who defended disgraced Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham - yet another sign the Senator knows hes in serious trouble."

...In this country, we are all entitled to be represented by counsel. It is as bedrock as any other of the ideals our country was founded on, and countless heroes have sacrificed and died to protect this right. To imply that seeking advice or representation of counsel is an admission of guilt, or that any information regarding that attorney's former client list is in any way relevant, is to reveal that you don't think very highly of the intellectual accumen of whoever it is you're targeting with this email. There appears to be plenty of unmanipulated truth to this story for you to raise money without treating your constituency like IQ-challenged partisan monkeys.

I am a Democrat and I think Schumer should not immediately allow his investigation to be used as a fundraising mechanism. Let's leave that type slime to the right-wing Republicans. As shown with the Abramoff cases, the public will remember. There will be plenty of time to exhume the findings for the '08 elections.

When some travel agents in the Clinton White House were replaced there was three years of meaningless Congressional investigations just so Republicans could pile-on allegations of wrong doing...that didn't exist...so they could get money from their base...ditto Whitewater, etc.

Now the Democrats are investigating some real serious allegations and the Republicans cry foul because its being used for political fund raising. So stop the crying Republicans.

Where was all these people when Janet Reno
fired Every Attorney in sight,Go Figure

Another none story related to a non-story. US attorneys are fired and hired all the time - ask Hillary and Webb Hubbell. Hillary fired the entire travel department in the White House off the bat in '93.
Bush needs to ask for Kennedys resignation for Chapaquittick and stop allowing the press and libs (rhinos included) to mandate his soundbites. I'm sick of him saying he's disappointed and conerned about such silly stuff (including Abu Griab - another non-story). Be a man and say go to hell to your critics Mr President!

Schumers a queen anyway (literally folks) - and nobody pays attention to him anymore.

The dems didn't object back in 1993, and they were in power then, when Bill, Hillory, Webb Hubbell and Janet Reno fired 93 of 94 prosecutors. Where was the outrage then. Whitewater was being investigated in Arkansas- prosecutor fired; Dan Rostenkowski was being investigated in Chicago-procecutor fired. The list goes on and on. Maybe the reason more dems were being investigated by these 8 prosecutors was the dems have been in power for over 40 of the last 50 years. Power corrupts, and when the dems were in power, they stopped all or most investigations. Now the repubs have been in power or partly in power since 1994, and the rocks are being uncovered and the sleeze is being seen.

Strat & missippi- Thank you.

Man, you have brain-dead posters over here too? As much as I hate to repeat myself here goes: yep, Clinton cleaned house in 1993. And then Bush fired all but one when he took office, and that one was in the middle of a big case. She was subsequently replaced in 2002. None of this is surprising or unusual or particularly unsettling; it's just the politics of cleaning house.

Bush's problem is that he fired his own R appointees NOT as part of cleaning house but for what appear to be constantly changing reasons. Yes, go ahead and regurgitate them but make sure you use all three or four of them and then be sure try to justify them.

And the most painful thing is that some R's don't seem to be able to recognize their own hypocrisy in pointing out (over and over and over) only Clinton's actions and trying to make a mountain out of it. I like to think (pardon my democratic streak) that we're all much the same in regards to intellect but the "Janet Reno THIS and Janet Reno THAT" braying in this context seems to be, quite frankly, indicative of (a) some form of mental retardation or (b) youthful bloggers.

I think Kane is an apologist for GOP. Like Broder is mouthing GOP arguments, he's also trying to find some way to rescue them from the onslaught of new democracy in Congress-FINALLY!
Moreover, I don't know why WP is so adamant holding up GOP positions thru its journalists - while claiming to be a liberal voice in D.C.

This contradiction in WP pages is very disturbing when they can't shift the chaff from the meat.

Can we all agree that Valerie Plame is a hootie?

MississippiBen- Don't you have a cross-burning to go to?

Just for your information, Clinton released 30 other US Attorney's AFTER 1994 (second term).

see here.