June 7, 2007

Mary Beth Buchanan in the news AGAIN

I noticed this from my friend Bram at the Pittsburgh Comet. His posting deals mostly with this article from the P-G.

But our very own Mary Beth has a few more irons in the fire these days.

As we've posted here before, she's set to talk to Congress about her role in the US Attorney firings. It's been postponed until June 15, 2007.

Did you know she lawyered up for her meeting with Congress? According to the P-G, Buchanan's attorney is Roscoe C. Howard, partner of the DC lawfirm of Troutman Sanders (what, no one from BUCHANAN Ingersoll was available??).

My guess is that it's NOT usual for a US Attorney to get counsel when testifying with Congress:

Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who has been following the U.S. attorney scandal, was surprised to learn Ms. Buchanan had hired an attorney.

"A number of the [Department of Justice] officials have [retained counsel], but my sense is that those were the people who are in trouble," Mr. Tobias said. "I wouldn't see any necessity or really much of a reason for her to have counsel, except out of an abundance of caution."

Out of fairness, we'll just assume it's an abundance of caution.

Did you know that her name popped up in an e-mail in yesterday's document dump from the DoJ? Yep, here it is. Here's how the McClatchy papers describe it:

A leader of an influential conservative legal group recommended a replacement candidate for the U.S. attorney in San Diego just days after the sitting prosecutor's name was secretly placed on a Justice Department firing list, according to a document released Wednesday.

The recommendation by the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, came before anyone outside of a tight group in the White House and Justice Department knew about a nascent strategy that ultimately led to the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

It could not be determined whether a short e-mail, sent on March 7, 2005, making the recommendation meant that Leo knew of the plan to fire Carol Lam or whether his message was unsolicited and coincidental.

Out of fairness, let's just assume it's unsolicitied and coincidental.

Let's assume the Federalist Society had no idea far-right political appointees were purging Republican US Attorneys from their positions because they weren't "loyal Bushies." Leo Leo just happened to appoint a far-right attorney for a position he had no idea was being opened for the appropriate far-right attorney.

And the attorney Leo Leo suggested? Air Force General Counsel, Mary Walker. She shows up in this article at Law.com.

Mary Walker has endured more controversy in a three-year tenure as general counsel of the U.S. Air Force than most government lawyers do in a career. Last year a blue-ribbon panel headed by former congresswoman Tillie Fowler practically accused Walker of a cover-up after the GC issued a report absolving Air Force brass of responsibility in sexual abuse scandals at the Air Force Academy.

Now Walker, a former Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison lawyer appointed by President George Bush, is back on the hot seat. At issue this time is her role heading a U.S. Department of Defense group that issued a controversial report in March 2003 giving the administration enormous latitude in interrogating alleged terrorists. Once again, Fowler -- a partner with Holland & Knight -- is on retainer to review Walker's handiwork: In May, Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed Fowler to a panel to review detention operations. (Walker declined to comment for this story. Fowler spokesperson Thomas Alexander says she won't comment until the work is complete later this summer. For updates on the report, go to www.americanlawyer.com.)

Nice folks, these Bushies.

7 comments:

  1. Clinton fired ALL of them...don't remember hearing ya bitch back then about it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You've nailed it, anonymous -- Bush and Gonzales could say "Heck yeah we fired them! Never liked them a bit!"

    BUT THEY ARE NOT!! They're saying, "oh um, heck, what was, not me right, not him, wasn't it? no, it was like, it was just ... let's just ... alrighty then."

    Why do you suppose that is, anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  3. More than ever, Mary Beth Buchanan needs a good crisp spanking.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous: That's normal at the beginning of a term, not after 6 years, idiot. Clinton didn't clean them out mid-term like this, that's a lie.

    As for the Federalist Society I wonder what they think of the news that Buchanan forced her lawyers to write her speeches for them on taxpayer time? Weren't they too busy prosecuting Cyril Wecht for the same sin?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where is Mary Beth Buchanan??? What happened during her "questioning?" Where is her statement? Was there a statement? If so, why isn't it public? If not questioned, why not?

    The following link might give a clue! I found it just browsing along...

    http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/us-attorney-mary-beth-buchanan-flees-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. mary beth is up to her (obscene explicative) let alone be going after free speech like she is today. It doesn't seem to get through their pointy heads till they're in front of a sentencing judge that they aren't above the law

    ReplyDelete