Why Did Bush Fire Abramoff U.S. Attorney?
And then there is the most intriguing instance
of a presidential action that, wittingly or not, served Abramoff’s interests.
On Nov. 18, 2002, the federal prosecutor in Guam issued a subpoena to court
officials on the Pacific island, who had secretly retained the lobbyist to stop
legislation in Congress that would have curtailed their authority. The subpoena
demanded all the records concerning the strange Abramoff contract from the administrative
director of the Guam Superior Court. On the day after U.S. attorney Frederick
Black issued the subpoena to Abramoff’s covert clients in Guam, the White House
announced the president’s decision to replace him. A career federal prosecutor
who had held the Pacific island post for a decade, Black was demoted to a staff
position. His replacement was a lawyer recommended by the Republican Party on
Guam. Rove received the recommendation from another lobbyist for government
officials Black had been investigating. And of course, Bush’s firing of Black
killed the investigation of Abramoff’s secret dealings with the Guam court officials,
as the Los Angeles Times reported last August. Perhaps the president really
doesn’t know Abramoff and had no idea that the lobbyist was telling clients
that he could fix the Bush White House. Maybe his abrupt removal of
the U.S. attorney who was investigating Abramoff three years ago was merely
a curious coincidence. But if he has nothing to hide, then why are he and his
press secretary concealing the facts and photos of Abramoff’s repeated visits
to the White House? Joe
Canason
Check out Conason’s op-ed today. As the American people decide
that Bush should admit his associations, you’ve got to wonder how they would
feel about this.
Comments are closed.