Why I Don't Watch TV "News"
On Sunday, Tim Russert (NBC "Meet The Press") interviewed Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) on AttorneyGate. The interview demonstrated that the Senator is not beyond mixing up his talking points with off-the-cuff "facts."
Russert was complicit in perpetuating a falsehood: he let Hatch's false rant against former US Attorney Carol Lam stand unchallenged. From the official transcript:
Carol Lam, it’s amazing to me she wasn’t fired earlier because for three years members of the Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton...
Let's take these claims one-at-a-time. (tip)
Bio
We'll turn to a journalist in San Diego for Lam's bio. (There's similar material in the cached AP bio).
She graduated cum laude from Yale, attended Stanford Law, and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 1980s, Lam was appointed to the bench in the San Diego Superior Court, before becoming a U.S. attorney in 2002. She is a past recipient of the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service.
One: she was a prosecutor. She was an assistant US attorney in the 1980s -- and she was a judge before being appointed US Attorney.
Two: the claim than any assistant US attorney is a campaign manager for anyone -- particularly someone from the "other" party -- is ... umm ... just not believable.
Three: no mention of tenure as law professor. (Help me understand why that would be a bad thing.)
And Tim Russert simply let this character assassination go unchallenged. What liberal media?
Track Record In San Diego
First, Lam was in the top third of her US Attorney peers in overall prosecutions and convictions. No slouch, there. (Reminder: the bottom third wasn't fired en masse.)
Second, data from the US Customs and Border Protection directly contradict Hatch's smear, which seems based on DOJ talking points about 2004 or 2005:
- From 2005 to 2006: 33% increase in alien smuggling cases
- From 2005 to 2006: 329% increase in non-threshold smuggling cases, with 100% conviction rate
- From 2005 to 2006: a 50% reduction in "the number of smuggled aliens encountered at the San Diego Ports of Entry"
Third, DOJ's internal papers show that under Lam's direction, the San Diego office was focusing on the most "egregious violators, focusing on illegal aliens with substantial criminal histories." In other words, they went for the big guys, not the "foot guides" with no track record.
The DOJ numbers on 2005 convictions seem to bear this out:
Defendants who received prison sentences between one and 12 months dropped by more than half to 338 in 2005. But the number of defendants who received sentences between 37 and 60 months more than doubled to 246, and the number who received sentences longer than 60 months more than tripled to 77.
In August 2006, Lam explained in an e-mail:
Essentially, I must make a choice: prosecute the 'coyotes' who are smuggling but not endangering anyone, or the rapists and murderers who are coming back to rape and murder again.
Seems like a reasonable distribution of resources to me -- although I don't know how those lowly foot guides contribute to either higher conviction rates or longer prison terms.
Surprise! TRAC data explain. For the US in 2004, immigration prosecutions were up 16% but convictions were down 4%. Not only is the increase from 2003 is "unusual" ... "the median or typical sentence [declined] from 15 months in FY 2003 to one month in FY 2004."
Is this really how you want to see your tax money spent? Or does Lam's focus on high profile and high risk criminals make more sense to you?
What About Businesses That Hire Illegals?
It seems a reasonable question -- what were other parts of the Bush Administration doing regarding those who employ undocumented workers? From US Liberals Guide Deborah White:
Did you know that, in 1999 under President Bill Clinton, the US government collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies for employing undocumented workers....and in 2004, under President George Bush, the US collected only $188,500 from 64 companies for such illegal employment practices? And that NO fines were levied at all in pre-election 2004?
What agency leads the enforcement effort against businesses? INS.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Corruption R Us
What might Lam's office have been focused on in 2004 and 2005 that caused it to a drop in immigration cases?
Might it have been ... one of the highest profile corruption cases in decades?
In fact, when chief of staff Kyle Sampson said Lam was a "real problem," the San Diego office investigation of then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) was in high gear. The LA Times reported Lam's office was about to expand the investigation to include Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA).
That investigation also led to the indictment of Kyle Foggo, the third highest ranking CIA official (a political appointee).
Finally, the American Prospect reports that one of the conspirators -- Mitchell Wade -- is linked to Vice President Cheney. Wade pled guilty last year in the Cunningham case; he paid $140,000 for a yacht for Cunningham.
Prior to buying the yacht, Wade had received $140,000 from the White House in 2002 -- a contract for "computers, office furniture, and specialized computer programming services." The client: the office of the Vice President.
Before she was forced to resign in February, Lam brought three more indictments. Two were high profile Republicans: Brent Wilkes, "San Diego-based defense contractor and Bush/Cheney Pioneer" and "Wilkes's longtime friend-turned-CIA executive director Kyle Dustin Foggo."
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Lam's firing wasn't because she was soft on illegal immigration.
She was hard on highly connected and corrupt Republicans.