voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... Border Prosecutions

The question from Billy Bob Henry was the first so I'll respond and hope this answers concerns of others as well.

First of all, Carol Lam and the U.S. attorneys who worked under her prosecuting Duke Cunningham and others related to the bribery scandal did San Diego and the United States a great service. As someone who worked in the House of Representatives with Cunningham, I felt his betrayal on a very personal level.

I disagree, however, with the notion that Carol Lam had an "either/or" choice between prosecuting Cunningham and those who traffic human beings across our borders.

In regard to the question about finite resources and Carol Lam not being told that she needed to improve her border crimes record, I do have some concerns. Carol Lam testified before Congress that Justice Department officials did not make clear to her that she needed to make border crimes and gun crimes more of a priority.

The Justice Department also bears much responsibility for immigration prosecution failures. It's clear that the Department of Justice has bungled the dismissals of the eight U.S. attorneys who, I would note, served their country honorably and deserved a better thank you than they have received as the subjects of a shouting match between Congress and the administration.

I would, however, like to submit this memorandum that was sent to Carol Lam in July 2006. The memorandum covers the five U.S. Attorneys offices on the border with Mexico (Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and two in Texas) and chronicles that the number of border case in the Southern District of California lags behind the other offices. According to the memo, Southern California even prosecuted 200 fewer immigration cases than the New Mexico office that is approximately half the size.

The question about what specific direction Carol Lam was given by her superiors is definitely one I hope to have an opportunity to ask the Justice Department about at a future hearing.

I also pursued and have had some limited success in bringing new resources to address the problem in San Diego despite the refusal by Carol Lam and the Department of Justice to acknowledge a problem and quantify what resources they needed to address it.

Rep. Issa, you began by acknowledging that US Attorneys need to balance resources and, I assume, establish prosecutorial priorities. In this post, you say that Ms. Lam's office did not face an either/or sort of decision in its pursuit of immigration and corruption offenses. Since, to my knowledge, you have not suggested that Ms. Lam's office was overzealous in its pursuit of non-immigration crime but was not strong enough on immigration issues, is your point that Ms. Lam's office was simply inefficient? If so, then are you saying you're better than DoJ at assessing USAs?

Posted by Lucas | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 2:01 am

Here's a letter sent to you Rep. Issa from the Department of Justice in July 2006 saying in effect your claims were off base. "Dear Congressman Issa: ... Please rest assured that the immigration laws in the Southern District of California are being vigorously enforced. Indeed, prosecutions for alien smuggling in Fiscal Year 2006 in the Southern District of California are rising dramatically. As of March 2006, the halfway point in the fiscal year, there were 342 alien smuggling cases filed in that jurisdiction. This compares favorably with the 484 alien smuggling prosecutions brought there during the entirety of Fiscal Year 2005." http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070321-9999-lz1n21twoview.html#

Posted by joejoejoe | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 2:47 am

All you are doing is making up reasons for her firing after the fact. You and your republican cronies are sad and your dishonesty is transparent

Posted by SJ | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 2:49 am

You released a Border Patrol report to the media last May with great fanfare. But, according to emails released by the Department of Justice last week, the U.S. Chief of the Border Patrol, San Diego,identified the report on May 19, 2006 as has being an altered and unauthorized version of an internal intelligence report issued by the El Cajon substation. In fact, the date of the report had been changed from 2003 to 2004. My question is whether you verified the authenticity of the report with the San Diego Chief of the Border Patrol before releasing it to the media.

Posted by Mrs Panstreppon | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:00 am

Rep. Issa, your behavior during this entire episode makes both your motives and your integrity suspect.

Posted by David Helms | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:01 am

I do not think the Cunningham probe is the issue, I believe that Ms Lam was headed for bigger fish in the pond and it worried people like Mr Issa the level at which she was going to expose. It will be interesting to see if the CIA et al connection with Duke continues now that she is gone. That will be the telling reference as to why she was fired.

Posted by Richard Tanner | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:03 am

SJ is correct, you're trying to provide the administration an excuse for its obstruction of justice. And, since you were involved in the woodshedding of Lam (e.g., the immigration report), you might be considered a member of this conspiracy to obstruct justice. Get a lawyer.

Posted by John | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:12 am

Rep. Issa, here is a link to a letter you wrote Attorney General Gonzalez on 20 Oct 2005: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/duke-lam-letter/ Among others such as Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle, this letter was also signed by your "personal betrayer" Duke Cunningham. This occurred four months after the San Diego United States Attorney's office launched an investigation into whether Duke had accepted bribes from defense contractors, and little more than a month before he pled guilty to those charges. My question is: Why were you still involved with Cunningham and why did you let him sign your letter after he had pled guilty?

Posted by Ed | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:13 am

Daryl Issa would have us believe that a Federal prosecutor closing in on his crooked pals would never be removed to protect them, and he assures us that his actions are pure and honest. Fortunately, we have diligent bloggers digging into the facts: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/03/interesting_tim.html Something stinks in Darryl Issa's office.

Posted by HH | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:22 am

How sad to see a member congress on a forum like this trying to backpedal his into some legitimacy for his actions. Mr. Issa, your actions speak for themselves. What was more damaging to you? Let's see, Carol Lam's investigation into your friend, the now convicted felon Duke Cunningham and the growing investigation that case sparked or, illegal immigration? You're fooling no one sir. And by the way, it's dishonesty such as this that's given me reason to send back all the junk from your company in Vista and buy from another supplier. Garbage in, garbage out.

Posted by ice weasel | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:22 am

Perhaps Mr. Issa could explain why one of the emails released suggests that in answering why these US Attorneys were fired, that because three of them happened to be in border areas that people might infer they were because of immigration. That certainly sounds to me as if they were not immigration related at all but a handy excuse for other reasons for their dismissals. And also, why his own party's President seems to be so lax in worrying about illegal immigration and will even ferry up from Mexico a criminal in order to prosecute border guards?

Posted by visitor | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:23 am

Oh, Mr. Issa. You're doing the "her immigration enforcement was sub-par" talking point. But don't you know about the emails released LAST WEEK that showed Justice officials AFTER-THE-FACT brainstorming for reasons for the dismissals. Then one of them said "Well, three of them are from the south. Why not say it was about immigration?" (paraphrase). If it makes you feel any better, anyone following this story even casually knows you're just covering up for a bunch of crooks.

Posted by tom | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:27 am

Crook Cunningham and his enablers have all kinds of things that they wish Lam had been spending effort on, rather than prosecuting crooked Congressmen and defense contractors. Issa tells us that the problem was inadequate prosecution of illegal immigration cases. Duncan Hunter complained about not enough prosecution of low-level drug cases 5 or 6 years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYNdvETN8-s The Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at DOJ testified that Lam's problem was not enough prosecutions of gun crimes. Alberto Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison says Lam was fired because ... well, we won't know, because that official just plead the Fifth before Congress.

Posted by Ottnott | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:36 am

Mr. Issa, Your memo shows nothing, other than a request to verify data. It COULD be read as a veiled threat, but there's no consistent context for that interpretation, just your innuendo, which based on your track record of integrity, is completely discountable. Sorry, you'll have to work harder to manufacture evidence.

Posted by Brucek1102 | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:38 am

Dan Dan Dan...With Lam out of the way Drunken "donut" Hunter just may be able to use his "Presidential Fund raising for running for office instead of a legal defense fund. I mean just how close were Duncan donuts and "Top Gun" Cunningham? What did Carol have on this bunch and wasn't it quick how fast she got a job at Qualcom and how she hasn't spoken up. Is Qualcom predisposed to republicans? Look up thier political donations.

Posted by Mike in Spring Valley | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:39 am

"...the idea that Lam did not prioritize border cases is demonstrably false. As the Justice Department stated in a letter three months before Lam was fired, half of the prosecutors in Lam's office were dedicated to criminal immigration cases. The ire directed at Lam from Republican lawmakers and some within the Justice Department had to do with a choice Lam made. Given the chronic lack of resources (approximately 140,000 immigration arrests in Lam's district per year vs. approximately 110 lawyers in her office), she decided to use her resources to prosecute the more serious cases. www.talkingpointsmemo.com

Posted by anno | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:43 am

Give it up Darrel. Your spin does not fit the facts. The facts are: that the DOJ with your active assistance made up an ex post facto justification for the Lam firing. Your crocodile tears about filthy Duke C are self serving & transparent. I'd like to hear your sworn testimony before a House committee.

Posted by hawaiilaw | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:43 am

A large number of sources are reporting that attempted border crossings are down due to the deployment of National Guard personnel. If this is the case, the number of illegal immigration prosecutions wouldn't necessarily need to increase. I also understand how difficult it is to rationalize the US Attorney firings after the fact.

Posted by Raleigh Muns | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:44 am

Why did you choose to answer only half of Billy Bob's query, Represetative Issa? You quote only the first half and then give a response that is actually disposed of in the second half of his question. Should more than "over half of the 110 AUSA's in the San Diego office" have been devoted to addressing your xenophobic concerns? What percentage of that office's resources should have been diverted away from the case of a congressman who sat on the defense committee taking bribes from a defense contractor who provided substandard equipment to our soldiers in Iraq?

Posted by Singularity | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:46 am

The injustice perpetrated upon the dismissed USAs was not a product of any shouting match involving congress. It was the product of an unethical Bush administration, one which you stoutly defend. The USA purge scandal stinks to high heaven, and the stench comes from one direction only: the Republican party of today.

Posted by labradog | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:46 am

And, of course, I suppose it's just completely crazy to point out that just a few weeks before Lam began investigating Duke Cunningham in a scandal that led, in part, to the Republicans' loss of the House and will, no doubt, lead to even further Republicans in the "Big House."

Posted by nitpicker | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 3:55 am

Darrell Issa doesn't give a flying fig what anyone thinks about this. He's still crying about not becoming Governor.

Posted by crack | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 4:04 am

Mr. Issa, have you no shame? How stupid do you think we are?

Posted by Maya | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 4:14 am

Congressman, with all due respect, that's just not plausible. Fully half of her office was dedicated to immigration cases, and their case load was increasing. I don't think you want to be sticking your neck out on this.

Posted by joe | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 5:10 am

Congressman Issa-- The first explanation for Carl Lam's & the other attorneys' firing was that they were "performance-based." This was proven to be false. 1) It's looking increasingly like Carol Lam was fired to prevent her from investigating your colleague Jerry Lewis; doesn't this qualify as obstruction of justice by the Attorney General and/or Bush? 2) Did you in ANY way attempt to impede Lam's investigation to protect yourself or your colleague Mr. Lewis? If the answer is no, will you testify to this under oath before the House Gov't Oversight Committee? Thanks for stopping by. Hope you'll answer all the questions.

Posted by Greg | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 5:12 am

Congressman, are you aware how much you weaken your own argument? You claim that Lam wasn't performing on the border relative to other border-state USAs. Two of the other four you cite were ALSO fired - David Iglesias in NM and Paul Charlton in AZ. Second, you talk about how the resources needed to be balanced between corruption and smuggling prosecutions. Yet the Justice Department was holding back a great deal of funding from Lam deliberately, keeping her on a "short leash". Do you honestly think that was not because of her aggressive corruption cases?

Posted by dday | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 5:13 am

And third, you released the anonymous DHS report about border smuggling in May 2006, even though you had it for MONTHS. Interesting timing, Congressman.

Posted by dday | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 5:17 am

Oh please! During Ms. Lam's tenure,our borders swung wide open with a welcome sign posted for every criminal of any country to waltz on over. I would hope that her office could at least multi-task and pursue corruption and enforce the border. Seems Mr. Issa praised Ms. Lam for her handling of dishonest and disgusting "Duke" but, at the same time wanted the jail house door slammed on some of the most dangerous criminals! Serious lapse in judgement to choose one over the other.

Posted by Karen | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 5:36 am

Representative Issa, You have been my representative for so many years, yet you have never represented me. You have represented the Bush/Cheney military madness and you have represented corporate interests. The fact that you would slam Carol Lam on immigration using "facts" that the Border Patrol disputed sort of says it all. You are part of the system to ruin our system of justice. About a month ago, I took part in your telephone survey. I wrote to ask for the results. I still await these results.

Posted by Terry Olson | reply to this comment
March 26, 2007 6:16 am

i am sure you'll have pleanty of job opportunities when your finished here. you're a disgrace to the office, mr. issa.

Posted by micr0minee | reply to this comment
March 28, 2007 10:28 am

Rep Issa, I'd believe you if you suggested hiring a special prosecutor (not of the white house fame and certainly not DOJ's OPR) to investigate and follow up on all of Carol Lam's investigations. I'm not holding my breath though, as this is so blatantly corrupt, as to be absurd. The sad part is that I used to believe in Justice. Now, when I hear about a Federal Indictment, I wonder what the partisan motive was. We now know, there's no such thing as "Justice".

Posted by Ron Russell | reply to this comment
March 30, 2007 10:23 am

Need to get a conscience Mr. Issa. The killing and the dying of our military and, now, a million Iraqis due to the war mongering benefiting corrupt war profiteers, of whom, you are one. The Bible calls satan, the Father of Lies and that no one who makes or tells a lie will be allowed into Heaven.

Posted by ayla | reply to this comment
March 30, 2007 1:28 pm

Border Prosecutions

Published: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:53 AM PDT