Why is it reading any story touched by Steve Kraske involving the Missouri GOP like looking for clues on a treasure map? The other day he re-wrote Greg Gordon's excellent story with an eye to hiding Missouri GOP involvement and now he is co-author of a story with the normally outstanding Dave Helling requiring the reader to work hard to find gems sown in the story's lining.
For example a close reading of Dave Helling and Steve Kraske's Kansas City Star article confirms that Graves was fired. In one paragraph they indicate that Senator Kit Bond personally became involved with Graves’ tenure when Graves’ departure was imminent in early 2006.
“Senator Bond … upon (Graves’) request personally called the White House to gain Todd extra time to wrap up case work before his departure,” Marchio’s statement said.This thread is picked up several paragraphs down when they write
A person in Bond’s office who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the discussions said the White House rejected Bond’s efforts on Graves’ behalf because of “performance” concerns. E-mails from the Justice Department and the White House have used similar language in discussing the other U.S. attorneys who were fired.If Todd Graves voluntarily resigned why would he ask Bond to contact the White House to gain additional time to finish up his cases? It's pretty obvious that Graves was asked to leave. John Marshall is right. Graves was the 9th US Attorney fired. My question is why can't Helling and Graves report facts using simple declarative sentences?
Please note that there is another very important fact buried in these passages. Bond didn't contact Alberto Gonzales, he contacted the White House. If Bond wanted to help Graves gain a little more time to finish his work why didn't he go to Alberto Gonzales or one of his people?
Two theories have emerged about Todd Graves departure from his US Attorney job in Kansas City. The first is that he was pushed out because he and his wife were involved in a "fee office scandal." Helling does a fine job describing that scandal. I have always thought the fee office scandal was a phony because the "fee office" system, which is without doubt a lingering vestige of corrupt patronage politics, has been a prime tool used by generations of Missouri governors (both Republican and Democrat)to pay off supporters. Democrats bitching about Blunt's fee office appointments is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. (I know I am going to be pummelled, but that's the way the story looks to the average Missourian.)
The second is that Graves was pushed out because he wasn't a loyal Bushie. He just didn't prosecute Democrats with sufficient vigour and he wasn't in love with voter fraud cases. The appointment and well documented performance of Bradley Schlozman seems to support this theory. Graves public record as US Attorney also supports the second theory. I, for one, have often connected Graves departure to his wife's involvement in the fee office scandal, but on reflection theory number two seems to be closer to the truth.
It looks like Karl Rove's Missouri adventure has come undone. Claire McCaskill was elected and Bradley Schlozman is going to be talking to congress. As for Todd Graves, while he didn't get a signing bonus at some large law firm he has attracted some pretty good young legal talent and has opened his own shiny new law firm.
Now if we could just get Helling and Kraske to write in clear declarative sentences about the hidden activities of Missouri's GOP, all would be right with the world. Of course, reading their stories for hidden clues is sort of fun.
UPDATE: Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post writes in simple declarative sentences.
Graves is the second U.S. attorney whose ouster is known to have been encouraged by the office of a Republican senator. Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) complained last October about New Mexico's David C. Iglesias, who was later fired.
