RUSH: Folks, you gotta hear this. I’m going to briefly touch here on the so-called scandal of the fired US attorneys. Dianne Feinstein making a huge stink about whether US attorney Carol Lam was fired mistakenly or unfairly because she’s making a case here about how great Carol Lam was on immigration cases. This is yesterday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the former chief of staff to Gonzales, Kyle Sampson. It’s just a portion of what Di Fi said. FEINSTEIN: An accumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases. It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. RUSH: Dianne Feinstein says an accumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three US attorneys for prosecution and immigration cases. ‘It’s a real surprise to me,’ she said to Sampson, ‘that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases.’ Ladies and gentlemen, I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers excerpts of a letter written by Dianne Feinstein to the honorable Alberto Gonzales June 15th of 2006. In this letter she specifically asked Gonzales whether Carol Lam, the US attorney for the Southern District of California, was doing her job by prosecuting enough illegal immigrants. She just yesterday cited USA Today survey, said that Carol Lam was doing a great job on immigration cases. Here are the excerpts. ‘It has come to my attention, Attorney General Gonzales that, despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California’s border with Mexico, prosecutions by the US attorney’s office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. A concern voiced by Border Patrol agents is that low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation’s borders. It is my understanding that the US attorney’s office, Southern District of California, may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases. I’m concerned that lax prosecution –‘ she’s talking about Carol Lam here, ‘I’m concerned that lax prosecution can endanger the lives of Border Patrol agents. ‘In 2005, the US attorney’s office in southern California –‘ that would be Carol Lam ‘– convicted only 387 aliens for alien smuggling and 262 aliens for illegal reentry after deportation. When looking at the rates of conviction from 2003 to 2005, the numbers of convictions fall by nearly half. I’m concerned, Mr. Attorney General, about these low numbers. I would like to know what steps can be taken to ensure that immigration violators are vigorously prosecuted. I appreciate your timely –‘ This is unbelievable. June 15th, 2006, she writes a letter to Gonzales complaining about Carol Lam, prosecution of illegal immigrants and the smugglers decreasing dramatically, and she is concerned. Now, she wants to know from the attorney general, is this not what Chuck Schumer did to Patrick Fitzgerald? Sent a letter demanding to know what’s going on here? Isn’t that what they’re saying is all out of whack here? They’ve been tampering with these investigations; tampering with these offices of US attorneys. Isn’t that what they’re mad at Pete Domenici about for, because he sent letters off to Rove complaining about the US attorney in Arizona not doing the same thing? Here is Dianne Feinstein not even a year ago whining and moaning about Carol Lam and here she is yesterday quoting a newspaper, USA Today, citing Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the US for prosecution of illegal immigration cases. I don’t know what else we need. Anything else that’s happened in these hearings can be washed out with this one instance. You talk about pure politics. There’s no scandal here whatsoever. By the way, you know where this letter is posted? Huffington Post, a left-wing blog. That’s where we found it. It’s on the Huffington Post. You heard right. I don’t know if you call it dishonesty, but it certainly is disingenuousness and indicates that even somebody of the stature of Di Fi is entirely capable of pure politics and a memory that is so scant that she doesn’t even remember a year ago, not even a year ago, she was on Carol Lam’s case for lack of prosecution, which is exactly why the president and his people decided they might need to replace her out there. She was demanding to know what’s going to be done. She was de facto California senator demanding action on this because Carol Lam wasn’t doing diddly-squat. She’s on the same page as the justice department was and the attorney general’s office. But no longer, because the Democrats now run the Senate and it’s about getting Bush. It’s about embarrassing Bush, and it’s about politicizing and criminalizing every political decision the administration makes. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for showing us who you are.