WASHINGTON, DC — As details concerning the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys continue to surface, the claim that a reticence to prosecute obscenity cases led to the downfall of at least two of the terminated attorneys – as well as the underlying claim that Alberto Gonzales and the DOJ consider obscenity prosecutions a “high priority” – is being subjected to scrutiny by pundits of all stripes.In an article posted to TheNation.com Tuesday, “The Porn Plot Against Prosecutors,” author Max Blumenthal examines some of the email messages related to the U.S. Attorney firings that have been disclosed by the Bush Administration, including a message authored by chief of the DOJ’s Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, Brent Ward.

In an email dated September 20th, 2006, Ward complained to Kyle Sampson, chief of staff for Gonzales, about a pair of U.S. Attorneys “who are unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them. They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix (this is urgent) and Dan Bogden in Las Vegas… In light of the AG’s [Gonzales’] comments…to ‘kick butt and take names,’ what do you suggest I do?”

Ward’s complaint about Charlton and Bogden has been repeated by some Administration officials, while others, including Karl Rove, have focused their criticism on the dismissed attorneys’ unwillingness to ask for the death penalty, or, in Charlton’s case, prosecute individuals for possession of marijuana unless the amount of marijuana involved was in excess of 500 pounds.

Citing an anonymous source “intimately familiar with Charlton’s disputed obscenity case,” Blumenthal reports that Ward’s accusation regarding Charlton’s unwillingness to take “good” obscenity cases is based on a case that Ward filed in June of 2006 against Five Star Video, related to the distribution of allegedly obscene DVDs across state lines.

According to Blumenthal’s anonymous source, Charlton agreed to take the case, but refused to attach an additional U.S. Attorney to the case, not deeming it worthy of such action given the limited resources available to Charlton’s office.

Regarding the same case, Mark Kernes of Adult Video News noted earlier this week that some of the same video titles named in the obscenity indictment of Five Star were being sold and distributed by another Arizona-based company, Castle Megastores – and being sold under the auspices of the DOJ’s U.S. Trustee’s Office and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Arizona, to boot.

The potentially embarrassing situation regarding the allegedly obscene materials being sold by Five Star was not mentioned in Ward’s email expressing concern over Charlton’s unwillingness to take “good” obscenity cases, nor was Charlton’s contention that the Five Star prosecution didn’t merit the dedication of more of his office’s resources.

While some Bush Administration critics charge that the Charlton and Bogden firings constitute more evidence that the administration places too much emphasis on obscenity prosecutions, others are wondering aloud if the obscenity issue isn’t simply part of a series of justifications presented to avoid admitting that the firings were “politically motivated.”

In a press release issued Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized White House efforts to prevent Karl Rove, Harriet Myers and others from testifying on the record and under oath, stating that “after telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”

“Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer,” added Reid. “If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”

In an accompanying “fact sheet,” Reid notes that in a recent press conference, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) stated that when he tried to get specifics as to why Bogden was fired, “I was told that there were two areas that they didn’t feel that Dan was being aggressive enough. One was on obscenity cases – adult obscenity cases.”

Reid’s fact sheet then notes that, contrary to what Ensign was told, “Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella said that Daniel Bogden actually had no significant deficiencies.”

Indeed, in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee, Moschella testified that “The general sense in the department about Mr. Bogden is that given the importance of the district in Las Vegas, there was no particular deficiency. There was an interest in seeing new energy and renewed vigor in that office, really taking it to the next level.”

Reid also asserts that “Bogden moved forward on adult obscenity cases – even when the Justice Department gave him little to work with.”

Quoting an article published by Salon.com, Reid’s fact sheet further observes that a “former senior law enforcement official knowledgeable about the work of the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office said he was shocked to see the criticism of Bogden… The case in question, involving adult obscenity on the internet, was “woefully deficient” of details according to the official, who confirmed that Ward had gone to Nevada in early September 2006 to present it. ‘All they had was a Web site,’ he said. ‘They didn’t have a target fully identified, they had no assets… they didn’t even know where the guy was managing his server. Nevertheless, Bogden’s office agreed to put together a proposal for pursuing the case, outlining the additional work and resources needed to build it, the official said. The implication that Bogden was refusing to take on a ‘good case’ in that instance, the official said, ‘is totally absurd.’”

Back at TheNation.com, Blumenthal’s anonymous source contends that Ward’s frequently expressed demand that the DOJ take up more adult obscenity cases were considered a nuisance by many US Attorneys.

“There were countless child obscenity cases crying out to be prosecuted,” the source reportedly told Blumenthal, “but [Brent] Ward wanted to focus on cases involving consenting adults. That’s just not a good way of dedicating resources. When you have so many children being harmed, why not allocate your resources towards that?”

Still other administration critics – in this case, critics from the far right – question the fundamental, factual basis for the claim that the DOJ even sets a high priority on obscenity prosecutions in the first place, let alone a priority high enough that the DOJ would dismiss a prosecutor for refusing to file obscenity cases.

In an article entitled “Budgeting Wars Part II: Feds Fail at Obscenity Enforcement” published by the conservative group Concerned Women for America (CWA), CWA chief counsel Jan LaRue asserts that “Anybody who keeps track of obscenity prosecutions knows the stats show that it’s not the ‘priority’ we’ve been told it is.”

In the same article, LaRue states that “we think somebody in Congress should require quarterly progress reports that account for how a good part of a $25.4 million dollar increase for crimes against children and obscenity is actually being used for obscenity enforcement and that somebody should be aware that when CEOS has reported ‘40 obscenity indictments,’ it’s counting individuals, not separate cases. Some cases have multiple defendants, and several began as child pornography investigations that were allowed to plead down to an obscenity charge.”

To read Max Blumenthal’s entire piece, refer to the article as published TheNation.com, at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/blumenthal

For the full text of Mark Kerne’s article for AVN.com, go to http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=285692

Senator Reid’s full press release can be found here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-20-2007/0004550105&EDATE=

The full text of Jan LaRue’s article can be found on the CWA website at: http://www.cwfa.org/articles/12411/LEGAL/pornography/index.htm