One of the Best GOP Senators Channels the Donald and Dreams Re: Gonzalez: You're Fired!

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) is the first GOP member of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body (cough, cough) to lay it on the line regarding the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

 A Senate Republican is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal as Democrats weigh subpoenaing President Bush's top aides in the escalating political furor over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire, a longtime Bush administration critic facing a tough re-election campaign, called for Gonzales' ouster Wednesday just hours after Bush expressed confidence in the attorney general, who is a longtime friend.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview. "I think the attorney general should be fired."

Although some Republicans have been tepid in their support for the attorney general, Sununu was the first to go so far in the wake of an uproar over the Justice Department's firing of the attorneys and its response to congressional questions, plus a separate report that the administration abused its power to secretly investigate suspected terrorists.

More here.

Sununu is all too rare a bird in the Senate: A pol with something approaching a governing philosophy that is independent of partisanship.

Comments

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 7:38am | #

If they can only find an e-mail from Rove (any Rove will do) then they will KNOW it is a conspiracy at the highest levels!

Warm up the water board!

Warren | March 15, 2007, 8:43am | #

According to Wikipedia, John earned an MS in Mechanical Engineering from MIT. While that's largely nullified by the MBA he got at Harvard, it puts him far above his god damned lawyer colleagues.

Firing Gonzales is only half the equation. He needs to be replaced with someone better. Remember Gonzales was the replacement for Ashcroft. And given the misdeeds of Justice over the past six years, I really think felony charges are in order.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 9:01am | #

Firing Gonzales is only half the equation. He needs to be replaced with someone better. Remember Gonzales was the replacement for Ashcroft. And given the misdeeds of Justice over the past six years, I really think felony charges are in order.

TED! Where is that water board? These guys trying to stop terrorism must be stopped! If all they had was a bunch of FBI records then, er, we would eb doing the same thing!

:)

jimmydageek | March 15, 2007, 9:08am | #

What, exactly, will we get out of firing the present AG?? This administration is wrought with scandal and it all stems from the very top. I'm probably too young to know, but in the last 30 years has there been any other administration as rotten as the current one?? Lately, it seems as if any time the senate proposes a bill, the white house threatens to veto it. WTF??

joe | March 15, 2007, 9:25am | #

Not even "should resign." "Should be fired."

And I had no idea that 8 Bush-appointed DAs were terrorists, Guy. Do you really think anyone's buying that crap in March 2007?

rob | March 15, 2007, 9:31am | #

joe,
I think you mis-read Guy's post. Try again.

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 9:32am | #

And I had no idea that 8 Bush-appointed DAs were terrorists, Guy. Do you really think anyone's buying that crap in March 2007?

Joe, don't be silly. In a post 9/11 world, blah blah blah blah. Terrorism! Terrorism! Islamofascism! Terrorism!

Ken Shultz | March 15, 2007, 9:35am | #

"Although some Republicans have been tepid in their support for the attorney general, Sununu was the first to go so far in the wake of an uproar over the Justice Department's firing of the attorneys and its response to congressional questions, plus a separate report that the administration abused its power to secretly investigate suspected terrorists."

I think Sununu, and others quite frankly, are mischaracterizing the Attorney General's position.

As I understand the Attorney General's position, he is contending that even if the Justice Department's treatment of the attorneys in question was cruel, inhumane and degrading, it didn't rise to the standard of torture. ...because the pain inflicted wasn't sufficiently intense among other reasons.

However, as I understand Alberto Gonzales' position, he maintains that the President of the United States, in war time, has the right to subject any U.S. Attorney to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, so long as the attorney in question was captured out of uniform.

Anyway, I hope this helps clarify things.

Cab | March 15, 2007, 9:36am | #

It is beyond me how some people can think there shouldn't be any politics involved in politcal appointees.

f-bomb | March 15, 2007, 9:53am | #

You know who I'd like to fire? This guy.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 9:57am | #

Actually, partisanship (at least up to a point) is a very good thing.

Chris S. | March 15, 2007, 9:58am | #

It is beyond me how some people can think there shouldn't be any politics involved in politcal appointees.

There absolutely should be politics involved in political appointment; it's perfectly fair for a president to appoint U.S. attorneys who share his ideological positions.

There is, however, a difference between promoting ideological goals and using the executive branch and law enforcement to hound political enemies. It’s not illegal, but are we comfortable with a DOJ that fires prosecutors for not bringing sufficient charges against Democrats right before an election? Think about it. Would you be comfortable with a mayor who fired his police chief for failing to arrest the mayor’s political challengers months before an election? I’m not saying this doesn’t routinely happen, but it’s pretty much the definition of abuse of power. This is totally different than a mayor or president firing an underling for failing to support the party's ideological line.

pinko | March 15, 2007, 10:03am | #

"You know who I'd like to fire? This guy."

Nice completely useless threadjack f-bomb. Tough shit. A state governor is your problem. Smirking torture enthusiast and habeas hater Gonzalez is everyone's problem. The guy needs to be shitcanned for either incompetence, dereliction of duty, or any one of the times he has tried lie about this issues before he decided to use the retard defense.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 10:04am | #

rob,

He does not sound like the only bad reader in here. Good catch.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 10:04am | #

Ken, I think the issue is that the current AG is serving the Presidents will, not the law of the land, therefore not honoring the oath he swore to when he took the office. He consistantly defends the Presidents policy, even when the policy goes against the law.

An example, the FBI has admitted to breaking the law with issuing national security letters. Will anyone in the FBI be charged for breaking that law? They are admitting a law was broken. The AG position should always be to investigate, and maybe prosecute when he believes a law has been broken.

Basically it boils down to Gonzales is supports the Bush admin version of law and order, not the Constitutions or the law of the land.

LarryA | March 15, 2007, 10:07am | #

This administration is wrought with scandal and it all stems from the very top. I'm probably too young to know, but in the last 30 years has there been any other administration as rotten as the current one?? Lately, it seems as if any time the senate proposes a bill, the white house threatens to veto it. WTF??

I'm old enough to know, and I'll go back further than that. George Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jinmmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhauer. I almost left out Jimmy Carter because he ran on the platform that he had no clue about politics, and proved he was correct, but there was that whole bungled hostage thing.

In Washington, D.C. you have a president with enormous power and a large staff dealing with a world of problems. On the other side you have a political party looking for the slightest excuse to raise a stink. There's usually something in the wind.

As for vetoes, the Senate is now controlled by Democrats, therefore the Republican president isn't going to like most of the bills they propose. Also, the threat-of-veto bills are the ones you hear about. The big problem is the legislation that gets passed and signed without any scrutiny.

Vetos are a feature, not a problem.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 10:08am | #

Chris, you can add that his chief of staff lied to Congress about the role of the Whitehouse and resigned because he was caught.

joe | March 15, 2007, 10:09am | #

"It is beyond me how some people can think there shouldn't be any politics involved in politcal appointees."

Two words: Mike Brown. Some of us think it would be nice if there was something other than politics involved in staffing government positions.

rob | March 15, 2007, 10:09am | #

Guy - Don't expect an apology from the guy anytime soon. He's been mauling what I write to fit into his cozy little Left vs. Right world-view for ever.

Ken - Is that you? Oh, how you've been missed! I see you may have actually been reading some of the documents you linked to on the Abu Ghraib & torture threads. That was actually a good summation of the AG's position on what legally qualifies as torture. Of all the guys to direct your ire at on this, you might actually be getting close with Gonzalez.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 10:10am | #

"""The big problem is the legislation that gets passed and signed without any scrutiny."""

To scrutinize something, you would have to read it first. Congress rarely reads the text before they vote.

R C Dean | March 15, 2007, 10:16am | #

What, exactly, will we get out of firing the present AG??

A lot of personal satisfaction?

This administration is wrought with scandal and it all stems from the very top. I'm probably too young to know, but in the last 30 years has there been any other administration as rotten as the current one??

Umm, the Clintons? I mean, just going on the number of indictments and convictions.

Ken Shultz | March 15, 2007, 10:18am | #

"Ken, I think the issue is that the current AG is serving the Presidents will, not the law of the land, therefore not honoring the oath he swore to when he took the office. He consistantly defends the Presidents policy, even when the policy goes against the law."

I was being facetious.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 10:23am | #

LarryA,

It turned out fine, you got Jimmy Carter in there twice :)

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 10:23am | #

The larger problem is that the White House was able get a line inserted into legislation, due to the typical idiocy of Democrats (the Republicans are to be expected to roll over for a Republican President) in the Senate, which allows new U.S. prosecutors to be appointed without Senate input. The U.S. Attorney position is rightly a political appointment, but that doesn't mean that the Executive should have carte blanche as to who is appointed. Gonzalez should be fired for bungling, but what is most important is that the Senate reassert itself.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 10:24am | #

rob,

LOL, I won't and never thought of it either.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 10:24am | #

The longer any Presidency goes on the more scandals seem to be associated with. I really don't think that says much about individual Presidents. It does say something about the overall size of government though.

joe | March 15, 2007, 10:26am | #

"Umm, the Clintons? I mean, just going on the number of indictments and convictions."

There have been more top administration officials convicted in the past month than during the entire Clinton administration.

Cab | March 15, 2007, 10:27am | #

joe, is that an argument that more than eight federal prosecutors should be replaced?

Anyway, there is a difference between “government staff positions” as you call them, and political appointee positions. Obviously there are pros and cons to both.

But acting like firing political appointees over political differences is something out of the ordinary is a bit disingenuous.

joe | March 15, 2007, 10:35am | #

Cab,

"joe, is that an argument that more than eight federal prosecutors should be replaced?" Huh?

"Anyway, there is a difference between “government staff positions” as you call them, and political appointee positions." In this case, the appointees are supposed to be doing their work without concern for the partisan or political interests of the administration (which is not to say ideological). These weren't White House press people, whose job description involves furthering administration and party political standing. They've got actual jobs to do, wholly distinct from the political concerns of the White House and Congress. If they were leaned on or fired for not working hard enough to advance those partisan interests, that was inappropriate.

"But acting like firing political appointees over political differences is something out of the ordinary is a bit disingenuous." The firing of these US Attornies, at this time and this manner, is highly unusual. The way the White House and Justice slandered their reputations and lied to Congress to make their political actions seem wholly apolitical, while not unusual, is nonetheless disturbing.

Answer me this: if firing these people for political reasons is so innocent, why did everyone responsible for it scramble to deny any political intent?

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 10:39am | #

Oh, gosh, there isn't anything that this Administration has done which is not merely a continuance of decades-long abuse of power within the Department of Justice. Think of the FBI's mendacity in the Whitey Bolger affair and Ruby Ridge, among other nortorious examples. Consider the manner in which the Reno Justice Department obtained a "search warrant" with pejurious statements, and used said "search warrant" to send a SWAT team into a private home, grabbed up a child, and sent him to Cuba, thus rendering moot a legal conflict. Think of how successive Administrations, via the Justice Department, have abused citizens with civil forfeitures.

The most damning thing one can say about the American electorate is that it has largely responded to this behavior with a yawn. There is no tyrannical behavior quite like that which is tolerated by a majority. Firing 8 U.S. Attorneys? Pffff, that ain't nuthin'.

If one wished to have a paranoid approach, albeit concerning the Treasury Department instead of DOJ, the frequency with which political opponents of various Presidents have been so unlucky as to receive audit notices by the IRS has always struck me as curious.

Cab | March 15, 2007, 10:42am | #

Answer me this: if firing these people for political reasons is so innocent, why did everyone responsible for it scramble to deny any political intent?

Because the administration has gotten their ass handed to them in the propaganda game since Katrina, and they no longer know how to deal with such questions, if they ever did.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 10:50am | #

Yeah, Cab, it has been interesting how bad this White House has been at message control for the past couple years, something that they did not appear to be nearly so rotten at in their first term. Maybe Rove was just lucky back then, since he has had his fingerprints all over various fiascoes since then.

joe | March 15, 2007, 10:57am | #

If firing 8 U.S. Attorneys in the middle of their terms for political reasons was so unremarkable and innocent, there wouldn't be any "message" to "control."

Let's compare this to the removal of Cabinet officials. Everyone knows these political appoiontees serve primarily for the purpose of advancing the White House and party's political interests, and they are regularly replaced for the purpose of filling the job with someone who does that better. When a cabinet official gets the boot, like Paul O'Neil, everyone openly talks about the politics involved. It is utterly unremarkable that Bush would replace a Treasury Secretary with someone with greater personal loyalty, ideological conforming, and skills at advancing Republican political ideas and fortunes. Everyone openly acknowledges this. Unlike the current situation.

Dave W. | March 15, 2007, 10:57am | #

Speaking of Mr. Gonzalez and his fight against terrorism, has anyone heard how the trials are going for the Miami Seven who were about to blow up the Sears Tower? I can't find anything on it in the GOOGLE news, nor have the Wikipedia entries been updated lately.

Cab | March 15, 2007, 11:07am | #

joe, I'm not saying firing them was "innocent."

I'm saying firing them was political, maybe entirely political, but they are in political positions and they knew they were political appointees when they took the job. Thats all.

Titus | March 15, 2007, 11:17am | #

I know that quoting the facts is considered reactionary and authoritarian, in these circles, but here they are.

Fact One:
The DA's are executive appointees and serve at the behest of the administration, they can be fired at anytime for any reason.

Fact Two:
Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when the Clinton administration took over.

Case Closed.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 11:23am | #

Titus, at least the Reno Justice Department did not have carte blanche authority to appoint whomever it wished to the vacated positions. It is critical that this power by the Executive be reeled in. Absent this power, I rather doubt that the Gonzalez Justice Department would have bothered firing these guys.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 11:29am | #

: A pol with something approaching a governing philosophy that is independent of partisanship.

Amazing how that independent philosophy shows up just before what is expected to be a very tough re-election in a state that just saw both its Federal House seats flip to the Dems, had both state houses of the legislature taken by Dems(something which hasn't happened since 1911), and had the executive council swing Dem as well.

What political courage.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 11:31am | #

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when the Clinton administration took over.

So did Reagan...so did other presidents.

But the is the first time in History that the US Atty's have been fired in the middle of a president's term, not to mention in the middle of a second term.

Johnny | March 15, 2007, 11:31am | #

It's probably a pity that this case in particular is the one folks are paying attention to but:

On the surface of it the president is indeed allow to fire these folks. But, if it was to deliberately instigate political prosecutions (hard to prove) or to thwart actual prosecutions, than it is probably not legal.

Although I certainly wouldn't choose this as a "poster" case, if it captures the publics, and the politicians imagination I have a hard time ridiculing it.

There is just too much signigicant evidence that the Bush administration is attempting to dismantle the constitution in a permanent way that is unhurd of up to know. It's not that they are claiming war powers, for instance the way Lincoln did, it is that they are trying to set up a permanant state in which the constitution is never reactiveatd again.

That is what should be catching the publics attention. But this is a start. The long term threat to the republic from terrorists pales before these anti-constitutional warriors. Who in the end will not put a dent, and may actually not want to, (hence the focus on anything but the actual groups that threaten us) into the danger from terrorism. In essence maiking them doubly dangerous to the nation.

R C Dean | March 15, 2007, 11:34am | #

Well, in my seemingly endless quest to stave off the whitewashing of the Clinton years, lets remind ourselves that:

(a) Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys. Not sure why firing only 8 is worse.

(b) Without getting into a semantic tussle with joe over the weasel words "top administration officials", the tally for Bush administration is 6 convictions.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703080005

For Clinton, as I recall the tally is somewhere in the 40s, if you count the ones who worked the political side of the Clinton operation, and associated with the Clintons before their administration. I would also count Sandy Berger against the Clintons, BTW.

As an amusing aside, Wikipedia has an entry on "Reagan administration convictions", but no comparable entry for the Clintons.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 11:37am | #

Chicago Tom, I've read various cites which stated that Reagan did not do a firing en masse, but rather replaced them in a staggered fashion, largely through attrition.

I have no problem with the Executive firing a U.S. Attorney at any time, for nearly any reason. I have a huge problem with the Executive being able to appoint whomever it wishes as a replacement.

Rob Tornoe | March 15, 2007, 11:40am | #

I'm a cartoonist from New Jersey, and here's my take on this whole Alberto Gonzales situation. I'd love to hear what you think.

To view the cartoon, go to http://tornoe.blogspot.com.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 11:44am | #

(a) Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys. Not sure why firing only 8 is worse.

Because it is the Rs and not the Ds of course.

joe | March 15, 2007, 11:47am | #

"(a) Clinton fired all of the US Attorneys. Not sure why firing only 8 is worse."

It isn't. The reasons he did it are worse. The lying to Congress and the public about why he did it are worse. The purely innocent coincidence of so many of them either successfully prosecuting corrupt Republicans, or failing to prosecute corruption cases against Democrats without evidence, should distrub anybody who cares about keeping the government honest.

joe | March 15, 2007, 11:53am | #

(b) Suddenly noting the proximity of corrupt staffers to the President is irrelevant in determining whether their behavior is institutional?

Whatever.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 11:53am | #

Joe, it is possible for honest people to disagree as to whether evidence of voter fraud exists. Now, if somebody got canned because they were too hard on Duke Cunningham, well, that's another story.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 11:55am | #

I have no problem with the Executive firing a U.S. Attorney at any time, for nearly any reason.

I do. Firing US Attorneys because they aren't partisan enough and they are going after corruption withing their own party is problematic to me.

I don't really have a problem with replacing them for most reasons, but when someone like Carol Lam, who had successfuly prosecuted Duke Cunningham and had started digging into congressman Jerry Lewis is mysteriously just happens to be removed for "performance" related reasons I find that rather abhorrent.

I have a huge problem with the Executive being able to appoint whomever it wishes as a replacement.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 11:56am | #

Shit posted to early...

I have a huge problem with the Executive being able to appoint whomever it wishes as a replacement.

So do I. I am rather disappointed that Congress hasn't already taken up trying to roll back the PATRIOT provisions that allow them to appoint interim Atty's indefinately without confirmation

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 12:04pm | #

Chicago Tom, like I said above, firing somebody because they went too hard on Duke Cunningham is bad. I can dilineate this from firing people because the Executive thought evidence of voter fraud was more substantial than what the U.S. Attorney believed. Keep in your partisan mind, however, Clinton fired the guy who was in the midst of the Rostenkowski investigation. What mitigated that bad act was that the Senate hadn't abandoned it's responsibility to check the Executive's power in naming a replacement. I'm sure nearly every President would have enjoyed such power. It took this particular idiotic opposition, however, to let such power be granted.

Grotius | March 15, 2007, 12:08pm | #

I'll be glad once Bush leaves office and we have some new administration to argue about. They'll be mostly the same arguments of course...

James | March 15, 2007, 12:13pm | #

I said it on an earlier thread: if they had fired all 93 US attorneys at the start of the term, it wouldn't be a story. But they didn't. They fired eight that refused to go along with wrongful prosecutions.

"I'm not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury," said McKay. For this the man was fired. If this isn't a libertarian cause, one wonders what is.

VM | March 15, 2007, 12:15pm | #

"Grotius | March 15, 2007, 12:08pm | #
I'll be glad once Bush leaves office and we have some new administration to argue about. They'll be mostly the same arguments of course..."

QFT, Gro. QFT. Just the names of the advocates and detractors will switch...

joe | March 15, 2007, 12:16pm | #

ChicagoTom,

There actually are bills before Congress to close the appointment loophole in the USA PATRIOT Act.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Grotius, I really think the manner in which Bush was first elected (and no, I don't think his team stole Florida) guaranteed that the political tenor in the country would be toxic, no matter how the Bush Administration perfomed, and I don't mean that as defense of this Administration's performance. Losing the popular vote, but winning the election by way of gaining the electoral votes of a large state in which the margin was literally too close to measure in a statistically significant sense, guaranteed a poisonous atmosphere. Once the attack of 9/11 help set the course of a belligerent foreign policy, things only got worse, with a President with thin support receiving the wholly temporary boost such an attack nearly guaranteed.

It really has been a outlier, in terms of the political landscape, which is most unlikely to be repeated, thank goodness.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 12:24pm | #

James, you presume to be intimately familiar with the evidence by which it is determined that everyone is innocent. One can have huge issues with the way grand juries operate (I certainly do) while still recognizing the idiocy of saying that one refuses to put innocent people in front of a grand jury. Does one presume that only guilty people are to be subpeonaed?

James | March 15, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Will: I would defer the issue of whether to investigate to the USA that looked into it. I think experience shows that state attorneys more often err on the side of suspicion. McKay clearly objected to harrassing people he was convinced were innocent. In other words, he saw a lot of political motivation and no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed.

I think the burden of proof is on the AG to show that the USAs were mistaken or inept. Rather than asking me why I think there was nothing to investigate the appropriate question is, why did the White House think there was? After all, I have a powerful ally in the US attorney that was actually responsible for the investigation. What does Gonzalez have? Some state party hacks jabbering about conspiracies against them, which they do every election, and which never quite reach the level of proof. Republican allegations of widespread "voter fraud" have become part of the silly season, like Democrats complaining about the rich buying the election. If there was more to it than that I would be happy to hear it, but McKay saw nothing to warrant an investigation. Taken in company with Iglesias, who was heavily pressured to bring indictments against local Democrats prior to the election, and Lam, who was in the midst of a massive investigation of Republican corruption, the matter doesn't sit right.

And, of course, Gonzalez then went before Congress and lied about what happened, which only heightens my suspicion that this was a hatchet job intended to remind the other USAs that if the White House wants their political adversaries publicly humiliated, then the USAs better jump, regardless of the evidence.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 12:48pm | #

""""I know that quoting the facts is considered reactionary and authoritarian, in these circles, but here they are.

Fact One:
The DA's are executive appointees and serve at the behest of the administration, they can be fired at anytime for any reason.

Fact Two:
Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when the Clinton administration took over.

Case Closed.""""

Really?

Fact Three. Congress was misled by the AG's Chief of Staff while under oath.

Do you think it's ok to knowingly give false information under oath? I noticed you "conveniently" left that fact out.

The Presidents ability to do so is not an issue despite what anyone says. The political issue is why. There are two legal issues 1. Did the AG's Cheif of Staff lie under oath to Congress? 2. Is the AG acting as an agent of the President. Which he is not suppose to do.

""Joe, it is possible for honest people to disagree as to whether evidence of voter fraud exists. """

True. but, it's irrelevant what honest people think. What matters is if the attorney believes he/she has enough evidence to prosecute or if the facts on hand warrant further investigation. If the situation does not arise to either, then there is no reason for pursuit, unless your motive is something other than rule of law. So one attorney was fired for not turning an election into a vindictive political farce. This in and of its self, is not illegal but speaks volumes about how the GOP is willing to use lawsuits to affect voting. Sure it could be said the Dems want to do the same, but the GOP claims it's wrong for them to do so, therefore they are hypocritics and are not interested in fair voting anymore that the other guy.

Grotius, I don't know about "same arguments" but plenty of arguments none the less. It's a use of power issue, not a party issue. You would think the average American would have figured that out by now. I guess they find it more fun to belittle each other. Silly humans

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 12:59pm | #

James, I try not to defer to anyone. That is, I prefer to simply say that I don't know something rather than put my trust in the integrity of people who are strangers to me. I have nothing positive to say about Gonzalez, but I also know that when dead people are being registered to vote, or storage rental lockers are being used for residential addresses, it might be something worthy of investigation, and that people can have different views of evidence. My point is that the Executive should have extremely broad leeway in managing the personnel who gather such evidence, as long as the Executive does not have unchecked power in making the appointments to begin with.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 1:12pm | #

TrickyVic, when you write.....

"What matters is if the attorney believes he/she has enough evidence to prosecute or if the facts on hand warrant further investigation."

.... I can only assume that you believe that a U.S. Attorney should be a completely autonomous position; that a U.S. Attorney's view of evidence cannot be challenged. We have seen where that leads to in the days of the Independent Counsel.

Look, the position must be controlled by people who have gained power by way of elections. There is no alternative but autocratic power. If a President abuses that control, then the proper response is through the ballot box, or by having a co-equal branch of government assert itself. To state, however, that "what matters" is the opinion of a U.S. Attorney, is simply wrong.

James | March 15, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Will: simply put, the USAs are claiming that they were fired for refusing to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions without merit. This is a very serious charge. The AG marched down to Congress and lied about the circumstances of their dismissal. This is very serious breach of good faith.

You are willing to take on faith the claims of the state party chairs, which the USA in question found uncompelling. Having no particular personal knowledge of the assertions, I am prepared to accept the USA's judgement. On this point we simply disagree. In addition, if the White House had fired a single USA on the basis that he had dropped the ball in a voter-fraud case, I would have muttered about it, being Bush-deranged and all, but let it pass.

But that's not what the White House did. They assembled a field of eight attorneys, all of them apparently involved in politically-charged investigations, and fired them for disloyalty. That's smoke to me. And then the AG got rattled enough by the attention that he misled Congress about the reasons for their dimissal. That's the fire. I think it's entirely within Congress' right and responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter. And I think ol' Torture Memo should have to walk the plank for his dissembling before Congress.

This isn't going away. If they hectored USAs to publicly screw the opposing party prior to an election that would not be the usual incumbent shenanigans. It amounts to pretty much what the Ugandan president did in the last election, or the Mexican government's attempts to sideline the Mexico City mayor with criminal charges. This is Third World-style abuse of power and it should not be tolerated.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 2:37pm | #

'I don't like them' is a perfectly legal and acceptable method, just like the KKKlintonistas, and others, did with the whole bunch. Like it or lump it.

edna | March 15, 2007, 2:46pm | #

I'm probably too young to know, but in the last 30 years has there been any other administration as rotten as the current one?

all of them. and you can extend that 30 year figure back a bit farther, too, if you like.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 2:48pm | #

all of them. and you can extend that 30 year figure back a bit farther, too, if you like.

And some were a lot rottener, depending on what you find rotten.

de stijl | March 15, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Congressional Research Service report on US Attorneys who served less than full terms 1981 - 2006.

Wholesale replacement of the lot of them at the beginning of a new President's reign is nearly universal. Replacement of individual USAs during their terms is rare.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Replacement of individual USAs during their terms is rare.

See? Rare to do it this way, common to do it the evil politico way.

Others != good
Bush = good

QED

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 3:03pm | #

James, please quote me where I stated that anyone's claims are to be taken on faith. I stated that dead people have been registered to vote, and that storage lockers have been listed as residential addresses. I believe this to be the case because it is not uncommon. I have no idea whether these instances constitute a wider criminal pattern. I am unwilling to put any faith in the integrity of someone I don't personally know.

Furthermore, I explicitly stated that it was up to a co-equal branch of govrnment to assert it's power when the Executive oversteps, so obviously I have no problem with Congress investigating. I simply think it unwise for people to claim they "know" things that they cannot "know", because they haven't seen the evidence. I can't know how strong the evidence is of voter fraud in King County or New Mexico, because I haven't seen it. I can know that punishing a U.S. Attorney for going too hard on Duke Cunningham is wrong, because the evidence against Duke Cunningham was presented in open court.

joe | March 15, 2007, 3:04pm | #

Just to expand on James' point, there were also cases, such as in San Diego, of the US Attorney being fired for successfully prosecuting Republicans for corruption.

There was not a single case of someone being removed for failing to investigate or prosecute Republicans. There was not a single case of someone being removed for prosecuting a Democrat. Ever single such case involved removing someone whose actions were unhelpful to Republican re-election efforts, and not a single one was engaged in a high-profile investigation that was unhelpful to Democrats.

joe | March 15, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Hey Will,

"I stated that dead people have been registered to vote, and that storage lockers have been listed as residential addresses."

You also stated that you only believe things that people you know tell you. Which personal acquaintances told you they had first-hand knowledge of the above acts?

de stijl | March 15, 2007, 3:09pm | #

Guy,

I made no value statements in my comment.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 3:26pm | #

No, Joe, that's not what I said. I said that I will not place any faith in the integrity of people I don't personally know. I also said that I'm willing to believe things that have been presented in open court. I'll also state that I believe things I 've personally witnessed. I've listed a storage locker as my personal residence, not for purposes of voting, but simply because I was anticipating making several moves within the course of a year. I know dead people appear on voter rolls because I've seen it.

rob | March 15, 2007, 3:27pm | #

"I stated that dead people have been registered to vote, and that storage lockers have been listed as residential addresses." - Will

"You also stated that you only believe things that people you know tell you. Which personal acquaintances told you they had first-hand knowledge of the above acts?" - joe

You see, Will, joe can't actually argue against the facts you've presented, so he has to attack you personally in order to avoid responding to the point you made.

Hey joe, this guy even took pictures that pretty clearly demonstrates voter fraud:

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005279.html

While I don't know the guy personally, he seems believable.

(Caveat: That isn't to say that both sides don't engage in dirty tricks, I'm sure they do. But joe is in here trying to pretend his guys are on the side of the angels...)

edna's answer is the most accurate response on the thread so far.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I made no value statements in my comment.

Sorry, wasn't accusing you of doing that. I was doing that, in the juvenile way that all of these discussions rapidly spin down to.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 3:37pm | #

rob,

Hasn't anybody told you? Voter fraud BELONGS to the Ds. If they can't find enough votes that way, they will gladly prevent any non-Ds from voting.

You know, since it is for the children and they care and they are tolerant and . . .

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 3:40pm | #

My problem with joe's reasoning in this thread is that it appears to be along the lines of....

A. The Bush Justice Department removed U.S. Attorneys for failure to more fully pursue allegations of voter fraud.

B. The U.S. Attorneys removed said there was insufficient evidence of said fraud to warrant further pursuit.

C. It is thus proven that voter fraud did not take place, or at least there is nothing that warrants further investigation.

rob | March 15, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Will - You think that's a convoluted line of reasoning? You should see him on other threads, where being caught "dead-bang" wrong on the facts leads him to start whining about "technicalities" and throwing around insults.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Will, rob,

Perhaps it is because they did not act like the Scooter Libby persicutor, or even the Martha Stewart one?

'There was a voter fraud allagation, now we should be able to get someone on something.' kinda deal.

rob | March 15, 2007, 3:51pm | #

"Hasn't anybody told you? Voter fraud BELONGS to the Ds. If they can't find enough votes that way, they will gladly prevent any non-Ds from voting. You know, since it is for the children and they care and they are tolerant and . . ." - GM

I'm not sure which has the monopoly on dirty tricks, they're both evil.

But I know that if we put Reps & Dems in a glass house with a box of rocks, along with the admonition that "he who is without political sin shall cast the first stone," the house would be in fragments within minutes. But not because either side is without political sin. The house would be destroyed because they're both hypocritical, black-hearted liars.

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Will,

Do you trust the integrity of the people who told you that dead people were registered to vote in Washington, and that storage lockers were listed as residences?

pokey | March 15, 2007, 4:12pm | #

"I don't like them' is a perfectly legal and acceptable method, just like the KKKlintonistas, and others, did with the whole bunch. Like it or lump it."

"Because it is the Rs and not the Ds of course."

"Others != good
Bush = good"

...the juvenile way that all of these discussions rapidly spin down to."

All pure gold from Guy Montag. I'ts funny how for a while there, I thought Guy was someone marginally serious or at least to be read with a straight face. Now I just feel like I'm hanging out with a bunch of retards on the playground at recess.

So Guy, it's clear that none of this has anything to do with Bush, Gonzalez, et. al. We just need to clamp our ears shut and start moaning about Clinton. Okey dokey.

Guy Montag | March 15, 2007, 4:15pm | #

So Guy, it's clear that none of this has anything to do with Bush, Gonzalez, et. al. We just need to clamp our ears shut and start moaning about Clinton. Okey dokey.

Are you joe?

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Will Allen,

Not quite. You left out the part where every single US Attorney who was removed for being insufficiently aggressive on voter fraud cases was blamed for not investigating Democrats, while every single US Attorney removed from being over-eager carrying out corruption investigations was looking at Republicans.

At the same time, we've got a couple of Republican candidates who were complaining about a USA not being sufficiently aggressive in pursuing voter fraud allegations in New Mexico, to a Republican AG, who ended up firing the USA, and then lying about why.

However much faux-objective whining rob engages in, that's what a reasonable person calls a strong circumstantial case that the firings were conducted for partisan reasons.

Now, maybe rob is right, and every charge of voter fraud against Democrats is true, and the USAs who didn't pursue those charges were slacking on the job, and the White House and Justice Department were scrupulously fair in their evalutions.

Personally, I see no reason why this White House or this Attorney General deserves the benefit of the doubt.

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:24pm | #

He he he,

rob's so "nonpartisan" that Guy Montag claims him as one of his own.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 4:25pm | #

No, Joe, I don't. Which is why I said such activities might warrant further investigation. Why is it so hard for you get your mind around the notion that you don't know something? Do you have hopes of reaching an omnicient state?

de stijl | March 15, 2007, 4:27pm | #

A lightbulb just popped! I forgot that Sununu is the son of John Sununu (Bush 41 COS).

Revenge of Scowcroft / Baker pt. 6???

Do not fuck with James Baker!

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:29pm | #

Will,

I wrote "strong circumstantial case." What does that mean to you?

A. Certainty in my own omniscience.

B. Confidence that I am correct.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this whole thing is completely nonpartisan. But I don't think so. I think I'm right. I think the White House and Justice Dept. acted like scumbags, and then lied to Congress.

Do you want me to pretend I don't understand what's going on here?

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 4:32pm | #

Joe, you still have a major hole in your reasoning. The fact that a Republican Administration fired USAs for partisan reasons says exactly nothing about the strength of evidence pertaining to voter fraud.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 4:34pm | #

No, Joe, I simply want you to stop pretending that you can judge evidence without having seen it.

edna | March 15, 2007, 4:40pm | #

I think the White House and Justice Dept. acted like scumbags, and then lied to Congress.

in other news, the surface of the sun has been found to be hot. water is wet.

joe, joe, joe, that's what white houses and justice departments do for a living. 'twas ever thus and shall be forevermore.

i do have a certain sympathy about the "lying to congress" part. if there was ever a collection of chimps who deserve to be lied to, congress would be it.

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:47pm | #

Will,

I've said exactly nothing about the validity of the voter fraud charges.

I've been arguing about the appropriateness of the White House and Attorney General's actions, not the United States Attorneys.

Maybe there really was a "there" there in Washington and/or New Mexico, but let's keep in mind that Gonzales was so gun-shy about that point that he denied it had anything to do with the firings. If a US Attorney had decent evidence of voter fraud and sat on it, there would be no reason to hide that you fired him for that reason.

Answer me this, if you will: when does firing a law enforcement official for not starting an investigation or prosecution become something you have to hide, except when the evidence is too weak to legitimately justify law enforcement action?

joe | March 15, 2007, 4:48pm | #

edna,

The more you accept corruption, the more of it there will be. The more we, the people, impose consequences for corruption, the less there will be.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 4:50pm | #

No, Joe, I simply want you to stop pretending that you can judge evidence without having seen it.


The evidence that has been seen pretty strongly indicates that there was political pressure to indict and the failure to do so is what caused a couple of these guys to get the axe. You can take a "wait and see attitude" until before making a judgement but I don't think its fair to criticize others for not being as naive as you.

These US Attorney's have claimed that they felt pressured to indict before an election. There is very little to indicate that they would have reason to bullshit about this.

I guess the question I have to ask myself is:
If there was evidence of voter fraud, why wouldn't they push it? Especially if they were getting leaned on?? Life would have been a whole lot easier. Unless of course they felt there wasn't a case there and were standing up for principal and what is right.

You can choose to turn a blind eye, or refuse to believe whatever you want in the absence of a smoking gun, but to chide others for not refusing to look at what has come out and making a judgment is pretty lame.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 5:15pm | #

Apparently, Chicago Tom, you believe that we live in a world in which if a U.S. Attorney says something it either must be true, or he is deliberately bullshitting. That is a very, very, strange belief. Lamely devoid of logical reasoning, as well.

joe, I can think of many circumstance
which loosely fits your question. For instance, I think it likely that Sandy Berger was let off with the mildest of sanction for what can fairly called blatant obstruction of justice, or perhaps even espinonage, because going after him with appropriate prosecutorial vigor would have led to a scorched-earth response from Berger, likely leading to all manner of embarrassing (to the Bush Administration) facts coming to be widely known. When one starts speculating about possible human motivations the plausible alternatives are vast indeed.

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 5:33pm | #

Apparently, Chicago Tom, you believe that we live in a world in which if a U.S. Attorney says something it either must be true, or he is deliberately bullshitting. That is a very, very, strange belief. Lamely devoid of logical reasoning, as well.

Not at all. I live in a world where I look for motive and a reason why. I also live in a world where the current administration has a track record of making everything political and demanding loyalty above competence. I also live in a world where USAs don't have a reputation for avoiding prosecuting on weak evidence, yet somehow you want us to believe that in this case....a GOP political appointee is refusing to prosecute voter fraud that supposedly helps Dems despite evidence that should warrant a prosecution?? Really?

Sorry but color me skeptical of the under zealous prosecutor theory. If you are asking me who I think has more credibility though, a prosecutor who has been deemed competent by the DOJ during performance reviews vs. an AG and an Admin with a history of politicizing everything -- who are also on record discussing removing USA's who haven't been loyal enough, you bet your ass I am gonna find the prosecutor more credible, esp when said prosecutor is claiming the rarest of all prosecutorial claims: that they didn't have enough evidence to pursue.

You can choose to ignore context if you want, but my reasoning is quite sound and logical. You can keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better, but don't chide others for not doing so.

edna | March 15, 2007, 5:35pm | #

The more you accept corruption, the more of it there will be. The more we, the people, impose consequences for corruption, the less there will be.

your deeply held and (i think) sincere belief that government would be good if only we had elected good people is a touching one, but runs afoul of both human nature and the actual incentives/disincentives of office. i hope that one day the scales will fall from your eyes, you'll realize that governments are always corrupt, and that the only defense is to limit government to those two basic tasks where it has a legitimate place and actual competency- keeping us from hitting each other over the head and keeping other people from coming here and hitting us on the head.

Gilbert Martin | March 15, 2007, 5:53pm | #

The whole thing is a bunch of hypocritical BS dreamed up by the Democrats and their lackeys in the press.

As has been noted before, Clinton's AG Janet Reno fired all 93 of them as soon as their administration took office. And Reno's assistant AG was the future felon Webster Hubbell (Hillary's pal from the Rose Law firm). Firing all 93 was just cover to get rid of the one investigating Rostenkowski and the Arkansas attorney who was poking into Whitewater.

Contrary to the leftist's spin that there was nothing "unusual" about that, that is NOT the way prior administrations had done it. Prior administrations mostly replaced them all gradually over time as each one's term was up instead of firing them all at once.

The dem's spin that somehow it's "different" and "reprehensible" to get rid of 8 attorneys for political reasons years into an administrations time in office vs doing the same thing in a big bunch at the beginning of the term is total BS.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 6:19pm | #

Tom, I offer no theories. I merely note that it is logically fallacious to assert that the only possible alternatives are that a U.S. Attorney is being accurate in his description of events, or he is deliberately bullshitting. Whay do logical fallacies comfort you so?

I will note, however, that Gilbert Martin's description of behavior by the Clinton DOJ appears to be more accurate than yours. Shall we speculate as to why that is the case?

ChicagoTom | March 15, 2007, 6:47pm | #

I merely note that it is logically fallacious to assert that the only possible alternatives are that a U.S. Attorney is being accurate in his description of events, or he is deliberately bullshitting. Whay do logical fallacies comfort you so?

No Will...my belief is that someone is being dishonest. Either the USAs are being dishonest, or the AG and the admin are being dishonest. Or maybe both sides are lying.

Since the credibility of the AG/Admin are already at a low, and the AG has already been caught lying to congress about the events surrounding this ordeal, and an AG whose defence about dishonesty was the incompetence defense -- he claimed to be unaware of what his Chief of Staff was doing -- I think it is rather logical to conclude that the AG is the one being dishonest in this case.

You keep avoiding what I think is a rather central issue -- motive. What would the motive be for the USA to not pursue an indictment if there was sufficient evidence? On the other hand, what would the motive be for the admin and the DOJ to put pressure on the USA to pursue a voter fraud case that close to an election when a change in control would mean oversight and investigations of the admin??

I will note, however, that Gilbert Martin's description of behavior by the Clinton DOJ appears to be more accurate than yours. Shall we speculate as to why that is the case?

Gilbert Martin can assert without proof whatever he wants. I really don't find what Clinton did as problematic. He did it at the beginning of his term after 12 years of GOP presidency. Another BIG difference is Clinton also had to get the USAs confirmed by Senate. This White house had, up until a few days ago, threatened to veto any legislation that would have rolled back the Patriot provision that allowed them to bypass confirmation.

I would also like to submit the words of Stuart Gerson, Bush I's AG:

It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind.


Furthermore when someone starts their point off with "by the Democrats and their lackeys in the press" it's very hard to take that person seriously.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 7:14pm | #

Apparently, Tom, in your world it is impossible for different people to look at a set of facts and come to a different opinion. Once again, you live in a very, very, strange world. Look, I have no problem believing that Gonzalez and Co. simply decided to fire some guys for purely partisan reasons. I also have no problem believing that their partisan desires color their analysis of the evidence of voter fraud. I also have no problem believing that DOJ in Washington can have a different opinion regarding a set of evidence than a US Attorney. I try not to pretend to know stuff that I don't know. I do know that there is no good alternative to allowing the guy who runs for office being given ultimate hiring and firing authority over U.S. Attorneys. Law enforcement is an inherently political matter, and the proper way to manage inherently political matters is via the ballot box and through the three branches of government competing for power. It was the Senate Democrats, after all, who stood by, as members of the opposition, and stupidly allowed the Bush Administration to have the power you and I agree it should not have.

PoliticalCritic | March 15, 2007, 7:18pm | #

Well at least one Republican Senator isn't playing stooge to this corrupt administration. It's amazing how the rest of them line up like a bunch of lap dogs. Heaven forbid they have an independent opinion.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 8:29pm | #

"""".... I can only assume that you believe that a U.S. Attorney should be a completely autonomous position; that a U.S. Attorney's view of evidence cannot be challenged. """"

You can do more than Ass-u-me, you could ask if that is my belief.

I never could figure out why people like claiming what other people believe without asking them.

My belief is that they work at the Presidents bidding. But they are attorneys, so they are bound by the rules and ethics of that profession. I guess that's a no to being completely autonomous.

Views of evidence will always be challenged, at least by opposing council. That's part of justice. The President could also challange the attorney's view of the facts. But if the attorney knows he can't proof it, why do it? Obviously the attorney did not believe the facts supported the case since he did not persue it. But if a President orders an attorney to pursue a case when the "real" facts do not support it, is not in the interest of justice. Illegal? maybe not. Unethical, probably. But if it's true it should be exposed for what it is.

""""Look, the position must be controlled by people who have gained power by way of elections. There is no alternative but autocratic power. If a President abuses that control, then the proper response is through the ballot box, or by having a co-equal branch of government assert itself. To state, however, that "what matters" is the opinion of a U.S. Attorney, is simply wrong.""""

I think you took my "what matters" a little too broad. When a U.S. Attorney decides to go after something he/she must have a factual based reason for doing so. Despite what the President may "tell" them to do, they have ethics they must follow. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that they take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

I don't think that them getting fired is an issue. The why, maybe a differnt story but not an illegal one. If they were fired because they were unwilling to be a Presidental pawn in voter interference scheme, it should be exposed to the people so they can decide what to do on election day.

I think the real issue at hand is why someone told Congress, under oath, it was not political when in fact, it was. That requires an investigation.

"""I try not to pretend to know stuff that I don't know."""

But you do assume.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 8:41pm | #

Well gosh, TrickyVic, you are the one who asserted that that "what matters" is the opinion of a U.S. Attorney. If that is "what matters", then it logically follows that other factors don't matter. When one person's opinion is what matters, that person is an autocrat, at least in the realm of where his opinion is supreme.

If you don't wish to have incorrect assumptions made from your writing, then it would be better if you wrote more clearly.

TrickyVic | March 15, 2007, 9:01pm | #

""""If you don't wish to have incorrect assumptions made from your writing, then it would be better if you wrote more clearly."""

Communication is a two way street.

"""Well gosh, TrickyVic, you are the one who asserted that that "what matters" is the opinion of a U.S. Attorney. If that is "what matters", then it logically follows that other factors don't matter. When one person's opinion is what matters, that person is an autocrat, at least in the realm of where his opinion is supreme. """

Real facts matter, "But if a President orders an attorney to pursue a case when the "real" facts do not support it, is not in the interest of justice."

You are starting to sound like a broken record. I think it's easy to tell from my post that one man's opinion is not all that matters.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 9:47pm | #

TrickyVic, it is bad enough when you can't decipher your own post. When you still can't do it after it's meaning has been explained, that's a problem, if communication is the goal. You wrote, quoting me first...

"""Joe, it is possible for honest people to disagree as to whether evidence of voter fraud exists. """

True. but, it's irrelevant what honest people think. What matters is if the attorney believes he/she has enough evidence to prosecute or if the facts on hand warrant further investigation. If the situation does not arise to either, then there is no reason for pursuit, unless your motive is something other than rule of law."

...thus stating what an even an honest attorney general, or DOJ superior thinks is irrelevant to whether a matter should be further investigated. The opinion of the US Attorney is what matters; his opinion is
decides.

Look, I appreciate that you are no longer holding to that opinion, but don't castigate others when they correctly interpret the meaning of the words you wrote. If you don't mean it, don't write it.

Perhaps you did not mean that "attorney" is synonymous with "US Attorney", but then the reader is left with the preposterous notion that it is of no signifigance that two honest attorneys in the DOJ can have a difference of opinion as to whether a matter warrants further investigation, "what matters is if the attorney believes....", which renders your post entirely indecipherable.

Gilbert Martin | March 15, 2007, 9:48pm | #

"Gilbert Martin can assert without proof whatever he wants. I really don't find what Clinton did as problematic. He did it at the beginning of his term after 12 years of GOP presidency. Another BIG difference is Clinton also had to get the USAs confirmed by Senate."

Yeah and you can assert without proof that there is something fundamentally different between firing 93 attorneys for political reasons at the beginnning of an administration and firing 8 for political reasons near the end of one but that doesn't make it so. It's merely YOUR opinion.


As for getting confirmed by the Senate, the Dems controlled that body when back when Clinton did it so he really had nothing to worry about in that arena.

Will Allen | March 15, 2007, 9:50pm | #

Don't know what happened to the formatting there. Read "his opinion decides".

Guy Montag | March 16, 2007, 7:40am | #

AHEM!

The Rove connection has been made! Rove's reply: so what.

Guy Montag | March 16, 2007, 9:53am | #

NYT links Rove to conspiracy (my title, not theirs)

Perhaps if the White House does not release enough e-mail to "convict" anybody Dan Rather can help the Times make some up?

I saw an early report (I do not remember the source, but I think it was an arm of NBC) that too much e-mail was released, assigned a motovation that the White House was "trying to hide the forest with the trees" (it sounded cute and odd at the same time), but people were able to get through it all and find problems.

Glad Orwell wrote that decoder book for the MSM back in the 1940s.

de stijl | March 16, 2007, 10:35am | #

Joshua Micah Miller / TalkingPointsMemo.com* has a timeline up that's useful.

* TPM is a lefty site, but IMO JMM is a stright shooter on the facts if not always on the interpretations. He has "owned" this story since December and is most likely the reason that it popped in the MSM.

joe | March 16, 2007, 1:07pm | #

edna,

Nice dodge. Very cowardly.

My comment about imposing costs for corruption has nothing whatsoever to do with "the right people" being in office. If I believed that the solution to corruption was merely getting "the right people" in office, why would I bother with trying to deter them from acting badly via imposing consequences?

I made exactly the opposite of the statment you attributed to me, and all you could do was pull out a smug talking point that bore no relationship at all to what I wrote.

Please, either try to be relevant, or don't comment.

joe | March 16, 2007, 1:11pm | #

"Yeah and you can assert without proof that there is something fundamentally different between firing 93 attorneys for political reasons at the beginnning of an administration and firing 8 for political reasons near the end of one but that doesn't make it so. It's merely YOUR opinion."

Actually, it's the opinion of Ronald Reagan's Attorney General as well.

And nice use of "political" there. I certainly didn't notice that it's being used to describe two extremely different sets of motivations. At all.

joe | March 16, 2007, 1:14pm | #

I have to go back to edna's comment, because she's either dumb as a post or fundamentally dishonest, and either way, such people cry out for public mockery.

I wrote, "The more we, the people, impose consequences for corruption, the less there will be." She replied with, "your deeply held and (i think) sincere belief that government would be good if only we had elected good people is a touching one..."

edna doesn't believe we needed to reform welfare to produce a better system of incentives; she just wanted to make sure the right people were on welfare, and then there wouldn't be any fraud or malingering.

Guy Montag | March 16, 2007, 2:00pm | #

joe,

When you and your "shout them down" buddies become administrators, feel free to suhut people up. Until then try letting everybody else speak freely.

VM (Griswold family edition) | March 16, 2007, 2:13pm | #

"I have to go back to edna's comment, because she's either dumb as a post or fundamentally dishonest"

recall - this, Edna, is the same person who was driven from the grand caynon to flagstaff on the roof of the family truckster...

Gilbert Martin | March 16, 2007, 3:24pm | #

"And nice use of "political" there. I certainly didn't notice that it's being used to describe two extremely different sets of motivations. At all."

I don't really care what motivations you or anyone else happens to think are worse or better for firing attorneys or which ones you consider to be "really" political or not. It's nothing more than YOUR personal opinon.

Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the executive branch and the President can get rid of any of them any time he wants for any reason he wants. Bush and/or Gonzales have done nothing illegal in that regard.

Clinton got rid of all 93 attorneys as a cover for getting rid of the one's he really wanted to - the one handling the Rostenkowsi investigation and the Arkansas attorney looking into Whitewater.

That's every bit as political as anything the hypocritical dems are screeching about now.

That's MY opinion on the matter and no one alive on this earth with a contrary one is the least bit capable of proving their's is one iota superior to mine in any way - period.

rob | March 19, 2007, 3:50pm | #

"Personally, I see no reason why this White House or this Attorney General deserves the benefit of the doubt." - joe

Finally, one thing you've said that I can agree with. Too bad it was a follow-up to a bunch of DNC whitewash on voter fraud.

"rob's so 'nonpartisan' that Guy Montag claims him as one of his own." - joe

That's OK, joe, at least Guy isn't trying to do what you do - pretend that arguing with someone else (like your namesake Stalin, for example) is the same as arguing with you.

I think, based on her comments and joe's hostile response, that edna might just be my political twin.

joe - edna's right, and you're acting like a jackass toward her. "In in other news, the surface of the sun has been found to be hot. water is wet," as edna put it.