Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
Sununu is all too rare a bird in the Senate: A pol with something approaching a governing philosophy that is independent of partisanship.
Guy Montag|3.15.07 @ 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!
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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??
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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!
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 9:36AM|#
It is beyond me how some people can think there shouldn't be any politics involved in politcal appointees.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
Grotius|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 11:53AM|#
(b) Suddenly noting the proximity of corrupt staffers to the
President is irrelevant in determining whether their behavior is
institutional?
Whatever.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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...
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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...
|3.15.07 @ 12:16PM|#
ChicagoTom,
There actually are bills before Congress to close the appointment
loophole in the USA PATRIOT Act.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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 . . .
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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!
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 4:34PM|#
No, Joe, I simply want you to stop pretending that you can judge evidence without having seen it.
edna|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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?
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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.
|3.15.07 @ 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|3.15.07 @ 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.
Guy Montag|3.16.07 @ 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.
|3.16.07 @ 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.
|3.16.07 @ 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.
|3.16.07 @ 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.
|3.16.07 @ 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|3.16.07 @ 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)|3.16.07 @ 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|3.16.07 @ 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.
|3.19.07 @ 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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245