Somewhere, Richard Nixon Is Thanking Bush For Making Him Look Good
Tweet
Late in the afternoon on Dec. 4, a deputy to Harriet E. Miers, then the White House counsel and one of President Bush’s most trusted aides, sent a two-line e-mail message to a top Justice Department aide. “We’re a go,” it said, approving a long-brewing plan to remove seven federal prosecutors considered weak or not team players.
In rating the prosecutors, Mr. Sampson factored in whether they “exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general,” according to documents released by the Justice Department. In one e-mail message, Mr. Sampson questioned a colleague about the record of the federal prosecutor in San Diego, Carol C. Lam. Referring to the office of the deputy attorney general, Mr. Sampson wrote: “Has ODAG ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” Ms. Lam was one of the seven fired prosecutors.
Maryland’s own Rep. Van Hollen explains the significance of the new sheriffs in town.
“What you have got is a White House that has become an accountability-free zone that is now facing the reality of checks and balances from Congress,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a member of the House Democratic leadership. “You had a White House that was used to a rubber-stamp Congress for so long that they could get away with anything. This is the kind of stuff that in the past Congress would have put their head in the sand about.”
77 Responses to “Somewhere, Richard Nixon Is Thanking Bush For Making Him Look Good”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
He does make Nixon look good, doesnt’ he?
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to “politicizing” Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
On the other hand, a response to the “Braawwwk! Clinton did it! Braawwwk!” BS coming out of the wingnutosphere, as predictably parrotted by pedro, from an actual news organization as opposed to a propaganda rag like Opinionjounral:
The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.
While that’s true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
This statement is just wonderfully succinct, isn’t it?
8 out of 93 = “mass firings”?
Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office
They are? Reagan and Carter didn’t do it. Did either Bush I or Bush II? It seems like the only one in the last few decades that we know for a fact did it was Clinton.
Can you explain how this “actual news organization” is more accurate or balanced that the right-wing “propaganda rag” Pedro referenced?
Oh, I forgot: “propaganda” = news you don’t like or agree with
To steal from Josh Marshall: The issue here isn’t *that* these US Attorneys were fired, it’s *why* these US Attorneys were fired and *how* Bush’s men lied about it.
The USAs were fired because they weren’t indicting enough Democrats and they were indicting too many Republicans. That’s an abuse of power, plain and simple. The Justice department does not work to advance one party and hurt another.
Bush’s men then lied to Congress about why it happened, and also by saying the White House wasn’t involved. That’s a crime, plain and simple.
THERE’S YOUR DOG WHISTLE, DUGGER! LIES! LIES! LIES!
MORE LIES! MORE LIES! MORE LIES!!!
DUGGER, VRWC, PEDRO, REPORT TO BULLSHIT BATTLE STATIONS! READY THE BULLSHIT CANNON! LOAD THE “CLINTON DID IT TOO” TORPEDOS!
From Schumer yesterday:
“Here are some of the falsehoods we’ve been told that are now unraveling.
First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.
It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.
Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, “never, ever make a change for political reasons.”
It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.
Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.
It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.
Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.
Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.
Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.
In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: “The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.”
It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson’s own e-mail. Quote: “Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.
Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate’s role in serving as a check and balance.
It was Senator Feinstein who discovered that issue. She’ll talk more about it.
So there has been misleading statement after misleading statement — deliberate misleading statements. And we haven’t gotten to the bottom of this yet, but believe me, we will pursue it.”
A poll for everyone:
Will Gonzalez resign:
a) Never
b) Sometime in the next couple of months
c) Before Friday at 5 p.m.
I’m going with C!
Do you have any facts to support this claim or are you once again pulling things out of your ass? Before you try to cite this study, you might want to be aware that there are serious questions about the methodology and where the data came from.
Somedays it feels like Republicans would justify the murder of innocent people if it would protect their precious party or GWB….ohhhh wait…
Anyway the fact of the matter is that this Adminstration used the supposedly impartial DoJ as a politcal tool to go after 100′s of Democrats in office and to protect corrupt Republicans. End of story.
What is so hard to understand…..this incompetent bunch that Pedro and all the other CONS endlessly defended have committed wrong doing…get over it…
And the Clinton did it defense is a joke…AT THE BEGINNING of his term he fired all 93 Republican holdover US Attorneys…Reagan did it….Bush II did it….what is unusual is that Bush fired his own self appointed US Attorneys in the middle of his term and they all “coincidentally” were working on cases that involved corrupt Republicans. The Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.
The Standard Republican Defense in action
If you cant blame a liberal or the media….blame Clinton
Of course, as I keep repeating over and over again, US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can fire them if he doesn’t like the brand of breath mints they use.
The administration has fallen prey to shrieks from Democrats and vampires in the media looking for new blood when they should have just said, “Yeah. They were fired and I have every right to fire them for whatever reason I choose. End of story.”
Thanks in large part to the media, this has been turned into a ‘scandal.’ I just find it absurd that firing all us attorneys when somebody new comes into office is a perfectly acceptable practice even though it is purely for political reasons, yet firing 7-8 US attorneys is a major scandal.
This is just dumb.
Really? Got a cite for this “fact”? And how does firing 8 USA’s translate into “go after 100′s of Democrats in office and to protect corrupt Republicans”?
they should have just said, “Yeah. They were fired and I have every right to fire them for whatever reason I choose. End of story.”
Agreed. See, if Gonzales had said that, then he wouldn’t have lied to Congress. That is what we here on Planet Earth refer to as a “crime.”
The best defense Dumbya can come up with is that it is a matter of degree. In my mind, Dumbya’s degree on this, as with so many things, is way over the line. I really am not that concerned with the general incompetence of Dumbya’s administration or even the cronyism and ideological bent. In my opinion they have damaged the country, but so have the errors of past presidents and we have survived as a country. The systematic destruction of the rule of law that has occurred is what troubles me the most whether it is the inroads on the Bill of Rights, the disregard for even the rudimentary protections retained by the Patriot Act, the disregard for international standards , the questioning of Habeus Corpus, the avoidance of law through foreign rendition and Gitmo, and now the use of the Justice Department for purley partisan purposes, that threatens the very existence of the country. To get back to Oliver’s initial point, I was struck today, by the fact that Dumbya is making his dad look good. I doubt that was his plan, but I guess maybe the old man will have a reason to be pleased about Dumbya after all. Not even Dumbya can make Nixon look good at least to people who were adults during his tenure.
Again, you have a cite for these? That Reagan and Bush II fired ALL 93 of the USA’s that were in place when they took office?
Of course, if Gonzales had done as Jay suggests, the administration still would have faced some scrutiny over it.
Yes, the President can fire anybody he chooses for any reason, but “because I felt like it” would make him sound like a petulant boy king from a house of royalty, instead of the image he cultivated as a folksy down-home man-of-the-people. The lower-to-middle working class chafes at stories of people being fired for any reason save poor job performance, and the administration knew that. Otherwise, they would gladly have admitted that their reasons for firing these stellar attorneys was based entirely on emotional insecurity. Which also doesn’t look good on a president.
So I take it that the cons here believe 1) there’s no scandal, 2) no abuse of power, 3) no crime, and 4) believe Gonzalez won’t resign.
But when Gonzalez resigns, what will the cons say then? Presumably the same thing they said when his chief of staff resigned — NOTHING AT ALL…
“Otherwise, they would gladly have admitted that their reasons for firing these stellar attorneys was based entirely on emotional insecurity.”
Not out of emotional insecurity, Spider, but because Bush and Rove want to turn the American justice system into a tool for partisan gain.
To pedugger, VRWC, et al. lying that “there is no inidication of attempts to use the DoJ to go after Dems or protect corrupt Republicans“…
The timing is well worth noting. But the Lewis investigation wasn’t the only trouble Lam was making. Look what else was happening in the couple weeks before May 11th …
April 28th, 2006 — Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo “Hookergate” scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney’s Office’s Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.
April 29th, 2006 — Washington Post reports that Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.
May 2nd, 2006 — Kyle “Dusty” Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.
May 4th, 2006 — Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.
May 5th, 2006 — WSJ reports that Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.
May 5th, 2006 — Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.
May 6th, 2006 — WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the ‘hookergate’ Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.
May 7th, 2006 — House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate’s Shirlington Limo.
May 8th, 2006 — Lyle “Dusty” Foggo resigns at CIA.
May 11th, 2006 — LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.
May 12th, 2006 — Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and CIA office of Kyle “Dusty” Foggo.
Really wingnuts, it will save us all a lot of time if you just go and read the Josh Marshall’s archives, he pretty much owns this story as far as news coverage is concerned.
Why do wingers like Frank think that the way to respond to cold hard facts is right-wing opinion pieces? Don’t you guys understand that that doesn’t work anymore? This is no longer 1990-something.
Thanks in large part to the media, this has been turned into a ‘scandal.’
Gee and here I thought it was because the Attorney General and some of his staff lied to Congress. Silly me.
Nicely put, Rheinhard.
Gonzalez carried out Bush and Rove’s orders, and attempted to make the United States Justice system into a tool for the GOP instead of U.S. citizens.
When he resigns, it will be for this reason, and this reason only. What will the Duggers of the world say then?
And one more very significant point (beyond that little “lying to Congress” thing our friends on the right seem to be ignoring), all of the new attorneys appointed to replace those removed in the Clinton “bigger than Stalin’s purge and the Holocaust combined!!11!one!” attorney situation, is that Clinton’s replacements had to be (say it with me)
CONFIRMED.
BY.
CONGRESS.
Thanks to this totally never-to-be-used-except-in-extreme-War-on-Terra-emergencies provision in the “Patriot” Act, Abu Gonzales got his Bush crony/sycophants into office without any oversight whatsoever.
So, to sum up:
1. Fire AGs who are not prosecuting enough Democrats or are prosecuting too many well-connected Republicans.
2. Replace said AGs with right wing suckups who will do Administration bidding without any confirmation process or oversight by the representatives of the People in Congress.
3. LIE UNDER OATH to said representatives about the reasons for doing so and the extent of the discussions about same in Oval Office.
We really need to reinstate the teaching of civics in this country. There seem to be too many people who think we have an election every 4 years for the office of King.
Italics fix.
Wait a second. Is the ‘scandal’ that somebody lied in front of Congress or is the scandal that these attorneys were fired?
Which is it?
As far as I’m concerned, wanting to turn the justice system into a partisan tool is insecurity–because if they had any confidence that their ideas were sound and their advocates free of corruption, they wouldn’t be trying to twist the system like that.
You’ll often hear sports coaches talking about “playing the game the right way.” Because the teams that can’t do this, that bend or break any rule they can to get a clear advantage, don’t believe they can beat you any other way. That’s insecurity.
The scandal is that these attorneys were fired for political reasons and then the administration lied to Congress about it. As to which is the greater of the two, that’s up to you.
Whatever happened to that Hookergate thing? I thought we were gonna see pictures.
Oh and the last time I checked, Dusty Foggo was indicted last month on bribery charges.
It’s interesting that people are sucking for Carol Lam when it was Dianne Feinstein wrote letters to Gonzalez complaining of Lam’s border prosecution guidelines in her district.
Jay, next time you check, Gonzalez will have resigned, just like his chief of staff.
You might want to consider being ahead of the curve this time. You know, get out in front of your own failed predictions.
What will it take to convince you people that they are crooked? Getting caught stealing from Target?
Oh, wait..
Doc, I didn’t predict anything. As for Gonzalez, liberals have been bleating that he ‘lied under oath’ in his confirmation hearings. I’ll let things play out before jumping coming to a conclusion.
Jay, drawing a conclusion at 11:01:
“Thanks in large part to the media, this has been turned into a ‘scandal.’… This is just dumb.”
Jay, pretending he hasn’t made up his mind about the charges against the Bush adminstration, at 12:11:
“I’ll let things play out before jumping coming to a conclusion.”
You guys normally are so on the ball with your talking points. Here’s your chance for glory, Jay: When will Gonzalez resign?
A) Never
B) Sometime in the next couple of months
C) Before Friday at 5 p.m.
Again, I’m going with C!
How convenient that you left out this part of the story about those Sampson emails:
You call me a liar for asking Lib4 for a cite to support the claim that the Bush administration “used the supposedly impartial DoJ as a politcal tool to go after 100′s of Democrats in office and to protect corrupt Republicans.”
And you refute this “lie” by quoting the LA Times story and trying to infer that Lam was fired to stop her from investigation Rep Jerry Lewis, but omitting the part of the story that doesn’t support your claim that “the DoJ is going after and or protecting corrupt Republicans”. Then you provide a laundry list from Josh Marshall of things that were happening in the weeks prior to the Lam firing. I noticed that neither you nor Josh could be bothered to show any facts to support the insinuation that Lam was fired to prevent her from going after any more Republicans.
Maybe you should try to actually understand the things you’re writing about rather than just smugly quote TPM and assume your point is made.
Dr. A
I must disagree. I’m going with Friday AFTER 5 so they miss the news cycle for the weekend.
I don’t think Gonzalez will resign either. Unlike Jay02c, however, this is a scandal. Domestic political abuse of the PATRIOT ACT? Lying to congress? Turning the DoJ into a partisan tool?
This is just another typical scandal in the Bush era. Abuse of power, deception and lies, cronyism…
Actually, #2 is two different issues and should be addressed separately.
Here’s my take:
1. Fire AGs who are not prosecuting enough Democrats or are prosecuting too many well-connected Republicans.
Either provide a cite showing that this is a fact (rather than just Josh Marshall’s claims or insinuations) or admit that you are lying.
2. Replace said AGs with right wing suckups who will do Administration bidding.
This is why USA’s are political appointments and serve at the pleasure of the current president. Are you trying to make the incredulous claim that Clinton didn’t hire any Democratic suckups to do his Administration’s bidding?
3. Without any confirmation process or oversight by the representatives of the People in Congress.
I agree that that this is an ability that should not be put in the hands of ANY president, Republican or Democrat.
4. LIE UNDER OATH to said representatives about the reasons for doing so and the extent of the discussions about same in Oval Office.
As was noted above, Gonzalez should have simply said from the start that the USA’s were fired because the administration was not happy with them and wanted them fired. He’s bungled this whole thing badly. I agree that if it’s shown that he deliberately and knowingly lied to Congress under oath, he should step down.
Satisfied?
Vote tally:
A) Never: Midderpidge, presumably the cons, though they’re welcome to say so
B) Sometime in the near future: Duros
C) Before Friday at 5: Dr. AGH
D) Don’t know — Jay
Anyone else care to vote? Spider, Rheinhard, Frame, VRWC? Now’s your chance for glory!
“I agree that if it’s shown that he deliberately and knowingly lied to Congress under oath, he should step down.”
But what if it’s shown that they were deliberately pressuring USAs to indict Democrats and take the pressure off Republicans? Do you think that’s an abuse of the presidency and the justice system, VRWC?
VRWC:
Are you trying to make the incredulous claim that Clinton didn’t hire any Democratic suckups to do his Administration’s bidding?
Either provide a cite showing that this is a fact or admit that you are lying.
Doc, your ability to cherry pick comments and apply them to your own statements is pretty impressive but it is nonsense.
The two comments are mutually exclusive as one has to do with the firing of the us attorneys, to which there is no scandal and the second is regarding the charges that Gonzalez lied under oath.
Nice try slick.
If Gonzalez did deliberately and knowingly lie to members of Congress, he should resign.
As for the fired us attorneys, it has been nothing but innuendo, talking points and unproven allegations.
Fine, then. It wasn’t clear to me that you were making that distinction, but okay. The same question I posed to VRWC: “But what if it’s shown that they were deliberately pressuring USAs to indict Democrats and take the pressure off Republicans? Do you think that’s an abuse of the presidency and the justice system?”
“Is the ‘scandal’ that somebody lied in front of Congress or is the scandal that these attorneys were fired? Which is it?”
Priceless. Jay apparently can’t hold two thoughts in his head at once.
Why do wingers like Frank think that the way to respond to cold hard facts is right-wing opinion pieces?
I didn’t even post to this thread.
Sheesh.
So are you lefties, who are so enamored of voters rights, so concerned with dienfranchisment, suggesting that it is OK for the Justice Department to overlook USA’s that aren’t vigourously pursuing voting fraud cases?
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush–or any President–to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Pedro forgot to say that these were FAKE voter fraud cases, rejected by the USAs because there was NO EVIDENCE that they were real. Happy to help out.
Doc, if our military is expected to aggressively invade a sovereign nation for WMD caches that didn’t exist, is it not also reasonable for our USAs to aggressively prosecute voter fraud cases for which there is no evidence? Surely you can at least admire the consistency.
I agree Spider: the will to power is indeed elegant in its simplicity.
Of course the opposite is also true….don’t agressively investigate it, don’t agressively subpoena people and you won’t find any wrongdoing.
Hell, he was just taking a page from the liberal play book…get someone under oath and start asking lots of questions. Even if they haven’t committed a crime yet, you can get them to “perjure” themselves by forgetting what they had for breakfast 3 years ago….
Somehow Pedro I bet you were one of the ones screaming rule of law when cons did the same to president Clinton over a sexual affair.
To VRMC and other CONS:
The WH would not be in full crisis mode if something fishy was not going on….so far we have the following people tied to this scandal by communications released by the WH yesterday:
Two Republicans Senators (Pete Domineci and Heather Wilson) the former has already “lawyered up”, the Presidents main advisor – Karl Rove, the Attorney General’s CoS who has resigned, the AG, and Harriet Miers the Presidents former lawyer
All these key people around the President that have their fingerprints all over this scandal of political retribution and all the CONS can say is “…well Clinton did it” WTF???? are you guys serious….
Is that all you have???
B/c that has been completely debunked here:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
There is an awful lot of evidence supporting the fact that this adminstration fired impartial, Republican appointed US Attorneys b/c they were not sufficiently partisan enough for this adminstration….
But if you are so sure of the contrary lets have the Congress hold hearings to determine exactly why these US Attorneys were fired. I mean there is enough evidence for at least a Congressional hearing right????
The adminstration can blame itself for getting into this mess….not the media, not liberals, and certainly not Bill Clinton.
To respond to a multiplicity of questions and attempts to coordinate the right wing talking points (and since the comment system won’t let me put what I want to write in 1 comment) I am going to make 3 posts in succession:
1. “No President other than Clinton ever fired US Attorneys”
Stuart Gerson, AG for Bush I:
Also, from this Washington Post article:
…continuing…
2. “Carol Lam was going to fired for crappy work on those illegal immigrants, not because she was making life hard for well-connected Republicans.”
From the North County Times
It’s interesting that people are sucking for Carol Lam when it was Dianne Feinstein wrote letters to Gonzalez complaining of Lam’s border prosecution guidelines in her district. — VRWC
Oh would that be this Dianne Feinstein?
Per Josh,
(As a further addendum to this point, in response to VRWC’s petulant “Either provide a cite showing that this is a fact … or admit that you are lying.” — I will read your response here as assent that we need a thorough and far-ranging investigation including full use of subpoena power to conclusively demonstrate this to your satisfaction. Othwise your statement would imply that before opening an investigation into wrongdoing, all possible charges would have to be completely demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, which would obviate the need for said investigation, which I’m sure you’d agree would be highly circular reasoning.)
3. “These attorneys were fired because they didn’t prosecute that ultimate threat to the sanctity of our Republic, voter fraud (which we’re pretending to care about)”
From the Seattle Times:
Josh again…
…finally to Dr. AGH – I am certain that the White House will do everything possible to slow and stymie investigations into this so I wouldn’t put a Gonzales resignation earlier than 2 months from now, if ever.
(As a further addendum to this point, in response to VRWC’s petulant “Either provide a cite showing that this is a fact … or admit that you are lying.” — I will read your response here as assent that we need a thorough and far-ranging investigation including full use of subpoena power to conclusively demonstrate this to your satisfaction.
My “petulant” request? Dude, untwist your panties. I just asked for a cite showing the claim that you and several others here have made (i.e. the AG’s were fired for not prosecuting enough Democrats or for prosecuting too many well-connected Republicans) was in anyway based in fact rather than a feeble attempt attempt at wish fulfillment.
Yes, by all means let’s launch a full investigation and subpoena everyone within reach every time a claim is made about someone on the other side of the aisle so that both sides can prove conclusively whether that claim is in fact true. Fantastic suggestion. Why don’t you get right on it and get back to us when you can make a full report on your progress.
And for all your links and Josh quotes, you’ve yet to provide one that shows any evidence to backup your claim that the AG’s were fired for (1) overly aggressively pursuing Democrats and/or (2) protecting well-connected Republicans. All you and Josh are doing is showing valid reasons to doubt the stated reasons for the AG firings (i.e. lack of immigration enforcement, no voter fraud investigations, etc.). I’m sorry, but the latter does not prove the former.
That should have been “(1) not aggressively pursuing Democrats”
Preview is your friend.
Vote tally for “When will Gonzalez resign?”:
A) Never: Midderpidge
B) Let’s call this one “before the end of the Bush presidency”: Duros, Rheinhard
C) Before Friday at 5: Dr. AGH
D) Don’t know — Jay
Whaddya say, Lib4, VRWC, Pedro? SpiderJ? Any other takers?
I have trouble being optimistic about this sort of thing. I’ll go with B.
Updated: When will Gonzalez resign?
A) Never: Midderpidge
B) Before Jan. ’09: Duros, Rheinhard, Nimrod
C) Before Friday at 5: Dr. AGH
D) Don’t know: Jay
I gotta say, I’m liking C!
“I think the attorney general should be fired.” — Senator John Sununu, R-NH, March 14, 2006.
Vote tally for “When will Gonzalez resign?”:
A) Never: Midderpidge
B) Let’s call this one “before the end of the Bush presidency”: Duros, Rheinhard
C) Before Friday at 5: Dr. AGH
D) Don’t know — Jay
Whaddya say, Lib4, VRWC, Pedro? SpiderJ? Any other takers?
Thats a toughie..if he makes it past this weekend he got a shot but alas the WH wants to put it behind them and the WH loves them some Friday nite newsdump..
I’ll say:
My Guess is : C
Let’s review a few undisputed facts:
1. Certain USA’s were targeted for termination
2. Many of those USA’s received positive employment evaluations from the very superiors who soon thereafter terminated them.
3. At least one of these USA was the subject of unusual pressure to rush prosecutions against democrats in advance of an election
4. e-mails from within the DOJ name the president’s number-one political strategist as one of the ones most interested in the termination of these particular USA’s
And now, to establish a pattern of unethical behavior:
Former Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) revealed yesterday that Karl Rove pressured him in 2001 to choose a U.S. Attorney who he believed would be lenient in probing state corruption, the Chicago Tribune reports.
I’ve got another poll for you, Dr. A:
When will the right-wing trools on this site admit that there is at least an appearance of impropriety that needs to be investigated thoroughly?
a) today
b) by noon Friday
c) when Rove resigns and they find that their lives suddenly lack direction
d) when Sean Hannity’s head explodes and ditto ditto ditto
e) never
Call me cynical, but I pick “e”
Oh, for the Gonzalez poll, put me down for b
Forgot one of my undisputed facts:
5. DOJ and WH officials colluded intentionally and with premeditation to abuse a provision of the [pseudo-]Patriot Act to avoid congressional scrutiny of the new appointments.
Dude, my vote keeps getting farther and farther away!
I’m thinking Friday by 10PM.
Of this year.
This month.
When will the right-wing trools on this site admit that there is at least an appearance of impropriety that needs to be investigated thoroughly?
That ones got me stumped too. I have never seen any of them admit that something here smells, no matter how high the garbage piles up.
I’m not sure about Gonzales’ resignation. I guess I’ll go with whatever Frank says.
Here’s an updated tally:
When will Gonzalez resign?
A) Never: Midderpidge
B) Before the end of the Bush presidency: Duros, Rheinhard, Nimrod, Wellstone
C) Before Friday at 5: Dr. AGH, Oliver, Wilbur, Lib4
D) Don’t know: Jay, Beans
E) Cowering in fear: every con on the site (except Jay)
Is this going to be like the Rove “Frog March”? Cause I can’t wait that long to demonstrate how wrong you people are on everything…
Beans! Welcome back! Frank’s cautious about being banned from the blog AHgain by flaming via emails that make foul mouthed sailors blush.
Dr AGH, I vote B if you don’t mind? I agree with Nimrod’s cynicism about being optimistic.
Well if Frank sent emails like that they probably deserved it.
I really love the title of this.
B) Before the end of the Bush presidency: Duros, Rheinhard, Nimrod, Wellstone
Are you saying the Bush presidency will end sometime after 10pm on Friday?!?!
W00T!
The best part of this, for me, is that it so vividly illustrates just how much Bushco’s “War on Terra” has been a front for the consolidation of executive power at the expense of our civil liberties. It’s a bit hard to spin the idea that your own appointees were so deserving of dismissal that you tried to push them out using a last minute provision of the Patriot Act that lets you bypass Congress. What, clearly these people were so dangerous they needed to be hustled out and appointees immune to the will of Congress hustled in before the emboldened terra-ists make their move?
Next you’ll tell me that the FBI, freed from many of the checks put in place back in the what, 70′s, abused the Patriot Act and decided that they were free to spy on whomever they pleased, FISA or no.
Oh, right…
Better not to think of such things as it only empowers our enemies.
As for Gonzales stepping down, that’s a tough call. I can’t see it happening by Friday, but clearly he has become a ripe target for Congress, the new “Rumsfeld” of domestic affairs. Still, the Bushies might just dig in and try to sweat the whole thing out in the hopes that the story will burn itself out. I’d guess there is a better than even chance that Gonzales will fall on his sword to deflect attention from Bush and Rove, possibly before the end of the month.
Doc,
Put me down for “B”, but I bet it’ll be next week.
Still, the Bushies might just dig in and try to sweat the whole thing out in the hopes that the story will burn itself out.
Or something more bullshit comes up.
Is this going to be like the Rove “Frog March”? Cause I can’t wait that long to demonstrate how wrong you people are on everything…
That comment right there perfectly captures why no matter the act of wrong doing the RW will jump to defend their RW allies. CONS will support any wrongdoing as long as it makes liberals look bad. Thats it end of story. And cons dont give me the the Libs do it too arguement. Plenty of Libs chastised Clinton for his behavior…plenty of libs have chastised Democrats who voted for the Iraq so can it.
Please for once admit a damn mistake and move on…your party has been proven time and time again to be falliable…
And through this scandal we learn that GW BUsh never uses email, and many of his advisors use outside email addresses to conduct whitehouse business. Avoiding archiving?
It does remind me of the Nixon administration: just one new scandal after another and one new revelation almost every day. This is what a political implosion looks like and it’s been going on since last year.
I love it.