That’s the larger message behind the U.S. Attorney scandal.
The White House’s former political director was furious at Justice Department officials for disclosing to Congress that the administration had forced out the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., to make way for a protege of Karl Rove, President Bush’s political adviser, according to documents released late Tuesday.
Then-White House political affairs director Sara Taylor spelled out her frustrations in a Feb. 16 e-mail to Kyle Sampson, then the chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
She sent the message after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told the Senate that unlike other federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins wasn’t fired for performance reasons, but to make way for former Republican political operative Tim Griffin. Griffin, serving as the interim U.S. attorney, then announced that he wouldn’t seek confirmation to the Arkansas post, but would remain until the Senate confirmed someone else. Griffin has since resigned.
“Tim was put in a horrible position; hung out to dry w/ no heads up,” Taylor lashed out in the e-mail, which was sent from a Republican Party account rather than from her White House e-mail address. “This is not good for his long-term career.”
Not the good of the country or the integrity of the Justice Department, but his career was the foremost thing in her mind.
I’ve been saying this for a long time. For NeoCons it is part first, everything else a distance, distance second place.
A hell of a lot of Republican’ts put their party ahead of their country. Some even admit it.
You forgot to mention that Griffin was/is well qualified for the job and that the Pres has the discretion to fire Executive Branch attorneys as he sees fit.
I guess OW also forgot to mention that they testified that the WH had nothing to do with the USA firings. (Where did Sara Taylor work again?) They also testified that the RNC emails (from the gw43.com address) were only used for political/campaign purposes and not for official government business. Hiding emails from archiving scrutiny using non-government accounts is a direct violation of the Presidential Records Act. But I guess you’re right, Dugger. The Pres has the power to hire and fire USAs. I’ll give you that point.
Please, like the Democrats don’t put party first either. What are you guys smoking? I want some.
I’m still waiting to see where Bush actually fired anyone. As far as I can tell from what the administration is trying to tell us is that Bush, Gonzalez, Cheney, and Rove, have had NOTHING to do with firing anyone (of course they seem to be lying). According to them, the firings were the brain child of a bunch of lower level nearly rogue functionaries working in secret from their bosses. So much for that talking point, huh, Dugger?
Any others? Griffin’s qualifications? Let’s see, he wasn’t from the district he was placed in, with no ties or knowledge of the problems of the district. As a matter of fact, he was so qualified they didn’t even try to run him through confirmation…
locus,
uhh “I guess OW also forgot to mention that they testified that the WH had nothing to do with the USA firings.’
They would have to be fired by the WH. The firings are legal. Clinton did it too. Where’s the problem? Differnt peoples’ recollections about the details of a legal act?
Clinton did it too.
Clinton fired an effective US attorney in order to appoint one of his buddy’s proteges?
Clinton fired US attorneys because they were too zealous in prosecuting democrats? Or too cautious about prosecuting republicans?
Clinton fired US attorney because they wouldn’t pursue bogus voter fraud cases in the months leading up to an election?
Clinton abused provisions of emergency legislation to avoid subjecting his USA appointees to congressional approval?
Well, I’m not aware of any evidence that Clinton did any of that, but even if he did, I’ll be the first to say that he was wrong to do so, even if it wasn’t “illegal”
Why can’t you say the same about the Bush WH, Dugger?
According to them, the firings were the brain child of a bunch of lower level nearly rogue functionaries working in secret from their bosses.
This sounds familiar. Last I recall this mode of thinking, it was the same wingnuts crying out that Valerie Plame was a ruthless manipulator working to bring down the presidency from inside the CIA, or that Clinton conspired to kill Vince Foster.
And it’s liberals that get derided as the “tinfoil” crowd.
Time to call the Waaaah-mbulance.
“Clinton did it too.” Is that the best you can do, Dugger? That’s pretty weak.
Thanks for clarifying things, Wilbur.
Wilbur
“Clinton fired an effective US attorney in order to appoint one of his buddy’s proteges’
Please. Of course Clinton fired attorneys for selfish political reasons. Scads of them. It was his perogative - just as it IS Bushes. hey, I think it was alright that Bubba did it. Same for Bush. Are you saying only elected Dem Presidents can fire US attorneys?
You juts don’t like the fatc that Bush did it. they aren’t your reasons. Easy answer. get your person elected and let him/her fire for reasons you like. But don’t kid yourself. the opposition to Bush on this, as your post shows, is all ideological - not a whit is legal. You guys hate Bush no matter what he does.
Yes, the firings were legal. Doesn’t make them right. And after all this time, no one at the White House or DOJ has offered up a plausible explanation why they were fired.
But, hey, no cause for alarm, right?
Yep, you’d NEVER see Democrats putting politics or the party ahead of the best interests of the country .
Um Dumger, the Clinton did it crap doesn’t fly. Bush had already replaced all of Clinton’s appointments, just as Clinton had replaced the Reagan/Bush holdovers and Reagan had replaced the Carter USAs, etc. Try to keep up.
Bush replaced his own appointments, which is nearly unprecedented except in cases of gross incompetence or corruption. Bush chose to replace USAs that didn’t put politics above their oaths of office and replaced them with loyalists who would. All using new laws to ram them in without the confirmation process. Legal? Maybe. Unethical, unmoral, and detrimental to the country unquestionably.
Of course Clinton fired attorneys for selfish political reasons. Scads of them. It was his perogative
Wrong, semi-right, correct. Yes, it was his perogative to replace US attorneys with his own picks AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM, not 6 years into it. If he had it would have raised eyebrows on the right, just like every-fucking-thing the man did.
And if you’re gonna go saying that Clinton ditched atty.s for political reasons, you’re gonna have to back that shit up.
Please. Of course Clinton fired attorneys for selfish political reasons. Scads of them.
Then you won’t have trouble naming one or two of them, along with some evidence of Clinton’s selfish political motives. You know, the kind of evidence we have in 18-wheeler-loads in the case of Tim Griffin.
And leave it to you to cherry-pick the most innocuous allegation - one of simple political sleaze - and omit any reference to the more serious charges that I referred to: ones that truly represent the prostitution of the justice system for political purposes. I repeat…
Clinton fired US attorneys because they were too zealous in prosecuting democrats? Or too cautious about prosecuting republicans?
Clinton fired US attorney because they wouldn’t pursue bogus voter fraud cases in the months leading up to an election?
Clinton abused provisions of emergency legislation to avoid subjecting his USA appointees to congressional approval?
I suppose if Clinton had done any of those things it too would be hunky-dory in your book, Dugger? Sure as hell wouldn’t be in mine. Guess that’s why I vote democrat and you vote republican.
VWRC Drone: if that story is accurate, if there truly is no station in the area with comparable signal strength, then I would agree that the county supervisers would be unwise to sever their ties with the station.
But of course, you’re not telling us all of the story, are you..
The contract with WIOD was on the verge of being rejected when commissioners instead delayed a decision until next week. They told their communications staff they want more information on why WIOD was recommended and what their options are.
In other words, commissioners considered rejecting the contract, but then thought hey, maybe we don’t have all the facts. Maybe this move would put some of our people in jeopardy. Maybe we’d better think about it some more.
Did the Bush team ever take some time to think about what their actions were doing to the credibility of the DOJ?
Let’s just assume for a second that your ridiculous premise - that the actions of some county commission is somehow comparable in importance to the actions of the whitehouse and the federal department of justice - even so, the dems come off looking better.
Feeble, feeble, feeble, VWRC.
And speaking of feeble, isn’t it interesting that the more desperate Dugger’s arguments get, the worse his spelling gets? How many shots of Jack Daniels does it take before you can stomach spewing such dishonest garbage, Dugger? The fact that you have to get drunk to do so means that somewhere you still have a conscience. There’s still hope for you, Dugger. Renounce the Evil One and all wil be forgiven.
Dugger, even if the whole “Clinton did it too” thing is accurate, didn’t your mommy ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?
Two words:
Hatch
Act
But please, keep bleating about how the firings were legal and of course:
Clinton!
The Pres can fire the attorneys when he wants to - up front or at the end or in the middle. That is not a crime in any way. It is not a ‘wrong’. No wrong has been identified here at all. Just that progressives don’t like what Bush did.
Wilbur, Like Janet Reno after incinerating the children of Waco, I take full responsibility for my crappy typing. Though I can’t help concluding that, when the debate is about US Attorneys and their firings and you verge off into my ‘artistic’ typing, my poorly typed content must be unassailable.
Nice “Checkers Speech,” Dugger. And with a swipe at Reno, no less.
Throw in a mention of Ted Kennedy and you’re batting for the empty-Right-wing-talking-point cycle!