« Why Clinton's Iraq Problem Matters | Main | Public Service Announcement »

March 13, 2007

Comments

I'm disppointed with hilzoy's change in attidute about prosecuting voter fraud.

I'm having trouble commenting or posting anywhere, but I finally got something up on TIO. I think it has something to do with my links, and come to think of it maybe a bad interaction with Daylight Savings Time, which George Bush has screwed up for everybody.

Maybe lj will throw a link over to Tio. I know he's a link whore.

as a resident of Seattle, WA and one of a few Democrats who absolutely hates Christine Gregoire, the Dem candidate and eventual winner of the governor's race in 2004, I can tell you that I have read absolutely nothing that persuades me that there was voter fraud in the election. I moved here to Seattle after living in DC and the south, and Seattle and Washington state as a whole has been much more clean in politics than anything I experienced elsewhere. It's part of why I've stayed here. So good for John McKay for failing to cotton to the WH thugs and make a case where there was none.

DaveC: I'm disppointed with hilzoy's change in attidute about prosecuting voter fraud

Actually, I think you're responding to Josh Marshall, whom Hilzoy quotes:

Why didn't the prosecutors pursue indictments when GOP operatives started yakking about voter fraud? Almost certainly because there just wasn't any evidence for it.
I fail to see any reason for being "disappointed" in this attitude: do not pursue indictments for crimes that there's no evidence for.

JMM also notes that he thinks AG AG will be gone soon.

he resigned?

why didn't he want to wait till "all the facts were in" ? didn't he have faith in the sleuthing powers of rightwing bloggers?

he should've stuck it out. i'm sure it's all just a case of bad kerning.

Off Topic - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in an interview with the newspaper. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way."

This should be interesting.

Man. It's clear as a bell. When the bubble was at its most reality-proof, at the beginning of the second term, they saw the chance to lard the system with hacks to push their partisan agenda. After Gonzales, who has to spend some time outside the bubble, dismissed the mass-firing approach, they started with a few isolated cases: Biagio in Maryland now believes he was part of this purge, and there's also the November 2005 resignation to return to private practice of J. Paul Miller, USA for northern Illinois, whose sin may have been this:

He oversaw the first conviction in the nation for kickbacks relating to
government contracts issued to support the war effort in Iraq, and two additional defendants in a similar case are pending trial.

Wonder whose bright idea it was to use the Patriot Act reauthorization to slip in the mechanism that would let them complete the process without the need for Senate confirmation? I doubt it was Brett Tolman, the DoJ staffer who took the language to Specter's chief counsel for insertion into the conference report, though Tolman was rewarded with a U.S. Attorney appointment. (Was the USA he replaced part of the purge, or a more routine promotion-to-judge or resignation-to-run-for-office?)

Correction: Tolman was not DoJ staff, but staff to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Specter and his predecessor Hatch.

There's also this interesting note, from commenter Aunt Deb at TPMMuckraker back when Specter came up with the 'overzealous staffer' explanation for the change to the PATRIOT Act:

The Deseret News says Tolman "helped the two senators [Hatch and Specter] gain support for the renewal of the Patriot Act." Tolman was then nominated for the position of US attorney of Utah by Hatch, supported in his nomination by Specter, Frist, DeWine, and McConnell. But the White House opposed this, pushing for Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff for the position.

Tolman was nominated and appointed and this language somehow got in this bill.

Some reporter ought to put these events on a timeline.

Poor Mr. Sampson. All that work to plan and execute the purge, and he not only missed out on the U.S. Attorney appointment but ends up being thrown overboard when the, um, plot thickens.

Nell, Tolman replaced a http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060125-18>holdover.

And by the way, I'd invite people to compare the qualifications of Mr. Tolman with those of Mr. Warner.

Which is not to say that Mr. Warner shouldn't have been replaced. Still, there are Republican lawyers in Utah with 20+ years of practice, and the need to go to someone who wouldn't qualify for partnership at most AmLaw 100 firms doesn't seem all that great.

Ah, but Tolman had that special qualification: he was the man who made it possible for them to appoint U.S. Attorneys at will, with no need to take advice from Senators in the state or Senate confirmation. What's prosecutorial experience compared with that?

Some reporter ought to put these events on a timeline.

TPMMuckraker's got one.

cleek: in other words, it's still not too late to get a draft up and running.

But I imagine that neither Bush nor Cheney actually care what happens after January 2009, and it is certainly too late for a draft to have any effect on the military before then.

Not that I'm convinced a draft would help, anyway: to my mind it would merely ensure that American casualties in Iraq reach the scale they did in Vietnam. Iraqi deaths bid fair to reach the same scale as Vietnamese casualties, with corresponding disasters happening in neighboring countries. The one thing neither the US nor Iraq needs now is more US soldiers in Iraq: the time when that might have been useful is long, long gone.

Oops. That comment was of course meant for the other thread.

DaveC, the only way your comment makes sense is if you read into the argument that there was further evidence against voter fraud a statement that we shouldn't prosecute actual cases of voter fraud.
I'm really curious to hear you defend this.

I'm with DaveC. on this one.

There has got to be a perfectly legitimate explanation for these dismissals.

Maybe the federal prosecutors in question are gay, not to mention immoral.

Maybe the dismissed attorneys have spine injuries, prosthetic legs, or are mentally imbalanced and their presence is required in Baghdad. It's a redeployment. It's a surge. It's another way to sequester supply side tax windfalls and guarantee the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare.

Maybe the attorneys complained to the White House about the high tax rates in the United States and are going to move en masse to Dubai, where Filipino prostitutes are as easily procured as a grouse on a Dick Cheney hunting trip.

Maybe the Justice Department was working too well and the wrecking ball that is the Republican Party has only two years left to raze and implode that governmental institution, too.

Maybe George W. Bush will be discovered to be what he claimed to see inside of Vladimir Putin's soul: an abyss into which all of us are plunging.

Maybe the crop of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates seem so .... nauseatingly inadequate ... is because we are so royally f---ed, that electing a Beast would seem therapeutic and cleansing.

Ugh, thanks very much for the tip on the timeline over at the Muckraker. I made a few suggestions in comments for dates that could usefully be added.

Overreach. It gets 'em almost every time.

Link to a thread at Tio, by popular demand ;)

Strange but the indignation expressed here indicates no recall of Bill Clinton's firing of a lot more then a handful of federal attorneys, perhaps an oversight. If so take this post as a chance to make amends.

I won't accept the notion that the moral stalwarts of ObWi skewer their principles on party lines any more than I can accept that it's only Republicans who complain of voter fraud.

As to my first paragraph, please no "but that's different" posts.

And love to all.

@johnt: That irrelevant, wilfully ignorant objection has been repeatedly dealt with in the previous U.S. Attorney thread: here, here, and here.

johnt: Strange but the indignation expressed here indicates no recall of Bill Clinton's firing of a lot more then a handful of federal attorneys, perhaps an oversight. If so take this post as a chance to make amends

Wasn't that at the time Clinton was elected? And didn't George W. Bush do exactly the same thing to Clinton's appointees in 2001? Isn't it rather different when a President fires his own appointees mid-term?

Nell's actually referred you to the data required: As to my first paragraph, please no "but that's different" posts.

So, okay: you want someone to express indignation that when Clinton was elected, many attorneys appointed by Bush Sr were replaced by Clinton's appointees? Please, then, express your own indignation that in 2001, many attorneys appointed by Clinton were replaced by Bush Jr's appointees. In that way, we will be certain that this is a principled objection from you, not a party-line hit-and-run "Oh that's different!" from yourself.

If it's hit and run, johnt won't be back.

Or he'll be back when the thread is longer, to say the same thing, as if no one had already heard and replied.

There was a comment over at TMV from someone who apparently got their RW talking points second- or third-hand, who wondered why no one got upset when Clinton fired all of Bush I's judges when he took office. Obviously, that commenter also knows little to nothing about how the government is structured.

Intriguing dates to pin down for a timeline:

Per this NYTimes article on the rise and fall of Kyle Sampson:

As his influence rose inside the Justice Department and the White House, Mr. Sampson decided at some point that he wanted to move directly to the post of United States attorney in Utah, his home state, without serving as a full-time prosecutor first.

Paul M. Warner, then the United States attorney in Utah, said Mr. Sampson brought it up at a lunch the two had in Washington.

“Washington is full of young ambitious lawyers,” said Mr. Warner, who stepped down as United States attorney in early 2006 and is now a federal magistrate judge. “Kyle was honest enough, up front enough, to come to me and say, You have the job that I want.”

What was the date of the Sampson-Warner lunch? Was it in late 2005? Warner resigned at some point in January (the tribute from Hatch was on 25 January 2006).

The conference report on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization was released from conference on December 8, 2005. The House passed it on December 14. The Senate did not act on it until March 2, 2006.
What was the date on which the revision to the conference report was made by Specter's chief counsel on request from Judiciary staffer Tolman? Was it before or after the House voted? If so, is it usual for the House and Senate to vote on different versions of the conference bill?

Was it after Hatch (and possibly also Specter) had let Gonzales know that he (they) preferred Tolman for the U.S. Attorney post?

Hatch almost immediately let the administration know (Gonzales, certainly, but probably others, including Bush himself) that he supported Tolman for the U.S. Attorney post that Sampson was interested in. This is s.o.p.; the tradition is that the opinion of Senators from the USA region in question is given real weight.

Specter, too, supported Tolman, as someone he'd worked with on the Judiciary Committee for years. How and when did Specter make his preference known?

In June of 2006, Bush finally nominated Tolman.

This is looking very, very much as if someone had the bright idea for a quid pro quo: if Specter would look the other way while the crucial provision was inserted in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, then his and Hatch's guy would get the job.

Whose idea was the revision to US Atty nominating procedure? Schumer needs to get Tolman under oath ASAP.

Overreach. It gets 'em almost every time.

To my mind, overreach is trying to stretch a single into a double. This is more like the Black Sox scandal.

Can anyone explain why this matter is substantively different than the Watergate-era DoJ abuses?

LOL! I don't disagree, Leong.

By 'overreach', I was thinking along the lines that the regime were trying to stretch the single of their 2004 election victory (in the popular vote, at least) into the home run of a permanent Republican majority, by getting hacks into U.S. Attorney jobs so as to suppress investigations into Republican corruption and instigate them into Democratic "voter fraud" or corruption (real and imagined).

Strange but the indignation expressed here indicates no recall of Bill Clinton's

but mom, he did it first?

Ugh: "This should be interesting."

I thought it was when I posted it yesterday on the off-topic thread, since it was off-topic, and when I posted a pointer to it yet again last night, to make sure no one missed it.

But I guess it wasn't, after all.

My bad, Gary.

BTW, moe99: your comment at 03:01 reminded me that there were indeed some commentators who had "reservations" about voting issues in the 2004 WA gubernatorial election. Although I am sure CB will be along shortly to reiterate his misgivings over Gov. Gregoire's win; even though, as subsequent events have shown, the "evidence" is no more persusasive today than it was two years ago.

And, ironically, my jaunt through the ObWings archives reminded me that one of the main topics of discussion here in Jan. '05 was about the suitability (or lack thereof) of President Bush's new nominee for Attorney General: one Alberto Gonzales. File under "So What Else Is New?": hilzoy proved right again!

Although I am sure CB will be along shortly to reiterate his misgivings over Gov. Gregoire's win; even though, as subsequent events have shown, the "evidence" is no more persusasive today than it was two years ago.


Well, I'd take those misgivings more seriously if the resulting challenges to "illegal" voters were AT LEAST within an order of magnitude of the accuracy of the voting itself...

Jesurgislac: "But I imagine that neither Bush nor Cheney actually care what happens after January 2009, and it is certainly too late for a draft to have any effect on the military before then."

I'm utterly opposed to a draft, so no one should interpret this point any other way; as usual, I'm just interested in seeing discussion on a factual basis; but the U.S. entered WWI on April 6, 1917, passed the Selective Service Act on May 18th, 1917, and had over 10,000 men per day entering Europe within three months, with the draft.

The WWII draft, in the U.S., started in October 1940, so it isn't terribly useful at indicating possible speeds to start up.

But we've had mandatory Selective Service registration in operation since 1980, and basic training, along with much basic Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) training, takes about 9 weeks and then 6 weeks (some specialties take longer, of course, such as, say, going to the Montery Language School).

The plan since 1980 is to have everything up and running within 6 months. Given that 98% registration is currently claimed, we spend ~$25 million a year on this system paying all the people to keep it running, and the past record, I know no reason to think that running the draft would be forced to run slower than it did in WWI or later, so where Jes pulls her figure from, other than pure imagination with no connection to facts, I don't know.

Back in reality, if Congress voted to restart the draft next week, the first soldiers would theoretically be available for combat by October (2007): not "January, 2009."

Fortunately, this won't happen.

But if Jes believes that "it is certainly too late for a draft to have any effect on the military before then," I'd like to see her cites, please, for what hard facts support this claim.

here's my favorite part of the whole thing, so far (via Sullivan):

    The Specter staffer who inserted the clause into the Patriot Act giving the president new power to by-pass the Senate in appointing U.S. Attorneys ... was rewarded by becoming a U.S Attorney!

but, i'm assured that, because Krugman mentioned something that isn't quite as factual as, say, anything used to justify the Iraq War, that this whole USAttorney this is just another false story planted by Jamil Hussien.

More detail.

[...] "I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed," Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17 memo to Miers. "It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.

"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments," he wrote.

By avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House."

[...]

A week later, Sampson wrote: "Domenici is going to send over names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)."

[...]

E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August. By mid-December, Sampson was suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term.

"[I]f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?" Sampson wrote to a White House aide.

Indeed.

Cleek, it gets better: the guy that Tolman beat out for the Utah US attorney post was Sampson, the guy who wrote the memo to Miers that's in Gary's quote.

Ah, I see Bizarro World has weighed in on this, the verdict? Nothing to see here.

Of course, on January 18th, A-G Gonzalez testified under oath to Congress:

GONZALES: And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate.

"[I]f we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it?"

In the same Gonzalez testimony under oath:

Also on Jan. 18, Gonzales stated, “I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”
Perjury?

Does anyone actually have a link to Bush firing all US attorneys when he took office in 2001? Bush Sr. doing so in 1989? Reagan? Carter?

I keep seeing the Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys in March of 1993 defended as it being common practice. I have tried to find links that this was common practice, but my search words only pull up stories regarding Clinton and the current scandal without any mention of all attorneys being fired in 2001 or other years.

I see posts saying it is common practice, but I haven't seen a link to this as a fact.

“I think I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.”

Presumably he has an opinion by John Yoo that it's not perjury if you say "I think" at the beginning.

Which would mean he's violated the basic principle known to all pushers: Don't consume the merchandise.

Anyway, perjury is "quaint."

Not only that, Anderson, but the statement is only about what he would do, not what he did. See, now that it's become a big issue, it would be insane for him to do it again.

So, AG out by the end of the week? I guess we'll have to see what the documents say (assuming the guys at TPM are still going through them).

There's now an Intrade contract on Gonzales resigning by the end of the month. The last trade was at 50, meaning the buyer thought there was at least a 50% chance it would happen. For resigning by the end of June, the last trade is 63. Granted, the volume is so low that these numbers are pretty meaningless (and they'd probably be meaningless even if the volume were high), but they provide a little amusement.

Just me, it's a common practice for incoming Presidents to replace the US Attorneys. The usual thing is to fire the old ones as the new ones are confirmed, or so I understand. When Clinton came in there was a quick mass firing before the replacements were available, resulting in actual vacancies. Decidedly NOT the usual practice.

That's the way I've heard it, anyway; I agree, it's pretty annoying the way you try to do searches on this, and just get Bush's firing as results. Makes it a bit difficult to confirm the details.

Brent, Both Clinton and Bush 43 had two terms. In the first of both terms the US Attorneys left or were fired en masse, because the Executive changed parties. However, in Clinton's 2d term, there were no firings comparable to the firings that have occurred here in Bush 43's second term. Do you get the comparison now? Or do I have to type more slowly?

New talking point from Powerline!

The Post also says that Harriet Miers recommended that all U.S. Attorneys be fired. Gonzales wisely rejected this blunderbuss recommendation. It's worth noting, though, that such a mass firing would not have been unprecedented. President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.
Yes, as usual, if one digs just a little below the surface, the real culprit is unmasked: Bill Clinton, of course!

But Paul goes on to defend Clinton!

[...] So why shouldn't a U.S. Attorney be replaced at any time if he or she is not performing well overall, or if his office is plagued by morale problems, or if she is not enforcing the immigration laws, or if he is not dealing adequately with substantial allegations of voter fraud? That's the way it works for all other presidential appointees; why not U.S. Attorneys?
Oh, wait, this only applies to George W. Bush, and, after all, it turns out that the firings were all for cause.

Pwhew!

"Do you get the comparison now? Or do I have to type more slowly?"

Since Brett was answering "just me"'s question of 6:06 PM, the questions seem a bit off-point, and the second sheerly abusive.

Brett thanks for answering the question.

My searches were coming up fruitless.

Just Me, do you think you'd have any better luck finding out what happens to deputy assistant secretaries of defense when administrations change? It's more or less the same thing. The difference between firing all appointees on day one, and doing so over a four month period (having gotten a flood of applications beginning the day after election day) isn't material to this current issue. Just more misdirection.

@just me: It is absolutely routine for an incoming administration to appoint its own U.S. Attorneys. Most of the time it's done more gradually than happened when Clinton came in, but they were coming in after twelve straight years of Republican USA.

Bush kept at least a few holdovers. One example is Paul Warner in Utah, who was replaced by Brett Tolman the Patriot-Act-revision-bringer, beating out never-was-a-prosecutor-at-any-level Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff.

As I read Warner's bio, in Hatch's tribute to his career in January 2006 (link in a CharleyCarp comment way above), it sounds to me very much as if Warner were a Republican. Clinton appointed significantly more Republicans to judgeships and U.S. Attorney positions than this regime ever has Democrats; which is to say, any.

Nell, I think it would be fairer to call Judge Warner an http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/072998-president-names-paul-warner-us-attorney-for-utah.htm>apolitical professional.

Charley, right you are. Starting with the pool of highly experienced prosecutors in Utah, settling on the smartest and fairest one you can find is no doubt a wiser approach than restricting the choice to Democrats.

Nell: I don't know how practical this would be, but imagine if Clinton had held off replacing prosecutors involved in ongoing investigations that could have had political consequences. This would seem to be the ethical choice. Routine or not, Clinton's actions seem less than ideal.
Of course, this doesn't excuse this junta's actions (and there seems to be much more evidence that this was intended to influence political prosecutions), but I don't think Clinton is beyond criticism.

When Clinton came in there was a quick mass firing before the replacements were available, resulting in actual vacancies. Decidedly NOT the usual practice.

and Bush appointing them without confirmation, because the USA PATRIOT act allowed him to (thanks to a guy who now has a job thanks to that very bit of legislation) ?

totally the usual practice!!!

"Of course, this doesn't excuse this junta's actions (and there seems to be much more evidence that this was intended to influence political prosecutions), but I don't think Clinton is beyond criticism."

Resolved: William J. Clinton, former President of the United States, is not beyond criticism.

Votes in favor? Opposing?

OK, we've all voted in favor. Next?

Lars: Maybe. For all I know, some of the holdovers were re-appointed quickly. It was March 1993: presumably the incoming Clinton DoJ and WH staff had had two months (at a minimum) to determine what kinds of cases were underway in the 93 districts. Maybe they'd come to the conclusion that no investigations/prosecutions would be seriously derailed.

More to the point, I have yet to see any reports about the 'mass firing' that would tell me whether the fired USAs stayed on until their replacements were confirmed. I'd assume they did, absent records to the contrary. But I was taking a complete vacation from news and politics at the time, so consider me a blank slate on that question.

My understanding on what is business as usual in the balance of politics and professionalism comes from a college friend who is an associate USA, and the testimony of the USAs before the Senate last week.

No one thinks Clinton is beyond criticism, Lars. But there's really nothing to criticize about replacing political appointees en masse. It doesn't stop the work of an office, or stop any investigations. It doesn't signal any hostility to a particular kind of investigation if you do a mass firing, so you don't get people backing off to save their jobs, etc. In every district, there were people who could be interim USA while confirmation got taken care of.

I will say, though, that I have some recollection that the Clinton Administration was unprepared for how long the background check process took. A lot had changed since the last mass turnover of appointees, and I think everyone was a little surprised.

So far it appears the scandal rest on the notion that you can't fire somebody you hire. Further, that there may have been politics involved, which is a real whopper,especially in Washington. If scandal is what you need this is thin gruel to feed on.

Reno demanded the resignations,which if it isn't firing then suitable euphemisms will have to be searched for. This hardly makes for an orderly transition and if politicizing Justice bothers you in this situation perhaps some reminders are in order, touchy as some of you are on the subject of Clinton. I have yet to see where Bush or any of his people demanded mass resignations/firings at one fell swoop.

If this occurred I'll back off, for now. As it is we have eight attorneys for whom it it perfectly legal, and with only vague hints of possible corruption, for the President to dump them.

So far it appears the scandal rest on the notion that you can't fire somebody you hire.

And it appears the earth is flat.

You can be more perceptive that this.

"This hardly makes for an orderly transition"

It's apparently a normal part of the transition between parties. It's business as usual.


"vague hints of possible corruption"

Make that clear allegations of obvious corruption with a side order of perjury. Unless you think people resign over vague nothings, you ought to reconsider.

johnt: Firing 8 US attorneys, in and of itself, is indeed legal, and only slightly anomalous. Nothing to see here.

But firing 8 US attorneys as corroborative evidence for overt political bias in the justice system is dead serious. Alberto Gonzales should resign (or be impeached) not because he fired these 8 individuals, but because of the clear pattern of using the office of Attorney General of the United States to pursue partisan political ends.

Get the difference?

So far it appears the scandal rest on the notion that you can't fire somebody you hire. Further, that there may have been politics involved

Funny, this is just what I always thought about the late, great, Travelgate.

But of course, I do see where canning the travel planner is much more serious than interfering with a prosecution. Specifically, the "where" is Bizarro World. Me am SO happy!

guangung, rilkefan, dr ngo, tribolite,
good morning to you all.

First you will note that I asked for examples of one mass firing, you then will note that no examples were given apart from references to apparent & usual ways of doing business. Sorry, it don't fly.

guangung, At the moment my perception is fine but if I happen to perceive political interference greater then what I saw during the Clinton/Reno years you will be among the first to know.

rilkefan, I hereby sentence you to 99 years on a rock pile at the newly reopened Devils Island based on "clear allegations". Drop me a postcard from time to time.

dr ngo, you're the funniest, as someone suggested to me, truly you should reconsider but only after a soul searching review of recent history, starting in 1993 to 2001.

tribolite, it doesn't take much to make you happy so may I suggest two hours notice on your losing your job, a ride off the premises in a seat less van, and being replaced by a couple of connected Hollywood millionaires. Hope you didn't have the job for 28 years, but hey, what's the diff?

This will go on for a while so I will be back, for now, ta

johnt:

A few simple facts to try to get you back on track.

1. US Attorneys are routinely replaced en masse at the beginning of administrations. It is a political appointment in which the attorney serves at the pleasure of the executive, and everyone has replaced the appointees of the other party when there is a change in power.

2. It is unusual for US Attorneys to be replaced during the term of a president, or when he is re-elected for a second term. That is why nonsense about "Clinton did it" is a non sequitir -- Clinton did not replace his appointed attorneys after he was elected to a second term. That would be the appropriate comparison -- not comparing 2006 to 1993.

3. The evidence is that many of the attorneys who were canned were selected because they either were actively involved in pursuing Republican corruption to an extent that displeased the AG (Lam) or were allegedly not active enough in starting investigations of alleged Democratic corruption (Iglesias).

4. Everything out of the DoJ or the AG as to the reason for the firings has been a non-stop obfuscation or lie. It also pissed off the attorneys who were dismissed who, even though Republican loyalists, did not take kindly to being falsely smeared so that the DoJ and the AG could cover up the reason for the dismissals.

Well, there seems to me a natural cross posting with the "Trusting in God's Judgement" topic, but that may just be me being snarky....

"Clinton did not replace his appointed attorneys after he was elected to a second term."

Well, yeah, but it's not exactly a point in Clinton's favor that when he was first elected he already had a desperate need to obstruct investigations, while Bush took a while to develope that need.

"Well, yeah, but it's not exactly a point in Clinton's favor that when he was first elected he already had a desperate need to obstruct investigations"

But it's not a point against an innocent man to have enemies with a desperate need to attack him and a willingness to do so by abusing the legal system.

Clinton. Innocent.

Denial. That's all it is. You know what the difference between Clinton and Nixon is? Republicans turned on Nixon, and Democrats defended Clinton. And that's about it.

"Denial. That's all it is."

Well, it's also aardvark, and slant v6, and triambadory stew.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad