Attorneys Again

by hilzoy

Via TPM, McClatchy:

"Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said the timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse denied in an e-mail that there was any link."

Meanwhile:

"The Democratic senator leading the inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors insisted Sunday that Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush must testify publicly and under oath, setting up a confrontation between Congress and the White House, which has said it is unlikely to agree to such a demand.

Some Republicans have suggested that Mr. Rove testify privately, if only to tamp down the political uproar over the inquiry, which centers on whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

But Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, seemed to rule out such a move on Sunday. He said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Mr. Rove as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William K. Kelley, the deputy White House counsel.

“I do not believe in this ‘We’ll have a private briefing for you where we’ll tell you everything,’ and they don’t,” Mr. Leahy said on “This Week” on ABC, adding: “I want testimony under oath. I am sick and tired of getting half-truths on this.” (...)

Dan Bartlett, counselor to Mr. Bush, has said it is “highly unlikely” that the president would waive executive privilege to allow his top aides to testify publicly. One Republican strategist close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to appear to be representing the administration, said: “No president is going to let their senior staff assistant to the president go testify. Forget that. They might agree to do an informal interview, but they’ll never testify.”

Democrats, citing a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, say presidential advisers, including 47 from the Clinton administration alone, have frequently testified before Congressional committees, both while serving the president and after they had left the White House.

Even so, legal experts say precedent does not play a role in decisions about whether to waive executive privilege; each administration, in effect, writes its own rules. The Bush administration has been particularly protective of executive privilege, and Republicans close to the White House say the decision about whether, or how much, to cooperate will come down to a calculation of the political risks and rewards."

Under normal circumstances, in a normal administration, I'd be fine with a private briefing by Rove. But this administration's members have lied and stonewalled too often. They need to be put under oath, where the prospect of being indicted for perjury can concentrate their minds.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Isn't there precident for an administration simply refusing to act on perjury charges refered to it by Congress, when they involve somebody testifying about that administration? I seem to have some recollection of that happening in a prior administration, anyway.

[Joshua]

legal experts say precedent does not play a role in decisions about whether to waive executive privilege; each administration, in effect, writes its own rules

Which "legal experts", exactly? John Yoo? David Addington? Can we get an opinion from somebody who's not intimately involved in Kool-Aid production?

One Republican strategist close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to appear to be representing the administration, said...

Hi, Mr. Rove. You've sure got a lot of time to anonymously meet with reporters so you can spread your vile lies about how checks and balances work. I'd hate to cut into that time, but see there's this Congressional committee who'd like to speak with you...

Bah, humbug. At least Sen. Leahy is doing a bang up job with these investigations, and the administrations avoidance of them is becoming less defensible by the day.

[russell]

Subpoena them and swear them in. If they refuse, find them in contempt of Congress and make the DOJ empanel a grand jury to consider prosecution. If Gonzales refuses to pursue the contempt proceedings, impeach him.

Congress has the authority to do all of the above.

This crap has gone on long enough. It's time to start sending these clowns to jail.

When these guys start looking at hard time, they'll shape up. Until then, they'll just continue to give me, you, the US Congress, and the rest of the world the finger.

It's called kicking ass and taking names. Testify under oath or jail. Real jail, for years. Start with the small fry and work your way up. That will get it done.

Thanks -

[trilobite]

One Republican strategist close to the White House, speaking on the condition of anonymity so as not to appear to be representing the administration, said: “No president is going to let their senior staff assistant to the president go testify.

The sad thing is, there are probably a lot of bright, young, idealistic staffers who honestly believe that this is how the world always worked.

And as they grow up, it will be.

[russell]

The sad thing is, there are probably a lot of bright, young, idealistic staffers who honestly believe that this is how the world always worked.

Then it's time to disabuse them of that notion.

Thanks -

[Newport 9]

Republicans close to the White House say the decision about whether, or how much, to cooperate will come down to a calculation of the political risks and rewards

Is this Rove too, do you think, or is it really one or more other "Republicans close to the White House"?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Subpoena them and swear them in. If they refuse, find them in contempt of Congress and make the DOJ empanel a grand jury to consider prosecution. If Gonzales refuses to pursue the contempt proceedings, impeach him."

I plan to laugh myself silly when Democrats do that, and Republicans confront the committee members with footage of their defending Reno when she refused to prosecute Democrats under the precise same circumstances. What goes around comes around, and what you wink at when your own side does it becomes awfully hard to prosecute with a straight face when the other side copies you.

[Hartmut]

Just how many of "then" are still there today?
And what makes you think that we naturally are fans of Reno?

[john miller]

Brett, so the administration that campaigned on bringing integrity back to the WH can excuse itself from showing that integrity because a prior administration did not display integrity.

What is wrong with that picture.

Keep in mind there were many Democrats who were not knee-jerk Reno fans and who did not condone many of Clinton's actions.

[cleek]

you really do love that "But Mommmmmmmm, he did it firrrrrrst!!!!" angle, don't you, Brett ?

[KCinDC]

So Brett is specializing in the "Clinton did it too!" defense, while Tom Maguire elsewhere subjects us to the ever-popular "If it's not illegal, it's not wrong" defense (which is particularly handy when combined with "If the president does it, it's not illegal"). Tom has refined it further by adding "If it doesn't violate IIPA, it's not illegal."

[John Thullen]

"What goes around comes around, and what you wink at when your own side does it becomes awfully hard to prosecute with a straight when the other side copies you."

Once again, hypocrisy is the highest crime and the darkest sin. Personally, I recommend cackling maniacally while prosecuting this crowd.

I don't they've merely copied. I think they've made substantial improvements and added wonderful new features.

My teenager occasionally pulls the "hypocrisy" plea on me regarding various issues. I'm glad he (a great kid) has no footage of me at my hypocritical, youthful worst, not to mention last Thursday. He'd wonder how I can even get out of bed in the morning and face myself when I advise, say, driving carefully, or working a little harder in school, or whatever.

Why, I'd be paralyzed wouldn't I?

You're grounded, Brett. Shh! Shh!

[John Thullen]

Yeah, but.... yeah, but.

Give me the car keys.

[PghMike]

The NY Times today finally wrote about the applicability of the obstruction of justice statutes to the firings of the 8 US attorneys. Worth a read (and doesn't require TimesSelect):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html

They point out that there is at least some evidence of several crimes in the firings -- misrepresentations to Congress ( by Gonazales and McNulty); obstruction of justice ( by Dominici and Wilson, for calling the prosecutors), and for firing them if the firing was designed to impede an official investigation; witness tampering (when McNulty's chief of staff threatened a US attorney for speaking out).

It looks pretty bad for Gonazales.

[Brett Bellmrore]

Let me tell you where I'm coming from: All during the Clinton administration, I was telling Democrats, "Don't you realize, that what you help Clinton get away with will become SOP, the baseline from which the next administration explores new depths of corruption?"

And the response I inevitably got was that Clinton wasn't doing anything wrong. Which was, and is, blatent nonsense. But it's the party line to this day, and you stick to it like glue.

And now, here we are, in the middle of a corrupt Republican administration, and suddenly Democrats are capable of seeing corruption again. Except you're not, you're still wallowing in denial about your own guy.

Well, guess what: Bush might be corrupt, but you guys have got no standing to complain about it, so long as the only corruption you can see is Republican corruption. And you can't even tell the difference between corruption and policy differences. I'm not sure you even think there IS a difference...

[gwangung]

Let me tell you where I'm coming from: All during the Clinton administration, I was telling Democrats, "Don't you realize, that what you help Clinton get away with will become SOP, the baseline from which the next administration explores new depths of corruption?"

What part of "keep in mind there were many Democrats who were not knee-jerk Reno fans and who did not condone many of Clinton's actions." is not clear to you?

This sort of whine does more than its fair share of sustaining the partisanship, you know.

[Steve]

If I understand Brett's point, it's that although Clinton fired all the US Attorneys, which is standard practice for a new administration, some of them were in the process of investigating Clinton's buddies and thus they shouldn't have been fired.

That seems like a debatable point but it's still a long way from what Bush did. And arguing that it's the Democrats' fault we got on this slippery slope to begin with seems like a non sequitur. I mean, it's bad enough having to hear all these "Clinton did it too" arguments without also hearing "Clinton did something that wasn't nearly as bad, but he still paved the way!"

Not to mention, after reading Glenn Greenwald's compilation of Republican complaints about Clinton, it seems like Brett is seriously reinventing the Clinton "scandal." The shouting wasn't about the fact that Clinton had fired, amidst all the others, 1 or 2 people who were investigating his friends. The shouting was about the fact that he had the audacity to replace all the US Attorneys, period, a complaint which I trust has been sufficiently debunked at this point.

[cleek]

but you guys have got no standing to complain about it,

uh, no.

the "you guys' that you were allegedly whining to 10 years ago aren't the same people as the "you guys" that you're whining to now. you can't hold anyone here responsible for conversations you had with different people, ten years ago.

[Jay C]

"And now, here we are, in the middle of a corrupt Republican administration, and suddenly Democrats are capable of seeing corruption again. Except you're not, you're still wallowing in denial about your own guy."

Uhh, just for drill, Brett: assuming that by "your guy" you are referring to former President Clinton: what earthly relevance does this have to the present case of the G.W. Bush Administration seeming to have interfered with Federal investigations for political purposes?
Are you saying there was a similar scandal in Bill Clinton's time that "we guys" have forgotten, or tried to excuse, or hypocritically defended (and, no the "mass firing" at the beginning of his first term doesn't count)?
Or is this just of case of "Clinton did it too!" being the first, relexive response you can think of to any criticism of the incumbent Administration?

(But hey: to your credit, at least you are willing to state the phrase "corrupt Republican administration" without scare-quotes or caveats: that's more than some Bush-defending blog-commenters have been able to muster!)

[moe99]

Luckily I was on the internets tubes when the Clinton/Lewinsky brou ha ha broke out so I can point to chapter and verse where I condemned him.

[Carleton Wu]

cleek- the house of cards collapses if Brett isn't allowed to pretend that all Democrats speak collectively for each other.

brett- Im particularly fond of your 'Sure, Bush might be corrupt, but I've got partisan axes to grind here folks!' line. It makes your priorities crystal clear, and I can now begin the process of ignoring you for the rest of your life.

[russell]

I plan to laugh myself silly when Democrats do that

Me too. I also plan to laugh last.

Well, guess what: Bush might be corrupt, but you guys have got no standing to complain about it

Why not? Who are "we guys"? What "standing" do "we" need? What makes you think Clinton is "our", or "my" guy?

For the record, here's the Clinton vs Bush breakdown, as I see it.

Clinton was, at a personal level, a corrupt guy. He used his office to get nookie and do favors for friends. He was remarkably willing to compromise political principle to make things happen. Not my favorite President, in fact.

Bush is destructive to representative democratic governance as we practice it here in the US. He's indifferent to the truth, and indifferent to any of the forms of accountability that belong to his office. He lacks an ounce of respect for any of the political and legal institutions and traditions that this nation is based on. His administration has been a cancer on the American body politic, and a blight on our history. If left uninterrupted, he stands a good chance of doing the nation irreparable harm.

So, if the issue is, "which President do I like better", Clinton gets the nod, even with his flaws.

But that actually isn't the issue. Clinton hasn't been President for a bit over six years. Time to find better excuses.

Testify under oath or go to jail. That's my new motto. I will, in fact, be mightily pleased to see this gang of rats do time.

Thanks

[Thomas]

Maybe we send ourselves back in a time machine to '94 and appoint a few special prosecutors to investigate every aspect of this corrupt being known as 'Bill Clinton'. Surely with six years and 50 million dollars, the investigator will emerge with damning proof of how corrupt this Clinton actually was.

[J Thomas]

Well, guess what: Bush might be corrupt, but you guys have got no standing to complain about it, so long as the only corruption you can see is Republican corruption.

Oh my.

So, you figure that if Clinton got away with something then Bush should get away with everything? We shouldn't do anything about corruption because there's a precedent?

No.

We go after today's corrupt officials today. In 2008 if we get a Democratic administration then we go after their corruption. If we work at it there's a chance we can make things *better*.

The idea that US citizens shouldn't try to make things better today because Democrats aren't perfect either, is utterly idiotic. It doesn't just put partisan politics ahead of the national interest. It denies there's anything *but* partisan politics.

If we knew how to run re-education centers that would actually educate people about morality, I'd turn you in immediately. But unfortunately we don't know how to do that.

[Brett Bellmore]

What I figure is that I don't particularly want to hear about Bush corruption from people who don't care about corruption or even acknowlege it's existance unless it's found in the other party.

The irony of anybody suggesting that Gonzales be impeached for refusing to prosecute contempt of Congress charges against witnesses who clam up rather than implicate the administration, after the events of the last adminstration, is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

The current administration is corrupt. Your tendency to see policy differences as corruption causes you lot to exagerate how corrupt, and you tend to miss instances of corruption that help advance Democratic causes, but you're right that he's corrupt.

I just don't think you're complaining about it because you dislike corruption.

[CharleyCarp]

The real problem, Brett, is with your use of the word "you." There are all kinds of people I could lump with you on one axis or another, people with whom you share some things, and don't share others.

You, Brett, have no idea what I'd have thought had Reno explicitly refused to indict someone Congress asked her to indict (by the way, do you have an example in mind -- and don't you think it would be helpful to be a little more specific?) and so have no business saying I'm insincere in deploring this politicization of prosecution.

(Of course I haven't called for Gonzales' impeachment in any event.)

[russell]

The irony of anybody suggesting that Gonzales be impeached for refusing to prosecute contempt of Congress charges against witnesses who clam up rather than implicate the administration, after the events of the last adminstration, is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

That suggestion came from me, so I'll reply.

There are so many good reasons to impeach Gonzales that I wouldn't know where to begin. It's hard for me to think of a single public statement he's made, or position he's taken, that doesn't represent some threat to American traditions of governance and law. He's a toady, a lackey, who owes every achievement in his political career to the sponsorship of George W Bush. The reason he is attorney general is because he will do whatever Bush asks him to do.

Is this unprecedented? Hell no. JFK appointed his own damned brother as AG. But guess what? JFK's been dead for over 40 years.

I never cared for Reno as AG. Her handling of the Branch Davidian thing was disastrous. She was notably hands-off regarding the Chinese campaign finance issue. Feel better? But guess what. Janet Reno has not been AG for six years.

It's highly likely that Gonzales and a number of other members of the executive are guilty of obstruction of justice. They should be tried and, if found guilty, sent to jail for as long as the law allows. Do you disagree?

Conservatives had eight years to dig up whatever dirt they could about Clinton, and dig they did. After all those years and millions of dollars spent, they came up with a blow job. That was their best shot. They had all that time to bring down the Big Dog, and they got so close -- so close! -- but then they failed, and they've never gotten over it.

Get over it.

The President now is George Bush.
The AG now is Alberto Gonzales.

If you'd like to discuss why those particular gentlemen do not deserve the negative attention they are currently receiving, fire away. If all you have to offer is whining about what Bill Clinton got away with, we've heard it all before.

Thanks

[Ugh]

Fitz:

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.
...
Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."

"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation -- certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."

[Ugh]

A sure sign Gonzales is is out:

President Bush called Attorney General Alberto Gonzales around 7:15 EDT "to reaffirm his strong backing and support of the attorney general," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said early Tuesday morning.

[Brett Bellmore]

Like heck that was their best shot. That was the Republican leadership taking a dive.

That's the real horror of the Clinton administration, for somebody who really cares about ethical government: Not only was the Clinton administration remarkably corrupt, the Republicans proved to be too dirty to dare do anything about it in the end. The Ellen Rometsch strategy worked.

[Ugh]

Well hello there *clenis* fellow ObWingians *clenis*, it certainly is a very fine *clenis* day out today. I am *clenis* looking forward to a *clenis* vigorous discussion of the issues and *mets tickets* do hope that *clenis* we don't get distracted by *clenis* things that might be *clenis* irrelevant.

[gwangung]

Brett, I expect better of you. It sounds like you don't have a problem with corruption.

This tit-for-tat crap does NOTHING for moving into the future WITHOUT corrupt, unethical behavior. Stop living in the past. Stop trying to read minds (on which you're batting below the Mendoza line) and stop trying to excuse the inexcusable.

Move forward, get rid of the crap that's occurring NOW. And if you're concerned about Democratic corruption, be on the lookout for that occurring in the near future or design mechanisms to prevent that from occurring.

[Bruce Baugh]

Brett, if you keep this up, someone's going to start doing things like holding you responsible for the libertarian jerks who insist that the minimal state is necessary because inferior non-white races must be kept from power over the most advanced race, their own. You know you don't hold your views for racist reasons...but some libertarians do, and tarring you with them wouldn't be any more unfair than your continued insistence that people who are trying to do something about current corruption are only in it for partisan reasons.

[Bruce Baugh]

Even if it were true that no Democrat is interested in Republican corruption for any reason but partisan ones, by the way...so what? The whole point of the American charter is to make productive use of the baser passions as well as the noble ones. If they uncover genuine crime and corruption, then it doesn't matter if the investigators are angels, lesser incarnae of sleaze, or anything else. It would be ideal if people only went poking out of a pure and noble dedication to the truth, but the fact is that envy, hatred, and a bunch of other motives do drive people, and we have no tradition or law requiring that instigators be good neighbors or admirable at all.

I happen to think much better of current Democratic motives than Brett does, but even if he were entirely right it still wouldn't matter.

[Carleton Wu]

What I figure is that I don't particularly want to hear about Bush corruption from people who don't care about corruption or even acknowlege it's existance unless it's found in the other party.

Heck, I wasn't even posting under this pseudonym back in the mid-90s- so I have no idea how you've deduced my political positions from the period.
Well, ok, I have one idea: you desperately need to avoid taking Bush's corruption on headfirst, so you'll believe basically anything that will let you deflect blame. Even something as nonsensical as mindreading, or thinking that half of the country has identical political beliefs. (Are you aware, for example, that many people on the far left *hated* Clinton?)

That's the real horror of the Clinton administration, for somebody who really cares about ethical government: Not only was the Clinton administration remarkably corrupt, the Republicans proved to be too dirty to dare do anything about it in the end.

Oh lordy, we've got one of these genuine wingnuts who thought that Tom Delay and Trent Lott were big wusses who just rolled over when the Big Bad Clenis Barked. I'd ask what Clinton's "remarkable corruption" was, but I really don't need a rehash of the 'Clinton shot Vince Foster while loading coke onto a plane flown by an underage hooker out of Mena' bullcrap. Or a link to one of the 'Clinton Death Lists'.

[KCinDC]

many people on the far left *hated* Clinton

Many liberals hated Clinton. I imagine almost all people on the far left hated Clinton, but the far left is pretty irrelevant to our national politics except as wacky people to point out at antiwar marches.

[hilzoy]

"What I figure is that I don't particularly want to hear about Bush corruption from people who don't care about corruption or even acknowlege it's existance unless it's found in the other party."

But why are you writing this in a post that I wrote? Feel free to check and see whether I have only written about Republican corruption.

[J Thomas]

If we've finished kicking Brett for being a typical totally-partisan Republican, let's consider what this is all about.

Picky details about lawyers is not going to make a big enough scandal in itself to accomplish much. But it's one of the opening moves. Get it established that they can't fire lawyers for investigating them, and we can get more investigations going from the legal system as well as the congress. Then when the big scandal does show up they'll be ready.

The point of this isn't to get Gonzales. The point is to prepare the way to get Bush and Cheney. I think a whole lot of americans lost faith in Bush back when they saw him try to steal their Social Security money. One giant scandal would do it at this point.

[Brett Bellmore]

"but I really don't need a rehash of the 'Clinton shot Vince Foster while loading coke onto a plane flown by an underage hooker out of Mena' bullcrap."

If I were genuinely of a paranoid bent, I'd think some of that crap was created by somebody on Clinton's payroll, it makes such a great distraction from the stuff he actually has been shown to have done.

The malicious prosecution of Billy Dale, for instance.

Violations of the privacy act to embarass people who were giving him trouble.

Or abusive IRS audits of political foes.

Care to defend any of those scandals, or pretend they didn't happen?

[CaseyL]

Care to defend any of those scandals, or pretend they didn't happen?

I see no particular reason to go along with your threadjack, no.

I'd much rather focus on the current issue, and reports from the document dump.

My favorite thing so far: Cunningham writing a letter agreeing that Lam wasn't focussing enough on immigration cases, dated one month before his indictment.

[gwangung]

Care to defend any of those scandals, or pretend they didn't happen?

No.

But WHY ARE YOU LIVING IN THE PAST? Normally, that's a sign of senility.

And again, it still seems like you're defending the current corruption, instead of being interested in getting rid of it and preventing it in the future.

More forward thinking, please.

[CaseyL]

Here's another goodie: Patrick Fitzgerald was considered "weak," based entirely on his low ratings for political loyalty. This is the same fellow who keeps winning Prosecutor of the Year awards from other prosecutors.

[Hartmut]

I think Clinton could have been impeached, indicted and jailed on a number of things in his foreign policy (and I mean following US law, not international). The reason that this did not happen is in my opinion that this would mean that about any living US president (the dead ones are beyond the reach of US law) would have been on the target list too. And any president under whose (?) reign this prosecution would take place would put his own neck in the noose.
US presidents get away with mass murder on a regular base (it's rarely US citizens that get blown up in the "crappy" countries of the Ledeen Doctrine).
If Bush&Co have to flee the US to avoid punishment for their crimes that would be a first.

[KCinDC]

Hartmut, it seems more likely that Bush & Co. will have to avoid traveling outside the US, if they're trying to avoid arrest. Not that arrest is likely in either case.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why are you guys, or some of you, anyway, forgetting the past? Which is, as we're taught, to repeat it?

Bringing contempt of Congress charges against administration officials who refuse to testify, and then daring the AG to not prosecute? Been there, done that, Reno didn't get impeached.

Why did Nixon go, and Clinton stay? Ultimately, because Nixon's own party had enough of him, and Clinton's party held it's collective nose and defended him to the bitter end.

Let me ask you: Which scenario are you well on your way to recreating? The Nixon scenario, or the Clinton scenario? Because if you think you can take Bush down without Republican help, you're dreaming.

And you're not going to get that help if you don't have any credibility when making ethics complaints. And you're not going to have that crediblity if you can't take Democratic corruption seriously.

So, ultimately, emerging from Clintonian denial IS about your ambitions regarding the present administration.

[cleek]

So, ultimately, emerging from Clintonian denial IS about your ambitions regarding the present administration.

more mind-reading and tu quoque from Brett. yay.

[CaseyL]

More from the dump:

PLAN FOR REPLACING CERTAIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

Talking point memo on the firing December 7:

STEP 1 - Senator calls:

AG calls Jon Kyl (re Charlton)
WHCO calls John Ensign (re Bogden)
WHCO calls Pete Domenici (re Iglesias)
WH OPA calls California Bush political lead (re Lam & Ryan)
WH OPA calls Michigan Bush political lead (re Chiara)
WH OPA calls Washington Bush political lead (re McKay)

Why is the Wh calling "Bush political leads" about replacing USAs?

[Jim Parish]

Why is the Wh calling "Bush political leads" about replacing USAs?

Hmm... could it be because both senators from each of those states (CA, MI, WA) are Democrats?

[CaseyL]

Maybe. Could be. Is that SOP to replace a USA when the Senators aren't members of your party?

Granted that a President would naturally want a USA to be of his or her Party - I have no problem with that per se.

But should outright political operatives be involved in the process? Even those states with Dem Senators might have GOP Representatives who can be asked for referrals, no? Or GOP State Attorneys General. Or something.

[Dantheman]

On the subject of Administration officials refusing to testify, history shows that Clinton really didn't do it, too. And another of Brent's tu quoque points dies in flames.

[Jim Parish]

Actually, my comment was intended to speak more to motive than to justification. As far as I know, tradition calls for the President to consult with the senators from the state concerned on such appointments.

[gwangung]

Brett, stop being stupid.

1) Coruption is not OK when a Democrat does it. PEOPLE ARE AGREEING WITH YOU ON THAT.

2) When (and not if) that occurs on the Democratic watch, you have free and clear permission to bat the offending partys around to your hearts content.

3) Continued focus on the past to the exclusion of the presents says to me, that It's OK When Republicans Do It, according to you.

You're being insulting on top of being stupid, and you're basically condoning the current corruption by saying "we" were complicit in past corruption WHEN WE EXPLICITLY SAID WE WERE NOT.

[russell]

Like heck that was their best shot.

Yeah, they was robbed, *robbed* I say!! Was it the MSM, the elitist liberal cabal, or activist judges that did it? I can't remember.

Care to defend any of those scandals, or pretend they didn't happen?

Nope.

Bringing contempt of Congress charges against administration officials who refuse to testify, and then daring the AG to not prosecute?

Yeah, baby, *now* you're speaking my language!! That is what I'm talking about!!

OK, I think this line of argument is about played out. Brett, thanks for your comments, I've enjoyed talking with you.

The point of this isn't to get Gonzales. The point is to prepare the way to get Bush and Cheney.

I'd say getting rid of Gonzales has value in its own right, but I agree with the strategy of starting with the smaller fry and working our way up.

If Cheney goes, he'll go down swinging. He's a fanatic, a true believer. The man just does not care. If Bush goes, he'll either go like Cheney, or he'll go as a catatonic zombie, I'm not sure which.

Lesser office holders -- cabinet deputies, assistant AG's, etc -- are less likely to want to go down with the ship. Start there.

The cruel truth is that both Bush and Cheney will probably serve out their terms, retire to fat think tank or corporate board posts, and get airports and libraries named after them. They'll throw Libby, Gonzales, Rove, and anyone else in reach under the bus if that's what it takes.

In the meantime, line up the small fry, subpoena them, and swear them in. Make it a game of Truth or Dare and see who wants to gamble on getting away with lying. Especially with Scooter on his way out. Turn enough of the junior guys, and then we'll see how many big fish we can catch.

Thanks -

[gwangung]

By the way, Brett...

And you're not going to get that help if you don't have any credibility when making ethics complaints. And you're not going to have that crediblity if you can't take Democratic corruption seriously.

Given this problem in the past, what is YOUR reccomended strategy for the future, and what is your recomended plan of action for the present? I find it conspicious that you're de-emphasizing current and future action. What is your plan of action for the present and future?

[Brett Bellmore]

Gwangung, that's a fair question.

I'd say that there are a fair number of Republicans, (NOT in the Congressional leadership, however!) who are actually bothered by political corruption, in and out of the Bush administration. And who would be open to cooperating with Democrats on a bipartisan attack on that corruption.

Key points would be,

A. Can't just be directed at Bush/Repubicans. It's GOT to include going after Democratic corruption, or Republicans have no reason to cooperate.

B. Can't treat policy differences as a form of corruption.

C. Should include instances of corruption which advance Democratic goals. For instance, when Bush provided Congress with fraudulent cost estimates to get his Medicaid drug benefit passed. That was corrupt, even if Democrats did like the result. Pointing it out is a good way to bring Republicans around.

D. Drop the pretense that investigating Democrats is prima facia evidence of policial bias. The notion that Democrats couldn't possibly be corrupt more often than Republicans isn't one that has a lot of currency among Republicans.

E. Notice it, and complain, when problematic leadership appointments are made in Congress.

I think Democrats have a credibility hole to dig their way out of after defending Clinton so obsessively, but Bush is doing a good job of lowering the ground around that hole.

[Steve]

Should include instances of corruption which advance Democratic goals. For instance, when Bush provided Congress with fraudulent cost estimates to get his Medicaid drug benefit passed. That was corrupt, even if Democrats did like the result. Pointing it out is a good way to bring Republicans around.

The prescription drug benefit passed the House by a slim margin of 220-215, with 189 Democrats voting against. The vote was held open for three hours to enable the Republicans to flip votes and get the bill passed. I don't understand how you can possibly claim Democrats were happy to see this bill pass.

I think Democrats have a credibility hole to dig their way out of after defending Clinton so obsessively, but Bush is doing a good job of lowering the ground around that hole.

I'll be completely honest with you, although I think we're looking at opposite sides of the same coin. I don't think so many Democrats would have been nearly as eager to defend Clinton's bad acts if 95% of the accusations that got flung at him hadn't been complete bullshit. Even when it came to Lewinsky, there were plenty of Democrats who were ready to condemn and/or censure Clinton for his disgraceful conduct; it was only the overreach of impeachment which ultimately compelled them all to rally around the President.

Heck, to this day, people still talk about Whitewater like there was something to it, which there wasn't. When you make a daily habit of ginning up bogus scandals to try and bring down the President - and for all I know Brett, you deplored the war against Clinton as much as I did, but you regrettably weren't the one calling the shots if so - you can't expect people to take you seriously when you actually find one that sticks.

[Nell]

when Bush provided Congress with fraudulent cost estimates to get his Medicaid drug benefit passed. That was corrupt, even if Democrats did like the result.

Brett, we didn't like the result. It was a bill stuffed full of giveaways to Big Pharma, that didn't help the people it was supposed to help (or did so only at the cost of enormous complexity and cost), that only passed because the vote was held open for three hours and occurred literally in the dead of night, during which a former cabinet official was allowed onto the floor of the House to lobby.

Everything about that bill was corrupt. It was passed in order to remove the ability of Democrats to campaign on it, not actually to do much about the real problem that made it an issue.

[Carleton Wu]

"Why did Nixon go, and Clinton stay? Ultimately, because Nixon's own party had enough of him, and Clinton's party held it's collective nose and defended him to the bitter end."

Nixon was less popular than diarrhea. Clinton had approval ratings in the mid-60s. Popularity in Congress had less than nothing to do with it- you sound genuinely foolish when you make claims like this. The '96 mid-terms were nothing compared to how the GOP would've suffered had they somehow managed to remove Clinton from office. They realized this, and let it go. Whereas Nixon was deadweight to the GOP- even ditching him couldn't stop a Carter victory, but one can imagine how well the Dems could've done in 1980 campaigning with Nixon still in office due to the GOP...
So check the approval ratings, and ask yourself which scenario we're on the way to re-creating.

"And you're not going to have that crediblity if you can't take Democratic corruption seriously."

Show me something other than minor crap that every administration does, and we'll talk. I mean, you are aware that some liberal groups accused the IRS of selecting them for audits because of their speech, right? And you didn't see a huge outcry from the left about that, right? Because we understand what's big fish and what's little fish. Sacking USA's because of their investigations of corruption in the the GOP = Big Fish.

"Can't just be directed at Bush/Repubicans. It's GOT to include going after Democratic corruption, or Republicans have no reason to cooperate."

Yes, let's join David Broder in the Church of A Pox On Both Your Houses. Because it just isn't possible that the GOP is more corrupt than the Dems at this particular moment in time.
btw, got any current Democratic corruption in mind?

"Drop the pretense that investigating Democrats is prima facia evidence of policial bias."

huh? the only recent corruption on the Dem side I can think of is the William Jefferson thing, and the majority of Dems were against him (calling for him to resign, etc).
Maybe *he* claimed he was innocent and that it was political bias, and since you believe that each Dem speaks for every other Dem you understood that to be a belief held 'by Democrats'.

"...Bush provided Congress with fraudulent cost estimates to get his Medicaid drug benefit passed. That was corrupt, even if Democrats did like the result."

Are you high? This is the kind of thing that shows you have 1)no idea what you are talking about and 2)no idea what the other side thinks about things. The liberal in your head is a caricature.
Seriously, if your actually this pig-ignorant of recent political events, just STFU. It's embarrassing.

[Ugh]

Nixon was less popular than diarrhea. Clinton had approval ratings in the mid-60s. Popularity in Congress had less than nothing to do with it- you sound genuinely foolish when you make claims like this. The '96 mid-terms were nothing compared to how the GOP would've suffered had they somehow managed to remove Clinton from office. They realized this, and let it go. Whereas Nixon was deadweight to the GOP- even ditching him couldn't stop a Carter victory, but one can imagine how well the Dems could've done in 1980 campaigning with Nixon still in office due to the GOP...

Uh, Carleton, I'm not a big fan of Brett but:

(a) Clinton wasn't impeached until 1998
(b) The 1996 elections weren't "mid-term"
(c) Nixon wouldn't have been in office in 1980, having been term-limited out by the 22nd amendment after finishing his second term in 1976.

However, w.r.t. Brett, this "The liberal in your head is a caricature." I can agree with you upon.

[Carleton Wu]

Apologies to the kitten, I think Im going a little overboard here.
ugh, yes, sorry. should be "'98 mid-terms" and "in 1976". Obviously, Carter wasn't re-elected... :)

[hilzoy]

Brett: you are still addressing a nameless amorphous bunch of people who live in your imagination, not the actual individuals who post here. If you bothered to check out any of our actual track records, you'd see that some of us have, in fact, taken Democratic corruption seriously, and loathed the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

If you want to talk to the people who populate your imagination, you don't need the medium of this blog to do it. But if you want to address us, the actual people, you might either ask us what we think or google and find out for yourself.

[John Thullen]

I think we should set the people up in Brett's imagination on a blind date with the people in my imagination, and see what happens!;)

A couple of random rejoinders to points made above:

Comparing Clinton's petty corruption to Nixon and the Constitutional crisis surrounding Watergate holds no water. And LBJ was a well-oiled, ruthless corruption machine. The Left brought him down, forgotten now in the continual demonization and exaggeration of the radical Left. And yet he ushered in the Federal era of civil rights and Medicare, which works.

Quite frankly, Mr. Smith never gets to Washington. We'd kill him if he did.

Brett: "Can't treat policy differences as a form of corruption." That cat bolted the bag a long time ago when all government programs from Social Security to farm supports to NASA were deemed corrupt as a matter of fact by the constitutionally pure movement conservatives who began the campaign to destroy government about the time Ronald Reagan gazed into the gauzy, imaginary American past.

Who can blame liberals for imagining nothing but "corruption" when George W. Bush wanted to privatize Social Security and visited the "IOUs" in the file cabinet at Treasury, or contracts everything out to his campaign contributors?

That rift will NEVER be closed. In my mind, their are anti-government forces in America and their are pro-government forces, and it may be settled one day in the streets as ideological juggernauts meet ideological juggernauts.

Next: Why did the Bush Administration initially want to replace ALL 93 prosecutors going into the second term? This is odd. What are they afraid of from Republicans they initially apppointed, and why is loyalty to the person of George W. Bush so important to a guy who will retire in two years? Who are these people?

Finally, someone pointed out that Clinton used his office to get nookie. It is to Clinton's dubious credit and a matter of disgust to some and envy to others that Clinton seems to get nookie regardless of the accoutrements of the office. The nookie* that is gotten doesn't seem to mind so much either. After all, the nookie that throws itself at Mick Jagger and Bill Clinton doesn't seem to waste too much time throwing itself at we mere mortals. Not that there ISN'T anything wrong with that, or something.

*coerced nookie, natch, is a nookie of a different color of which I don't approve.

[KCinDC]

But who is the medium of this blog, Hilzoy?

[hilzoy]

KC: I don't know who the medium is; I'm just the Blue Meanie.

[Jim Parish]

But who is the medium of this blog, Hilzoy?

And is there a large, or a small?

[hilzoy]

(Stats joke! How nerdy can I get?)

[Jim Parish]

Argh, I missed that one. And I even teach the subject on occasion.

[John Thullen]

"Their are.." should be "There are."

I'm an absent-minded typist, not a grammerian. Pardon the slop.

[John Thullen]

If you are the Blue Meanie, Hilzoy, may I be Glovey-Dovey?

[John Thullen]

Does that make Brett Ringo?

[Ugh]

This is where Mr. Thullen sub-references as would Dennis Miller (only in a good way) and I decide to go to sleep.

[russell]

Finally, someone pointed out that Clinton used his office to get nookie

That would be me.

I don't care who Bill Clinton sleeps with. Lots of people have affairs, lots of people have otherwise unorthodox personal lives. Politicians are no exception. Not my business, not my problem, and not my concern.

My point is that exploiting the prominence of your position to curry sexual favors is a sign, or form, of personal corruption, whether it harms anyone or not. That doesn't bother me in a rock star, but it does bother me in a President, or in any other position of public responsibility.

Thanks -

[russell]

Actually, I'll amend this:

exploiting the prominence of your position to curry sexual favors is a sign, or form, of personal corruption

to read "exploiting your position to curry any kind of favor". The point isn't the sex, it's the exploitation of a position of public responsibility.

Thanks -

[John Thullen]

Russell:

Point taken.

But I've made this entirely trivial point before.

Bill Clinton did not buy a plane ticket to Washington for Monica Lewinsky, nor did he order a pizza. Nor did he plead with her to stand at the velvet rope receiving line in beret and thong. Let's give the woman some credit for initiative, dubious as it is.

He should have sent her packing, the idiotic cad. But I don't buy, in her individual case, that any currying was necessary. She got she wanted.

And I'd say the same if she got a degree in whatever in England and made a life after serial bad judgements. Good for her, the dope.

[John Thullen]

Anyway, Russell, if we're going to argue over the relative corruption of Bill Clinton, we might upset Brett ;), who believes in a Russell/John Thullen/Hilzoy monolithic ignorance of Democratic mendacity and duplicity.

Frankly, I'd like to keep my hypocrisy under wraps, for the purposes of seeming invincible on the Internets.

[Bruce Baugh]

John, I salute you. Keeping your hypocrisy wrapped is crucial to safe discourse.

[Hartmut]

Maybe one should sent every US president to jail for life after leaving office (constitutional amendment that makes being the president a felony). That could reduce the number of candidates significantly.
Or reviving that old African tradition of beating the new king to a pulp on inthronisation day (often resulting in the necessity of a new election) ;-)

[Carleton Wu]

(constitutional amendment that makes being the president a felony)

So all of the campaign staff are guilty of felony conspiracy. I've long suspected as much.

[Hartmut]

But what about the voters?
[if you ask certain people on the right all voters for the wrong candidate should be executed. Is that American LGF Roulette? ;-)]

Honestly, I doubt that many presidential candidates came into office without any crimes/felonies committed on the way.

[russell]

But I don't buy, in her individual case, that any currying was necessary. She got she wanted

I take your point as well.

Frankly, I'd like to keep my hypocrisy under wraps, for the purposes of seeming invincible on the Internets

I tend to carry mine around in a small brown paper bag so I can sip from it discretely. At least in public, anyway.

Best -