Attorneygate

[John Adams]

Because it isn't a crime. Prosecutors serve at the discretion of the President. He can fire all of them, whenever he wants, for whatever reason, and it's not a crime. I did have someone try to tell me today that it IS in fact a crime, because even though it's not against the law it goes against the "unrwitten rules" of hiring and firing prosecutors, therefore it's illegal.

 

People just want it to be a crime, because Karl Rove's name got thrown into the story somehow (I don't know how, I don't even care how. It's a nothing story.) I'm still not seeing how "it was wrong" in this case isn't equating to "they're Republicans".

 

The issue is that these AGs all had stellar reviews and at least several of them (Lam in particular) were pursuing targets friendly to Bush. In pursuing their investigations, they were doing their jobs--jobs that it's important to have some degree of political immunity to do correctly. If an AG can't follow corruption leads that lead to the White House, THAT'S a big !@#$ing problem. Imagine if the president--any president--fired every AG who launched an investigation into their friends.

 

Anyway, it's clear that the pressure to fire these 8 AGs came from the White House--perhaps directly from Rove--and if their firing was a reaction to their White House-related investigations, that's the White House tampering in investigations. There's a huge difference between that and wholesale firings that follow an election.

 

I see this as a problem. I'd see it as a problem if it was a Dem or Rep. Rkfast, Wacka, Richio, et al. are the ones making this into a partisan issue; note that there are plenty of Republicans joining in the outrage over this.

 

It's clearly not a crime.

[RI Bills Fan]

I see, the talking points here are a continuation of the "Plame Gambit."

 

1. But, but, but... it isn't a crime. (Unless we can blame it on Clinton, so there, Nyah!)

 

2. This is a non-story, every president is allowed to replace them at will. (Harp on Clinton replacing all 93 when he took office, ignore the fact that both Bushes and Regan did the exact same thing, after all it's only sinister if Clinton did it, so there, Nyah!)

 

3. Ignore, ignore, ignore... Nothing to see here, move on... (It'll go away if we can keep people from looking too closely at what those seven were doing that caused the unusual decision to replace them mid-term. Look over there, not over here, but Clinton replaced all 93 and you libs never said a word, so there, Nyah!)

 

 

 

Yes Tom, Bad Marketing... (You really need a new excuse line...)

[MattyT]

It's getting hard for them but here are the current talking points:

 

(1) This is politics.

(2) Clinton fired AGs.

(3) AGs serve at the leisure of the president.

 

Rings hollow to me too. Gonzo will be gonzo by Friday. He'll take the fall for this latest gaffe.

(4) The Dems are trying to "micro-manage" the justice system.

[DC Tom]

The issue is that these AGs all had stellar reviews and at least several of them (Lam in particular) were pursuing targets friendly to Bush. In pursuing their investigations, they were doing their jobs--jobs that it's important to have some degree of political immunity to do correctly. If an AG can't follow corruption leads that lead to the White House, THAT'S a big !@#$ing problem. Imagine if the president--any president--fired every AG who launched an investigation into their friends.

 

Anyway, it's clear that the pressure to fire these 8 AGs came from the White House--perhaps directly from Rove--and if their firing was a reaction to their White House-related investigations, that's the White House tampering in investigations. There's a huge difference between that and wholesale firings that follow an election.

 

I see this as a problem. I'd see it as a problem if it was a Dem or Rep. Rkfast, Wacka, Richio, et al. are the ones making this into a partisan issue; note that there are plenty of Republicans joining in the outrage over this.

 

It's clearly not a crime.

 

Well, if you want to put it that way: yes, I see it as a problem. I've seen it as a problem every time I've been fired despite excellent performance, for doing something contrary to the personal interests of some idiot above me.

 

However...it's a problem with the system, nationwide at all levels in all industries, where political considerations override all else. It's not the irrational focus on Karl Rove's evil that RI Bills Fan and Molson_goldfish indulge. The systemic problems that allow this are in GREAT part due to the idiocy of people like that (yourself included, as are the conservative whack-jobs here) who choose to play partisan politics with fundamentally non-partisan issue. It's not Bush's or Rove's fault that the system is designed to allow them to fire at will people whose job performance, while excellent, runs counter to their own beliefs. In fact, it's designed that way...and if most of you had it your way, it would be FURTHER designed that way so that people like Rove, whose politics you disagree with, could be eliminated at will...because they eliminate at will people whose politics THEY disagree with.

 

Sadly, the irony of pushing for the very same partisan action you're rallying against is lost on you idiots. I wonder why the country's as !@#$ed up as it is...

[DC Tom]

I see, the talking points here are a continuation of the "Plame Gambit."

 

1. But, but, but... it isn't a crime. (Unless we can blame it on Clinton, so there, Nyah!)

 

2. This is a non-story, every president is allowed to replace them at will. (Harp on Clinton replacing all 93 when he took office, ignore the fact that both Bushes and Regan did the exact same thing, after all it's only sinister if Clinton did it, so there, Nyah!)

 

3. Ignore, ignore, ignore... Nothing to see here, move on... (It'll go away if we can keep people from looking too closely at what those seven were doing that caused the unusual decision to replace them mid-term. Look over there, not over here, but Clinton replaced all 93 and you libs never said a word, so there, Nyah!)

Yes Tom, Bad Marketing... (You really need a new excuse line...)

 

I never brought Clinton into it. But if you'd like me to: whoever he fired, whenever he did it, for whatever reason, I'm fine with, because that's his right as the President. Hell, I'll even go a step further: he SHOULD have fired some he didn't, namely: anyone involved in investigating him for a blow job.

 

But keep arguing about the evils of George W. Bush...never mind the fact that our system of government has been perverted into a !@#$ing joke...by people who are too busy worrying about the evils of people like George W. Bush.

 

God, New Zealand's looking better every day.

[RI Bills Fan]

...However...it's a problem with the system, nationwide at all levels in all industries, where political considerations override all else. It's not the irrational focus on Karl Rove's evil that RI Bills Fan and Molson_goldfish indulge. The systemic problems that allow this are in GREAT part due to the idiocy of people like that (yourself included, as are the conservative whack-jobs here) who choose to play partisan politics with fundamentally non-partisan issue. It's not Bush's or Rove's fault that the system is designed to allow them to fire at will people whose job performance, while excellent, runs counter to their own beliefs. In fact, it's designed that way...and if most of you had it your way, it would be FURTHER designed that way so that people like Rove, whose politics you disagree with, could be eliminated at will...because they eliminate at will people whose politics THEY disagree with.

 

Hey, thank you for clarifying what I believe and indulge in... I might not have known what I was doing if it weren't for you. LOL

 

Just a side note, my scorn is reserved for the lemmings who have a ready explination as to why whatever this White House did was perfectly acceptable (or at least not as bad as the actions taken by the previous administration) no matter how badly the facts have to be bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.

 

OBTW - If the previous admin had fired a prosecutor who was following up links from a previous case which appeared to lead directly to a close ally of the President, do you have any doubt in your mind that the same voices that are now chanting "it wasn't a crime," would be screaming "Obstruction of Justice?"

[John Adams]

Well, if you want to put it that way: yes, I see it as a problem. I've seen it as a problem every time I've been fired despite excellent performance, for doing something contrary to the personal interests of some idiot above me.

 

However...it's a problem with the system, nationwide at all levels in all industries, where political considerations override all else. It's not the irrational focus on Karl Rove's evil that RI Bills Fan and Molson_goldfish indulge. The systemic problems that allow this are in GREAT part due to the idiocy of people like that (yourself included, as are the conservative whack-jobs here) who choose to play partisan politics with fundamentally non-partisan issue. It's not Bush's or Rove's fault that the system is designed to allow them to fire at will people whose job performance, while excellent, runs counter to their own beliefs. In fact, it's designed that way...and if most of you had it your way, it would be FURTHER designed that way so that people like Rove, whose politics you disagree with, could be eliminated at will...because they eliminate at will people whose politics THEY disagree with.

 

Sadly, the irony of pushing for the very same partisan action you're rallying against is lost on you idiots. I wonder why the country's as !@#$ed up as it is...

 

So what--you're resorting to an argument that goes, "if it's not illegal, it's OK?" That's absurd. I hold people, especially world leaders, to a higher standard. For example: it's not illegal to lie in most cases but it's certainly not right to do so. When a leader does it, he (sometimes) is held accountable.

 

In this case, there seems to be nothing illegal about the firing of the AGs. That being said, firing AGs who are investigating corruption in freinds of W certainly isn't right. And that, Tom, is the sound of the telephone hitting you in the head. I don't give a sh-- about Dem or Republicna on htis issue. It's just not right. The AGs were doing theri jobs--by most accounts doing them with great aplomb--and their reward for that is the highway.

 

It's not illegal but it's not the practice of an administration interested in weeding out corruption. It's at least dirty pool.

[erynthered]

It's not illegal but it's certainly not the practice of an anyone not interested in weeding out corruption. It's at least dirty pool.

 

Fixed, kind of...

 

 

Welcome to life in a democracy, Johnny.

 

BTW, look out for the bullies, they're coming to get you.

 

Life is so fair.

 

Dirty Pool?

[KD in CA]

Dirty Pool?

 

 

Karl Rove peed in his pool last summer.

[Chilly]

Prosecutors serve at the discretion of the President.

 

I would disagree. It seems as though they serve at the pleasure of the president, not discretion.

[GG]

So what--you're resorting to an argument that goes, "if it's not illegal, it's OK?" That's absurd. I hold people, especially world leaders, to a higher standard. For example: it's not illegal to lie in most cases but it's certainly not right to do so. When a leader does it, he (sometimes) is held accountable.

 

In this case, there seems to be nothing illegal about the firing of the AGs. That being said, firing AGs who are investigating corruption in freinds of W certainly isn't right. And that, Tom, is the sound of the telephone hitting you in the head. I don't give a sh-- about Dem or Republicna on htis issue. It's just not right. The AGs were doing theri jobs--by most accounts doing them with great aplomb--and their reward for that is the highway.

 

It's not illegal but it's not the practice of an administration interested in weeding out corruption. It's at least dirty pool.

 

But wouldn't you say that the system got them the job in the first place? How does one get the plum US Att assignment, if not through political connections?

 

Yeah, in isolation, this looks pretty bad for the administration, yet it ignores the standard that Justice has been operating in. Are we expected to believe that all cases worthy of prosecution run on regular election cycles, such that there's less disrpution in the process when a new administration comes in? If firing attorneys in midstream should rankle our ethical feathers, where's the outrage at Congressional roadblocks of Bush's court nominees when there was a Dem minority?

[John Adams]

If firing attorneys in midstream should rankle our ethical feathers, where's the outrage at Congressional roadblocks of Bush's court nominees when there was a Dem minority?

 

This is a hijack but when discussed before, there was outrage over this too. The way the system works, the president gets to pick federal court judges when there are openings. The only blocking that should take place is for nominees with serious questions. The political wrangling by both sides has left us with a woefully underperforming federal court system. In my area of expertise, patent law, it's all-too-common for a case to drag out for 3-4 years most of which is just plain downtime because the court can't get to things (and rightfully deals with criminal matters before civil).

 

BTW, the Supreme Court nominees got pretty easy pass-throughs last year. There was some political sparring but nothing as stupid as what happened with Thomas.

[Merovingian]

This may be THE biggest none story of the year so far. The Radical left's thirst for a drop of blood from Rove is comical to watch.

 

If America would fight the war on terror with the same vigor and ruthlessness that the extremeists in both parties do, it would have ended on Sept 15th 2001.

[Johnny Coli]

This may be THE biggest none story of the year so far. The Radical left's thirst for a drop of blood from Rove is comical to watch.

 

If America would fight the war on terror with the same vigor and ruthlessness that the extremeists in both parties do, it would have ended on Sept 15th 2001.

Why did Sampson resign and lawyer up on the same day of the first document dump?

Why was the AG/DOJ worried about the ex-US-attys testifying before congress, to the point where they were threatened not to?

Why was Harriett Miers implicated, then acknowledged to have had nothing to do with it when the actual facts arose, only to have everyone's memories all-of-a-sudden become "hazy" (Fox News WH spokesman Tony Snow's phrasing)?

Why insist repeatedly that these were peformance-related resignations despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?

Why the extensive email trail describing the brainstorming sessions for the rationale behind their firing?

Why was Gonzales "upset" with DAG McNulty's congressional testimony, admitting that Cummins was removed for Karl Rove's deputy?

Why, if there was no wrongdoing whatsoever, is the Cheney Administration circling the wagons and not just saying it's the POTUS' perogative to hire/fire USAs?

 

You don't cover up a non-crime. You don't go to these lengths to spin the rationale for why something was done if your position is that you have the legal right to do it. That is why this is a story.

 

The Radical left's thirst for a drop of blood from Rove is comical to watch.

 

I doubt that Gonzales is laughing. I doubt that the White House Legal Team is laughing. I doubt that any of the remaining US attys are laughing. I doubt that the DOJ is laughing.

[GG]

You don't cover up a non-crime. You don't go to these lengths to spin the rationale for why something was done if your position is that you have the legal right to do it. That is why this is a story.

 

I guess you've been absent over the last 6 years

[Johnny Coli]

I guess you've been absent over the last 6 years

No. The Admin's MO over the past six years has been to take the position that they didn't have to explain themselves to anyone. Why, in this case, where on paper you have the legal right to do something, would you take great pains to give it the appearences of one thing, when you don't have to?

 

You don't try to spin a non-story.

 

In this instance the only recurring theme is that no story has remained straight for more than a few hours at a time, one of the chief players has resigned at the first sign of trouble, members of his own party are calling for the resignation of the AG, and the people who were so sure that Harriett Miers came up with this entire plan now have "hazy memories." There is a 2000+ page pile of documents suggesting that the only thing hazy was how they were going to spin firing eight US attorneys with excellent performance records.

[erynthered]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

 

 

Some E-mails seem to support the firings. Not that they needed it.

 

This is such a waste of time. While I also agree in over-site, this is just grandstanding by the Democrats. So much for the new Congress creating productive Legislation for the betterment of the American People. Hip Hip Hooray!!!

 

 

The American people deserve Washington reporters who present the news in full historical context, not Democratic Party context. Every so-called "objective" reporter who reproduces Sen. Chuck Schumer's talking points about how this is an unprecedented Gonzales outrage without remembering Reno's March Massacre is making a mockery of journalism and history.

 

 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...s/s_498287.html

[Johnny Coli]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Some E-mails seem to support the firings. Not that they needed it.

 

This is such a waste of time. While I also agree in over-site, this is just grandstanding by the Democrats. So much for the new Congress creating productive Legislation for the betterment of the American People. Hip Hip Hooray!!!

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...s/s_498287.html

Just throw it all out there and see if anything sticks, right?

 

The emails don't suggest that their performances were sub-standard. In fact, the record is quite extensive (there are multiple links in this very thread) that they were more-than-adequate in their positions. The emails only show that the admin wasn't happy with them...and who would be happy if the people you put into place started investigations that could ultimately lead back to you?

 

As for grandstanding by the Dems, the Senate just passed a bill (94-2) cancelling the provision in the Patriot Act allowing the AG to appoint USAs without Senate confirmation. (Link). So much for this being a one-party dance.

 

Oversight and accountability is not a waste of time. I'll tell you what a waste of time really is...continuing to link to opinion pieces that erroneously claim that Clinton fired 93 and Bush only fired 8.

 

It wasn't factual the first hundred times it was thrown out there

Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

[PastaJoe]

Here we go again. The White House wants Rove to testify to Congress without being under oath, behind closed doors, and with no transcript, on an issue that doesn't have to do with national security. But they have nothing to hide and promise to tell the truth. Yeah, sure, because the White House has been so honest about everything else they tell us.

[Joey Balls]

Even the MSM is starting to bail on this story.

 

 

Really? That doesn't seem to be the case at all. Even Fox, if anyone here considers them MSM, is carrying some bits which is far more than they did for the Libby trial.