They've had years to explain their rationale for war and they can't. Why would you expect them to
explain these firings?

What's the downside to him saying: "We fired those eight attorneys because they were insufficiently partisan. I believe nothing so strongly as this: the Republican Party is the last best hope of the United States. These eight prosecutors weren't working hard enough for my party ... which means they weren't working hard enough for my country. They had to go. Not even these fringe, overreaching Democrats are claiming this is illegal. Nothing to see here. Move along."

If there were a simple, innocent explanation we would have heard it in January.

They were probably still debating what explanations to use back in January...

TPM is onnit again:

If the USA's had been forced to resign for performance related reasons, wouldn't you expect to see a huge paper trail of the performance review process itself? Take the case of [U.S. Attorney for Western Michigan Margaret] Chiara. If the problem was office management/morale, I would expect the following in the record:

More at the links.

They've now had nearly two months to come up with a simple, clear, understandable explanation for why they chose those eight to fire but not the others. So what is it?

Bush already gave the reasons Kevin. They are listed in this LA Times story.

Link

"Carol C. Lam in San Diego was dismissed for not prosecuting more firearms and border smuggling cases, and for repeatedly missing deadlines."
"David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque traveled so much he was considered an "absentee landlord.""
"Kevin Ryan was fired, "the office has become the most fractured office in the nation, morale has fallen to the point that it is harming our prosecutorial efforts and [Ryan] has lost the confidence of many of the career prosecutors who are leaving the office.""
"Paul Charlton in Phoenix: "Repeated instances of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions, and actions that were clearly unauthorized.""
"For Margaret M. Chiara, "morale in her office was low and that Chiara had lost the support of her staff."

They don't dare tell the truth or they will be exposed as the partisan hacks they all are. Their big mistake was trying to justify the firings in the first place.

Christy Hardin Smith over at FDL has a post that I think *IS* the explanation, it's titled "The Math", and it shows how curiously those eight prosecutors six were from purple States and the other two California, a major Democratic fundraising base. Was this "the math" Rove thought he had working in his favour last October? To quote Peggy Noon, it is irresponsible not to speculate...

Al:

Bush already gave the reasons Kevin.

Super.

Then he should also provide the paper trail that backs up his reasons. If there's nothing wrong going on, then full disclosure shouldn't be a problem. Right, Al?

Peggy Noon being Peggy Noonan of course, my mistake...

Dear Al:

Where's the contemporaneous paper trail to support your assertions?

Al,

Then they have nothing to HIDE - go ahead and do the sworn testimony. Remember all the "bringing honor and integrity back to the White House crap"???

Then he should also provide the paper trail that backs up his reasons.

There's no need for a process -- he has the Gut.
The Gut gets the right answer.
The Gut gets the right answer fast.
And the Gut doesn't do memos.

Process is for pussies.

(How'd I do? I figure that's good enough for at least a guest spot at NRO, if not a half-hour on Fox.)

But Th, at the core of the Republican Party is the belief that being a partisan hack isn't hackitude, it's homeland defense. Everything they do flows from this principle: what's good for the party (and the party's supporters, obviously) is good for the state.

You and I see them as partisan hacks, but to them, that's like being called an 'extremist good-guy.' And I'm not sure why they didn't lead with that. I guess they feel it would rub most Americans the wrong way (and I should hope so), but I still wonder if honesty, in this case, wouldn't have been the best political policy.

I hate to say it, but Al is right.

Bush gave his reasons. There's really nothing more to say on this, unless Congress gets their spine together, and subpoenas him.

But they won't, because they're intimidated by Bush's accusing them of "scoring political points."

That's the only story here.

Are the Dems going to fight? Or back down (again)?

If they don't fight, I predict a Democratic slaughter in 2008. They may take the presidency, but they will lose the House and Senate; having shown that they were incapable of facing down these corrupt republican criminals.

Atrios gets credit for spotting something which is troubling me -- to wit, if the President wasn't involved in the decision-making regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys (as Tony Snow claims), then what is the basis for the claim of executive privilege?

Well, Kevin, half the people are stupid. But this is the sort of thing that even stupid people can figure out. Well, not troll-stupid. But your run of the mill bonehead, anyway.

Bush already gave the reasons Kevin. They are listed in this LA Times story.

I think we need to make the distinction between the actual reasons they were let go, and the after-the-fact for-public-consumption "reasons".

Even a cursory review of the documents reveal efforts to present a public cover story regarding the firings. Let's not conflate the "cover story" with underlying reality.

I know let's let Karl go in for questioning,Not under oath,No paper trail.But he will have to be hooked to a Polygraph.Then when all said and done they can say the only question Karl answered truthfully was, Is your name Karl Rove,Everything elese was a lie, but we can't tell you what he lied about but he did lie about everything we asked.

Wait a minute how did this thread get posted? Didn't Al just say that the Gore thread means Purgegate was done?

Congressional Compromise on Subpoenas Reached
.
All congressional committees have agreed to comply with President Bush’s qualifier, that, “We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants.�

Given that Rove and Gonzales and a host of others, including of course Mr. Bush, do not meet the definition of honorable public servants there appears to be no conflict to the subpoenas being issued by Congress at this point.

Labels: executive privilege, gonzales, rove, subpoena

No explanation was needed beyond "serves at the pleasure of the president", what part of that do you people not understand?

We are far more interested in the answer to that question.

By the way "Nixon" doesn't apply:

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/03/20/the-nixon-test-doesnt-apply/

gussie, the explanation only works if there isn't an obstruction of justice angle to the partisanship.

Firing USAs for the purpose of disrupting ongoing investigations and prosecutions is definitely impeachment territory.

K Ashford 2:55 PM

Hopefully some journalist will ask.

A question I would really like to know the answer to - are there any US Attorneys investigating Republican officials who DIDN'T get fired?

jack moss on March 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM

..what part of that do you people not understand? We are far more interested in the answer to that question.

Izzat the royal 'we' you are using?

Well, the question 'we' are asking is why are the right whingers continually trying to wrangle some form of justification for bad actions on the part of the Bush administration?

You'd think that, for all the patriotic posturing the Right does, they'd be more interested in openness, just action, and accountability in government. It's like the government corruption cited as a reason for voting Democratic in the past election went right over their heads.

By the way "Nixon" doesn't apply.

Ooh. Obscure conservative blogger says 'the Nixon test' doesn't apply, so it must not! Apparently you have to be undergoing criminal investigations by a special prosecutor for executive priviledge to be overridden...Short of that, anything goes!

Kevin, Here's a link to an informative CFL post over at Kleiman's joint.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/energy_and_environment_/2007/01/cfls_again_revised_10am_pst_sun.php

He did it to obstruct justice. Why does he have to say that he did it to obstruct justice?

Since waterboarding isn't torture, it should be applied to Rove and Miers to get at the truth.

And Gonzales - after all, he approved this type of torture.

You want answers?
Tony Snow's will work anywhere and for anything:

"Ive been led to believe there's a good answer for it."
--Tony Snow, blowing snow:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013181.php

A question I would really like to know the answer to - are there any US Attorneys investigating Republican officials who DIDN'T get fired?

That is an excellent question. But I'd bet the answer is yes --they're all guilty.

"Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled. We're determined to correct the problem."

Reminds me of how they tried to rationalize the Dubai ports affair, "Our error was explaining this in a way our enemies could understand."

They just couldn't come up with a whopper big enough to cover their whole ass.

Ah, someone beat me to the punch: There'n no need for an oath or a paper trail. Bring Karl, Harriet and Alberto into the Senate Committee, in shackles, naked, and proceed to waterborad them until we get the truth. By their own stated beliefs, these are perfectly lawful forms of interrogation.

"Bring Karl, Harriet and Alberto into the Senate Committee, in shackles, naked, and proceed to waterborad them until we get the truth. By their own stated beliefs, these are perfectly lawful forms of interrogation."

Perfect ! Now we know what this kerfuffle is about. You folks know that Bush had the right to fire eight underperforming appointees. You just want a stick to beat up on him. Fair enough. But don't expect anybody but the far left to believe this stuff. Have your fun but the adults will step aside while the children make a mess.

It's much more fun for us to watch the blue dog Democrats look on in horror as General Pelosi makes them one-term, Congressmen.

what part of that do you people not understand?

The part that explains how this was not obstruction of justice. The part that explains how new attorneys were appointed without the oversight of Congress by using a new law sneakilly inserted into the Patriot act.

The part that explains why officials lied about the reasons.

Those parts.

Interesting Mike, that 8 "underperforming" USA's got stellar performance reviews, don't you think? How's the kool-aid this time around?

This is fun, watching the trolls spin and twist and dance while their party embarrasses itself once again.

By the time Bush is done we are going to be so SICK of Republicans and Iraq and partisanship it will take years to get the stench out of our nostrils.

Mike K: The incompetent, corrupt-as-hell, temper-tantrum-throwing, always-blame-everyone-else, transparantly petulant whiny republicans are the "adults"?

I guess the better question is, would you believe the earth was flat if Limbaugh repeated it enough times?

Mike, you're so virtuous even your lies are virtuous, right-o.

Mike K on March 21, 2007 at 4:07 PM:

You folks know that Bush had the right to fire eight underperforming appointees.

Technically, he's probably able to fire any US Atty for any reason whatsoever. What's at issue is whether or not the any of attorneys were dismissed due to insufficient partisanship and/or who their investigations were targeting.

'Underperforming employees'...C'mon, Mike; you gotta know that's not accurate. Where's your outrage regarding the seeming politicization of the DoJ? If Bill Clinton would have pulled a stunt like this, you'd be marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks.

They've now had nearly two months to come up with a simple, clear, understandable explanation for why they chose those eight to fire but not the others. So what is it? And why has it taken such an interminable amount of internal chaos to come up with something? —Kevin Drum 2

It would be interesting if this, in the great scheme of Bush administration malfeasance, rather minor scandal were the one that finally took down the house of cards. Sort of like Capone getting busted for tax evasion.

Too bad something didn't shake out this way four years ago.

At the very least the DOJ is guilty of very poor employee management. What kind of performance do you get from the people who remain in a department after you've given their fellow employee a terrific performance review and then turned around and immediately fired that person for poor performance?

Would they be confused much? A little uncertain about what to do to please their supervisors? Somewhat distrusting of the feedback they get on how well they are doing their job?

How would you go about bucking up their morale after those incidents?

grape_crush - nice, true, but don't waste your time. Mike K tells lies in the very first sentence. This isn't about right and good, it's about win at all costs, no matter what to cost to whomever.

And what an amusing definition of "adults": trillion dollar deficits to support tax cuts for rich people; the rape of the middle class, endless, needless war based on lies and smears, lost standing in the world, environmental destruction, the list is endless . .

No explanation was needed beyond "serves at the pleasure of the president", what part of that do you people not understand?

Your wrong.

Yes, the President has the power to fire the attorneys. That's not the question. The question is whether the power was abused. Simply asserting that the President has the power, which is all that barking "pleasure of the President" repeatedly does, does not address the question of whether that power was abused in this case.

Their very first chance to abuse the power in the "USA Patriot Act" (a name as Orwellian as any we've seen in a long time), avoiding Senate Confirmation on USA's, they did abuse the power. What a surprise.

The only reason Kudlow asked the right question was that it had nothing to do with economics,about which he is clueless. Or so some people say.

The only plausible explanation is that there was some kind of tear in the space-time continuum in November 2000, and things haven't been the same since.

There was a good discussion of the Carol Lam case on KPBS, the San Diego public radio station. Dissatisfaction with her arose before she took on the Cunningham case, and was strongly related to her unwillingness to pursue illegal immigration cases. In San Diego, enforcement of the immigration laws is a serious issue; in general (as with Bilbray's win over Busby in the contest to replace Cunningham), the candidate who is in favor of strong enforcement will win the election.

I think in the end we'll find that the non-renewal of Lam's appointment is not an offense.

Atrios gets credit for spotting something which is troubling me -- to wit, if the President wasn't involved in the decision-making regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys (as Tony Snow claims), then what is the basis for the claim of executive privilege?

If you take unitary exec theory to the extreme, the night janitors at Los Alamos are cover by EP.

coverED

Does the travel office sevre at the pleasure of the President? Is it fair if Bush gets treated the same way Clinton got treated? Did Clinton or any of his staff get questioned without being under oath or a paper trail? So then what is the problem?

"Your wrong."

It's actually "You're wrong." But I'm not.

"'Underperforming employees'...C'mon, Mike; you gotta know that's not accurate. Where's your outrage regarding the seeming politicization of the DoJ? If Bill Clinton would have pulled a stunt like this, you'd be marching on Washington DC with torches and pitchforks.

Posted by: grape_crush"

You mean like Clinton firing the US Attorney investigating White Water ?

US Attorneys are presidential appointees and are supposed to emphasize policies of the administration in choosing subjects to pursue. Carol Lam got canned because she would not prosecute border violations. Ditto for one of the others fired.

Why don't you rent "Absence of Malice" ? It's a good movie and shows a US Attorney getting himself fired for screwing up.

I don't mind you folks having some fun with this. Gonzales did a poor job of handling this story. He deserves to get beat up in the press. But there is no wrongdoing. Congress can pick a Constitutional fight over this but I don't think it helps them. They are even more unpopular than Bush.

Thanks, Mike K, for referring us to that bastion of objectivity, the Wall Street Journal. You are a hoot!

Dissatisfaction with her arose before she took on the Cunningham case, and was strongly related to her unwillingness to pursue illegal immigration cases.

You mean the "unwillingness" that, according to DoJ leadership responding to Congressional inquiries before they decided to fire her, was responsible for her having a full half of her offices time devoted to pursuing immigration related cases and resulted in an increased effectiveness in prosecuting the most serious immigration crimes because of her intense focus on the issue.

Right.

So, as the last time a defender of the firing brought up this excuse: was the Administration lying to members of Congress when it characterized her effectiveness?

..."serves at the pleasure of the president" ... jack moss at 3:22 PM

General Pelosi... Mike K at 4:07 PM

I think in the end we'll find that the non-renewal of Lam's appointment is not an offense. MatthewRMarler at 4:50 PM

Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?
...To recap, the White House awarded a one-month, $140,000 contract to an individual who never held a federal contract. Two weeks after he got paid, that same contractor used a cashier’s check for exactly that amount to buy a boat for a now-imprisoned congressman at a price that the congressman had pre-negotiated....

The case is the clearest example that the intent was to obstruct justice by ending an investigation in Republican corruption.

... Clinton firing the US Attorney investigating White Water ? ... Mike K at 4:55 PM

It's actually "You're wrong."

Right.

But I'm not.

Yes, you are. If you had more of a rebuttal to my explanation of how and why you were wrong than this, I'd have more of a response.

You mean like Clinton firing the US Attorney investigating White Water ?

Maybe you need to learn to read, because that op-ed piece doesn't even claim that Clinton fired anyone investigating Whitewater (and, in fact, the Bush-appointed USA in Little Rock had already decided not to pursue any charges related to Whitewater because there was no evidence of any viable criminal case against anyone.) There was no investigation into Whitewater to derail, only repeated, politically motivated demands for an investigation.

Before we go much further with the Executive Privilege defense, I think it would be helpful to quote the esteemed Tony Snow:

"Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :

"(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up."

Yep, executive privilege in a case like this is a dodge.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

I have no idea what happened but

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

is part of the Tony Snow quote. The sentence starting "Yep," is mine.

"People aren't stupid. If there were a simple, innocent explanation we would have heard it in January."

The Administration has every reason to believe that people are stupid. What other explanation for the re-election of George W Bush?

You know, there are some people in this country who, if Bush were caught strangling a baby on live TV, would come up with a detailed, 20-minute long explanation of just how the baby was asking for it.

Seriously, it blows the mind how these "adults" manage to never take responsibility for anything. And they never have to, as long as there are gullable morons like Mike K out there who repeat the administration's shameless rationalizations; hand-waving away the fact that there is zero contempraneous evidence of any "performance issues"; deliberately obscuring the distinction between the right to do something and the reason for doing something. He even slips in that most favored of all neocon dodges, blaming Clinton. The only thing suggested by all this is that this kind of fundamental lack of even a shred of basic honesty is what's required to defend Bush and co.

Mike K - you're apparently a fan of movies. Forget "Absence of Malice"; watch "Thank You For Smoking" instead. It may -- may -- help you pull your head out of your ass. Unless that's where you're happy it is.

I'm not convinced that the Lam dismissal is going to prove innocent.

Memos on Lam show conflicting views

Rep. Darrell Issa, who said he began questioning Lam's record on immigration-related prosecutions three years ago, noted that the e-mails demonstrate internal dissatisfaction with Lam's record – even as Justice Department officials drafted rosy letters about Lam to him and Feinstein.

“It does appear they were supporting their own while figuring out how to discipline or change (Lam's) behavior,� said Issa, R-Vista. “That's been a pattern of this administration – which has not had a great record of being forthcoming with Congress.�

A June 1, 2006, memo from Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, directs acting Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer to have a “heart-to-heart� with Lam about bolstering immigration enforcement.

“Put her on a very short leash,� Sampson wrote. “If she balks on any of the foregoing or otherwise does not perform in a measurable way by July 15, remove her.�

In testimony this month before the House and Senate judiciary committees, Lam said that message was never conveyed to her. “There had been no conversation or ultimatum,� Lam said.

In July 8, 2006, e-mails to acting Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer, Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, complained that Lam couldn't meet a deadline and wasn't emphasizing the illegal re-entry and alien smuggling cases enough. Five days later, Elston received a draft of two letters addressing inquiries from Issa and Feinstein about complaints from Border Patrol agents that Lam didn't conduct enough prosecutions of illegal immigrants.

Elston authorized the drafts telling the lawmakers that Lam was doing great.

Some statistics included in the letter: Defendants who received prison sentences between one and 12 months dropped by more than half to 338 in 2005. But the number of defendants who received sentences between 37 and 60 months more than doubled to 246, and the number who received sentences longer than 60 months more than tripled to 77.

The letter was signed by Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella, who testified before Congress months later that Lam's gun prosecution numbers were “at the bottom of the list� and her immigration prosecutions “just didn't stack up.�

Issa observes that Lam appeared to be completely in the dark about dissatisfaction with her performance. “This was not handled well,� Issa said. “As much as (U.S. attorneys) serve at the pleasure of the president, they also need input from the administration on the direction they're going.�

In an Aug. 2, 2006, e-mail to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Rebecca Seidel, Lam described a meeting she had to discuss her performance with Issa and Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., also a hard-liner on immigration. She said the tone of the meeting was civil and that the congressmen “seemed to grasp� her explanation about her prosecution strategy.

Feinstein revealed Sunday that a Justice Department e-mail suggesting Lam should be fired came the day after Lam told the department she was executing search warrants that showed she was expanding her investigation that put former Rep. Randy “Duke� Cunningham in federal prison. The Rancho Santa Fe Republican pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and tax evasion after admitting taking more than $2.4 million in bribes.

There are some interesting questions that must be asked publicly of people who are testifying under oath, with someone taking notes. Maybe Republicans are going to be lucky and it will all turn out to be more of the most clueless management ever from the "CEO" administration. Everyone's confidence in the administration will be boosted and we'll all live happily ever after.

MatthewRMarler on March 21, 2007 at 4:50 PM:

...was strongly related to her unwillingness to pursue illegal immigration cases..

...instead of those corruption cases she prosecuted:

Border crime prosecutions in the past had made San Diego the busiest U.S. Attorney's Office in the nation. Lam tried to remake the office's role along more traditional lines, where federal prosecutors go after big fish.

But that policy may have alienated key law enforcement constituencies. The union that represents Border Patrol agents was outspoken in its dissatisfaction. Lam tightened the guidelines for deciding which smuggling and immigration cases her office would undertake, meaning fewer cases went to court. Instead of going after coyotes, the guides who bring illegal crossers into the United States, her office targeted the leaders of smuggling organizations. It also prosecuted corrupt Border Patrol agents and border inspectors.

The result was predictable. Statistics show that prosecutions fell during Lam's tenure.

So, um, saying that Lam was unwilling to pursue illegal immigration cases is inaccurate. She just went after the bigger targets.

Mike K on March 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM:

You mean like Clinton firing the US Attorney investigating Whitewater?

You mean, like Clinton firing all 93 US Attorneys and replacing them with a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents?

Mike K, you gotta do better than the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal if you want to play here.

18 days of email strategiclatorialy omitted from the DoJ document dump.

Hmmmmm. Now if I was a Bush loyalie I would say, so what? Server down.

But if I am a normal, thinking and feeling human, I might have the audacity to ask a simple question.
Why the gap guys and gals?

Veracity is something I can't quite fathom from the current administration.

Has lying become the National Past-time?

The anger displayed by my president last night was troubling. He is losing his grip.

We the people have an understanding that our president, swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Last time I checked, God was telling the decider what to do.

Not good.

The truth will set us free. (of tyranny, mendacity, etc.)

First of all, if Rove did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about, right? Isn't that how the conservatarian mind works?

Second, a little "agressive interrogation" is clearly required of Gonzo and Rove. Just some fraternity hijinks, nothing to be ascared of...

Does the travel office operate under the "Pleasure of the President".

"…To try and play the role of a stern father (TCN: his anger last night was quite evident) for a troubled nation is not only personally insulting to those of us who consider ourselves to be fully grown adults; but this belittles the severity of the actions under investigation. This is not a fireside-chat that the congress is inviting his officers and possibly himself to attend. This is a major and necessary part of even bothering to have a government at all. .."

http://www.rense.com/general75/bush.htm

I absolutely agree!

"For Margaret M. Chiara, 'morale in her office was low and that Chiara had lost the support of her staff.'"

Problem is, that explanation is a lie:

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/POLITICS/703210393

Does the travel office serve under the pleasure of the President?

OK trolls I checked and the travel office does serve at the pleasure of the President.You boys made a real stink over that one.So if it was a big deal then it should be a big deal know,Or Bush is not the President of the United States.

grape_crush: So, um, saying that Lam was unwilling to pursue illegal immigration cases is inaccurate. She just went after the bigger targets.

The emphasis was her choice, but lots of the elected representatives of the local constituents disagreed. As I wrote, in the San Diego area it is a more important issue than farther north, and her approach was not respected. There was also a concern (expressed in the radio show, at least) that she spent to much time in prosecutions that did not result in convictions. And that she herself spent too much time in court on cases that produced no convictions.

It is true, isn't it, that she did serve out her appointment? She was not fired, she was simply no re-appointed.

Froomkin had a good take:
"...the president may well be aware that his critics are correct...
He certainly didn't deny it.
...Consider his carefully chosen -- and carefully repeated -- response to a question from Deb Riechmann of the Associated Press
"Q Mr. President, are you still completely convinced that the administration did not exert any political pressure in the firing of these attorneys?
"THE PRESIDENT: Deb, there is no indication that anybody did anything improper. And I'm sure Congress has that question. That's why I've put forth a reasonable proposal for people to be comfortable with the decisions and how they were made. Al Gonzales and his team will be testifying. We have made available people on my staff to be interviewed. And we've made an unprecedented number of documents available.
"Q Sir, are you convinced, personally?
"THE PRESIDENT: There's no indication whatsoever, after reviews by the White House staff, that anybody did anything improper."
That's a far cry from saying: I am personally convinced there was no political pressure. Bush didn't deny that there was political pressure or that he was aware of it. All he denied was the existence of any "indication" that anyone did anything he considers "improper.""

There is nothing like weasel words when trying to issue a non-denial denial.

cowalker here's another who apparently was fired for investigating a Republican
... When the first list of U.S. attorneys targeted for ouster was drafted, Charlton’s name was not on it. But his name was on a subsequent list, drafted in September. Although the Renzi inquiry was not yet public, it is likely the Justice Department was aware of the investigation, said a former U.S. attorney who is familiar with the protocol when a sitting lawmaker is involved....

She was not fired, she was simply no re-appointed. MatthewRMarler at 6:28 PM

"PRESIDENTIAL PRESS secretary Tony Snow, in response to a question of whether George Bush might have suggested firing the US attorneys, said that he didn't think so, that Bush had no recollection of doing so, and that the mess should not be dropped "at the president's door."

But the Constitution and federal statute state that the president has sole authority to remove these presidential appointees. Neither the attorney general nor his chief of staff can fire the attorneys without the president's express authorization. It will be interesting to see what the White House comes up with to give Bush cover on this apparent contradiction, besides a faulty memory." bostonglobe.com 3/20/07

From Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington:

"Fired US Attorneys would investigate obstruction of justice based on actions of top DOJ official"
Submitted by CREW on 9 March 2007 - 9:31am. US Attorneys
So much happened this week, we don't want to overlook many of the key developments in the investigation in to the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. Rhode Island's Future caught this interaction:

Our own Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse provided one of the bombshells yesterday when he posed a hypothetical to all four fired prosecutors: that if they were told by a witness in an ongoing investigation that he had received a call similar to the one Bud Cummins got from Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, what would they think? All four said that they would investigate to see whether obstruction of justice or witness tampering had occurred."

Similarly, on Lou Dobbs' show this evening, as legal consultant Jonathan Turley noted--behind the firings is an effort to obstruct, since corruption was being investigated.
As such, the administration was obstucting their own investigations...

The emphasis was her choice, but lots of the elected representatives of the local constituents disagreed.

So? In response to those concerns, expressed by members of Congress, the Justice Department leadership touted her exemplary record and intense devotion of resources to fighting immigration. Your asking us to believe that she was fired for inadequacy is asking us to believe that the Justice Department leadership lies to Congress and the public whenever it serves their short-term interests, which I will accept as likely true, but having granted that premise, I find it more likely that they are lieing for that reason now than that they were then.

Especially as then they had concrete facts to point to in order to support their claims.

It is true, isn't it, that she did serve out her appointment? She was not fired, she was simply no re-appointed.

False. She was not simply "not reappointed" and replaced at the end of her four-year term, she was directed by the Administration to resign well after the end of term in the holdover period; the term itself is an essentially meaningless formality, anyhow, since the "four-year" term includes an automatic hold-over provision, and every single serving USA except the ones recently ordered to resign is likewise serving in a holdover capacity from the first term.

Your attempt at spin is amusing, but does not stand up to the facts.

cwa,

Yeah, the whole "They serve at the pleasure of the President so its okay that they were forced to quit, and the President was in no way involved, and nothing improper was done" set of excuses don't make a whole lot of sense when you put them beside each other. Its clearly just an effort to raise as much confusion as possible, not a serious argument.

Cmdicely--absolutely. So much can be compared and contrasted about this--with ease on the internet.
Now the administration want to talk about executive privilege.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon pulled out some remarks from current administration apologist Tony Snow from the 90's.

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998 :
HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

The above, of course, was from Tony Snow. How ironic.

cmdicely on March 21, 2007 at 7:26 PM:

Your attempt at spin is amusing, but does not stand up to the facts.

Good refutation, especially since you've just saved me the trouble of having to do it myself...

Mike K: You folks know that Bush had the right to fire eight underperforming appointees. You just want a stick to beat up on him. Fair enough. But don't expect anybody but the far left to believe this stuff. Have your fun but the adults will step aside while the children make a mess.

According to a Newsweek poll conducted March 14-15, 2007...

58% of Americans say that the "White House involvement in the firings of eight federal prosecutors were most likely politically-motivated."

And 60% disapprove of Bush's job rating. Gallup and Time polls have it at 61% but why quibble over 1%?

Seems the adults aren't happy with the mess the children have made.

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

Coudn't sed it better maself!

God bless our administration. They are bringing
religion into the debate.

Just think how many repugs are saying (about Purgegate) J-s-s Chr--T what's next!

craigie: First of all, if Rove did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about, right? Isn't that how the conservatarian mind works?

If you're innocent and not aiding or abetting terrorism, then warrantless wiretaps shouldn't be a problem.

If you're innocent of any wrong-doing -- for example, firing a USA to obstruct a corruption probe -- then subpoenas, testifying under a sworn oath, and exonerating yourself for the public record should not be a problem either.

Is that what you mean, craigie?

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/can-bush-assert-executive-privilege-in.html
From Jack Balkin:
"...the President may have potentially undermined his case by offering to allow Rove and Miers to meet informally in a closed door session with Congress without testifying under oath. Marty points out that the offer is carefully calibrated not to include testimony about actual conversations with the President so as to preserve the possibility of asserting executive privilege later on. Nevertheless, it will be hard to draw lines between what Rove and Miers can and can't talk about, and if the President is willing to allow disclosure of such sensitive information on an informal basis, the argument that he needs to refuse a broader set of disclosures under oath is somewhat weakened. That, ultimately, may tip the scales in Congress's favor."

CWA: The above, of course, was from Tony Snow. How ironic.

I watched the presser today. Ed Henry of CNN read Tony's quote to him and asked:

Q So why were you wrong then and right now?

MR. SNOW: Because this is a not entirely analogous situation. I've just told you what we have, in fact, offered to make available to members of Congress. And what we are doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisors and the President. And that is pretty standard practice in White Houses. But, again --

Q It's exactly what the Clinton administration talked about.

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not so sure. And I'll let others do the legal arguing on that. But the important point here is we're maintaining the presidential prerogatives and, at the same time, we're making available exhaustive -- we're offering basically to give them, exhaustively, communications that bear on this issue and also make the key players -- at least at the Justice Department and the people they said they wanted to hear from at the White House -- they're all going to be available. That's not a coverup. That is, in fact, a very open offer to get all the facts into the hands of the people who, presumably, want to figure out what the facts are.

Apollo 13--this is getting so interesting. And the missing emails...remniscent of the 18 minute gap in the recorded tapes during the Nixon years. Bush is starting to look and act like the disgraced Nixon.
Wikipedia: "on July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court (which did not include the recused Justice Rehnquist) ruled unanimously that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void, and they further ordered him to surrender them to Jaworski."
It was not long after that Nixon resigned from office.

cmdicely: She was not simply "not reappointed" and replaced at the end of her four-year term, she was directed by the Administration to resign well after the end of term in the holdover period; the term itself is an essentially meaningless formality, anyhow, since the "four-year" term includes an automatic hold-over provision, and every single serving USA except the ones recently ordered to resign is likewise serving in a holdover capacity from the first term.

thank you.

Sem Charles Schumer, the Keith Olbermen show, is tell us that Dems are starting to crawl back under their collect shells, so afraid of Mr. Bush.

Sen. Schumer and Sen Leahy have subpoena power says their "waiting" for Bush to play ball with them.

Tell me, where just once, Bush every play fair with the Dems?

Bush has never done that, and HE WILL NOT DO IT NOW EITHER.

While Bush is getting nastier, the Dems are crawling back into their shell.

dEMS NEED TO Stop playing politics with Bush, THE WAY TO DO THAT IS STOP DICKERING WITH BUSH, Dems are spineless in end. They just can't help playing the victim.

Why are Dems such cowards, I don't know.

I'm so mad, Bush has no leg to stand on but Dems, by virtue of the complete cowardness, give Bush the right to call them political, call them names time and time again. Dems just love playing the victim over and over again.

They talk big about Subpoenas and then they do nothing.

This is all well and good, and many don't realize Senator Pat Leahy was a prosecuter prior to being Senator, so he knows what he's doing. And it will be a good watch. But it is now well past time for a coalition of the non-insane faction of the GOP to step forward and say and do the right things. "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in moral crisis maintain their neutrality" and all.

More from Glenn Greenwald:

"For better or worse, not only the right-wing noise machine, but also our nation's media elite, decreed long ago that when "executive privilege" is invoked for anything other than safeguarding national security or other state secrets, it is a corrupt tool designed to stifle The Truth.
Here, it is being invoked by Bush to prevent his political advisor and White House counsel --
with no relationship to national security matters -- from testifying as to the reasons why the administration fired 8 U.S. attorneys and then lied about what they did repeatedly."

Is that what you mean, craigie?

Pretty much, yes.

For an administration with nothing to hide, they sure do a lot of sneaking around.

Keith Olbermann--looking sharp tonight in a silver tie and white shirt-- will have John Dean on tomorrow to discuss these very issues. How appropriate, given the inevitable comparison of the Bushies growing dilemmas and misguided arrogance to Nixon's....I may have a book in me yet.
And I got the chance to see Ed Henry blast Tony Snow on his inconsistencies.... Woowhohahaahaha hehehehehehe bwaahahaha

Tony Snow: "...we're offering basically to give them, exhaustively, communications that bear on this issue and also make the key players...available. That's not a coverup. That is, in fact, a very open offer to get all the facts into the hands of the people who, presumably, want to figure out what the facts are...."

Except the people of the United States, it would seem. How conveniently limited.

Apollo 13: And 60% disapprove of Bush's job rating. Gallup and Time polls have it at 61% but why quibble over 1%?

true. but support for the Congress is also as low as it was last November just before the voters put the Democrats into the majority, after having risen a little for a while. Congress is one of the few institutions reliably approved of less than Bush.

Bush was part of the deliberations and they were clearly aimed at thwarting current and future actions against dems and dropped actions against repugs.

Rove and Cheney have bush over the barrel. If they tell the truth he gets impeached.

Al --

the absence of Iglesias was based on attending his Reserve duty as, I think, a U.S. Naval officer.

Obviously this is something neither Bush nor Cheney would understand, appreciate or see the value in.

I assume all the other accusations can be similarly dismissed as -- as some have been -- if not groundless, Maliavechian in contrivance. As pointed out by a number, where is the paper trail for arriving at these judgements? Seems pretty basic.

Was it Paul Krugman who coined the words "Mayberry Machiavellians?" A beautifully savage line.

Congress is ... reliably approved of less than Bush MatthewRMarler at 9:08 PM
Not necessarily

Carol Lam's investigation into the CIA Congressional bribery scandals is a very big deal. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was just the beginning -- the low hanging fruit. Next up is Jerry Lewis and John Doolittle -- two of the highest ranking House GOPers who survived the 06 midterms elections (just barely in Doolittle's case).

notthere--My take on it is that Snow is wierded out by the realization that he himself has been lied to--and sent out to deal with an internet-savvy, blogger-reading press corps. He seemed pensive and despondent, not his usual prickly self.

MRM: true. but support for the Congress is also as low as it was last November just before the voters put the Democrats into the majority, after having risen a little for a while. Congress is one of the few institutions reliably approved of less than Bush.

We elect the POTUS in a national election. Congressional reps and senators are elected locally. So unless you have local polls to cite on each congressional member's rating, a comparison of disapproval of Congress overall to the POTUS based on a national poll doesn't make sense to me.

But if you wish to cite national polls about Congress, let's look at two others. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007 (4.5% +/- MoE), 59% of Americans said "it is good for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress." Also, 47% approve/40% disapprove/13% are unsure "of what the Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have done so far this year."

A month ago, the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Feb. 15-18, 2007 (MoE +/- 3.4% for all registered voters) showed that 30% of all reg. voters said that "the new Democratic majority in Congress is doing better," 16% said they were doing "worse than the Republican majority that was in power before them," and 45% said they are "about the same."

We'll see how things stack up for Congress after a year instead of after a few months. With Bush, his approval rating continues to follow a trend downward into Nixon territory.

CWA: Was it Paul Krugman who coined the words "Mayberry Machiavellians?" A beautifully savage line.

Yes, it is a beautifully apropos description...stated by John DiIulio who worked for the Bush-Cheney WH during their first term before he resigned. His exact quote via Ron Suskind's website:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," says DiIulio. "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

Good posts tonight, and I leave you with this book review

The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill
by Ron Suskind

Who Wrote That Script?, January 25, 2004
Paul O'Neill was no stranger to Washington, so when he agreed to join the Bush administration, he knew that politics would intrude into policy making; however, his previous governmental experience had led him to believe that there would be a place for hard-core empirical facts, candor and principaled debate.
Alas, he was wrong on this last count. G.W. Bush did not read briefs, rarely asked penetrating questions; conferences and meetings did not host an exchange of ideas, rather they were media circuses at which most of the cabinet knew their lines ahead of time. The administration's policies on a number of had already been decided when Bush took office: the invasion of Iraq was already on the table in 2000, the only question was how to go about it. Other major policy decisions had already been decided upon as well: most notably the tax cut and environmental policy.

So why was the maverick O'Neill chosen as Secretary of Treasury?
There could be but one reason. It was part of the script. The administration had to provide cover for the "Mayberry Machiavellians", Karl Rove and company, as well as the neo-conservative ideologues, like Wolfowitz. O'Neill gave the administration the air of legitimacy (as did the addition of Colin Powell and Christine Todd Whitman).

When O'Neill refused to tow the line, the White House got rid of him. Fortunately, the former Secretary of Treasury with Ron Susskind in this book provides us with a window into the backroom machinations of the neoconservative conspirators and
spin doctors who have brought us the largest debt in US history, a quagmire in Iraq, a dangerously negligent environmental policy, etc.

CWA,

If you're interested in reading The DiIulio Letter in which John talks about the Mayberry Machiavellis, found a copy of it that originally published in Esquire October 2002.

For the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."

...he himself has been lied to--and sent out to deal with an internet-savvy, blogger-reading press corps....

Posted by: consider wisely always on March 21, 2007 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

That makes sense, but if he didn't know it was going to happen sooner rather than later, he also goes down as one of the naive non-inner sanctum rightists. Of course, I had the same problem believing that they could be as evil as they are. It really is hard to credit that they can find more nadirs in 6 years than a roller coaster over a sink hole.

You really can't pitch the morality and ethics of this group too low, can you?

The e-mail gap is easy to explain. It is the set of e-mails that the Bushies haven't had time to replace with forgeries that cover their asses about why they fired the USAs.

I see Mike K is back here lying again, just like his Bushista heroes, Gonzales and Rove.

Don't hold your breath: We've been in Iraq for over 4 years and they've yet to give an honest reason for why we went there in the first place (hint: it has something to do with oil and military bases).

Hey Kevin,

They are talking about that study Krugman cited and you linked to over at FDL:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/21/the-math-2/

Apparently Durbin mentioned it on the Senate floor yesterday. You deserve credit for linking to and discussing it early on...I have a feeling it's going to be a pretty big deal soon. It just fits too perfectly.

After all, 85% of U.S. Attorneys are "loyal Bushies," right?

Apollo 13: We elect the POTUS in a national election. Congressional reps and senators are elected locally. So unless you have local polls to cite on each congressional member's rating, a comparison of disapproval of Congress overall to the POTUS based on a national poll doesn't make sense to me.

True enough. Besides that, most people give their own representative high marks while simultaneously disparaging Congress as a whole.

Hey all, off-topic, but send good thoughts toward North Carolina. The Edwards campaign canceled an appearance in Iowa on Wednesday and called a press conference for Thursday to discuss the future of the campaign, after Elizabeth had a follow-up appointment that apparently did not go well.

Besides that, most people give their own representative high marks while simultaneously disparaging Congress as a whole.

Yes, but in my case it's justified. Waxman is the single greatest CongressCritter. The rest are empty suits.

I know what was behind the firing of these eight U.S. Attorneys (USAs): FOLEYGATE.

1) The Mark Foley/young male House pages sex scandal broke onto the national news scene in late September, early October, and dominated the news through election day in early November. All other news paled in comparison. A major Republican sex scandal. Bad news for the religious base of the Republican Party. Especially when the coverup by Republican House leadership of Mark Foley's activities hit the news.

2) David Iglesias, the USA in New Mexico, was pressured by Republican politicians and White House political operatives to prematurely release grand jury "sealed" indictments brought against Democrats in New Mexico. Any news coverage, local or national, that didn't involve Foleygate would be good news for Republican chances in November, but even better news if the good news was indictments or investigations of Democrats. Hey, anything to get Foleygate off the front pages.

Get the picture?

Any Republican-appointed USAs who didn't get with this Rove-orchestrated campaign in October to deflect the nation's attention from Foleygate and onto indicted or under investigation Democrats (bogus voter fraud claims, anyone?) would have been considered insubordinate, untrustworthy, not enough of a "loyal Bushie." Any uncooperative USAs would have been blamed for costing the Republicans control of Congress. They would have to be punished. Fired.

In other words, the pre-election Foleygate scandal acted as one of the catalysts that led to the firing of the eight USAs in November. If we could get our hands on all the White House and DOJ/USAs emails between early October and early December, I just bet this Foleygate/USAs firing link would be revealed. And it would help explain why the Republican "explanations" for the USAs firings sound so disjointed, laughable and scattershot like a Dick Cheney shotgun blast to the face...it's all about misdirection.

Bush is starting to look and act like the disgraced Nixon.

Starting to? Watching Bush's press conference a couple of days ago (I know I'm late, but I've been busy), I was struck by how identical the arguments and even the language were to Nixon's attempts to hold onto the tapes even after two courts had ruled against him. Setting a bad precedent for the presidency, reasonable compromise, we've been more than accommodating, blah blah blah. Any minute I expected Smirky to ask the long-dead John Stennis to authenticate the e-mails.

You know they're just beside themselves with desperation when they're employing Nixon tactics to get out of this. Do they not remember how that turned out?

Yes, but in my case it's justified. Waxman is the single greatest CongressCritter.

I do love craigie's congresscritter and always ask craigie to kiss him for me. craigie goes along with it because he's one of those anything-goes, morally depraved libs.

I learned my moral depravity from the Red State beauty queens and other salt of the earth types.

Firing of the prosecutors who got good performance evaluations has no innocent explanation. Clearly the prosecutors who were fired despite good reviews are being punished by their boss, the President, Commander in Chief of the Republican Party, for either not knuckling under to pressure to investigate Democrats in an election year and/or for investigating Republican corruption. It's not the U.S. Justice Department anymore. It's the Bush Administration or Republican Party Justice Department. No question that if internal White House emails and such came into play we'd hear about all these higher ups running interference for corrupt Republicans like Duke Cunningham, Dusty Foggo, etc. And who knows what else those emails might contain, related to folks like Abramoff. Tip of the iceberg time.

Congress is one of the few institutions reliably approved of less than Bush.

Bush is an individual leader, Congress is a hydra. Congress' collective approval is always low: in the 30's is fairly typical.

OTOH, approval in the 30's is abysmally low, historically, for a President.

That Bush is rated only slightly better than Congress, at ratings that are not historically particularly low for Congress but that are abysmal for a President is not something that Bush should draw any reassurance from in a political contest with Congress.

Individual members of Congress, who are the actors Bush must contend with, draw political strength (or weakness) from their own approval within their district. Few of them are anywhere near as despised by their own constituents as Bush is by his. And few, more importantly, I suspect would come out unfavorably when compared with Bush if a head-to-head poll were taken in their own district. So, they are unlikely to be cowed by him.

cmdicely: OTOH, approval in the 30's is abysmally low, historically, for a President.

for some perspective....

did you know that the last time gwb had an approval rating ABOVE 50%...

was...

march-2005...

the record for time at low approval is 26-months for truman..

gwb will easily set a new mark...

that will stand for generations...