Wingnuts, Fox News, etc. spin this as "See they really were incompetent."

Josh Marshall snips an AP story:

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.... ...In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

And according to DOJ spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, the 18-day document gap is a "lull" that "reflects the fact that we have found no responsive documents from that time period." Uh-huh.

Over at TPMMuckraker... I expect Gonzales will be in more hot water with the Senate Judiciary committee.

The GOP phone jamming case in New Hampshire was stalled, mishandled according to a 10-page letter submitted to the Senate judiciary chair Leahy by Kathleen Sullivan, chair of the NH Democratic Party, and Paul Twomey, attorney lawyer for the Dems. The crime was committed in 2002 but the first pleas for the case weren't offered until 2004 and in the prosecution of RNC operative, James Tobin, his indictment didn't occur until after the 2004 election. From TPMMuckraker, Paul Kiel - March 21, 2007, 4:59 PM:

One of the reasons the investigation was stalled, Democrats argue, is that "all decisions had to be reviewed by the Attorney General himself" -- first John Ashcroft and then Alberto Gonzales. To back up that claim, the Democrats say that lawyers working on the case were told by prosecutors that delays in the case were due to the extreme difficulty in obtaining authorization from higher levels at DOJ for any and all actions in the case.

A lawyer for one of the Republicans in the case backs up that claim. John Durken, the lawyer for Allen Raymond, a Republican whose consulting firm managed the jamming, says that the lead prosecutor in the case told him during one meeting that Ashcroft was involved in every decision. "He said, 'Every decision in this case goes all the way up to Ashcroft’s desk.'" Durken told me that such a fact didn't "surprise" him, given the political nature of the case....

...But whether Ashcroft's, and later Gonzales', involvement was unusual or not, Democrats say that the need to check decisions with DoJ higher-ups routinely resulted in "inordinate delays" in the investigation. They also say that both AGs failed to recuse themselves, despite a conflict of interest: Ashcroft as a former senator, since Tobin was a high ranking official in the committee that helped Ashcroft get elected; and Gonzales as legal counsel for the White House, since the Democrats alleged White House involvement in the jamming scheme.

The Democrats' other grievances, which they lay out in the letter, are 1) that the Justice Department bogged the investigation down by assigning only one FBI agent to the case -- and that agent was part-time 2) that the DoJ's refusal to prosecute the organziations responsible for the jamming, the New Hampshire Republican Party and the Republican National Committee, violated Justice Department guidelines, and 3) the DoJ failed to follow leads that led to higher-level Republican involvement.

The AP story link from Josh...lots more details to connect the dots.

California has 3 US Attorney's. All have been replaced in the last few months. Two were asked to resign, Ryan (Northern) and Lam (Southern), while the Central CA attorney, Debra Wong Yang was lured away to the private sector by a law firm. She's now working with Ted Olsen at the firm representing Rep. Jerry Lewis, who's under investigation himself. Yang obviously has nothing to to do with his case.

As Firedoglake pointed out yesterday, CA is a very blue state, so an effort to put Republican operatives in those slots to investigate any and all Democrats going into the 2008 election shouldn't be ignored.

Then there is the Eubanks instance

"...Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005, said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."..."

Tobacco Case

"Stop quoting the laws to us. We carry swords." - Pompey

Chiara's management problems seem way overstated--nobody here in the legal community in western Michigan had heard a peep about them

There's one more USAttorney in California, TheOtherWA. McGregor Scott. But he just brought an indictment against someone accused of burning up $100 million of wine back in 2005. So he gets a pass in my book.

As Josh Marshall reminds us, Bush hardly denies the voter fraud allegations:

Second, it is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.

And then there's this:

The leader of the Justice Department team that prosecuted a landmark lawsuit against tobacco companies said yesterday that Bush administration political appointees repeatedly ordered her to take steps that weakened the government's racketeering case.

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

I have a related case for you to look at, Kevin.

Further, I would urge Californians to start asking questions about the propriety of the John Ashcroft-led Justice Dept. dropping the investigation into the $19 million in insurance company kickbacks given to former State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, who had the money diverted into three slush funds controlled by him, in exchange for his upholding the denial or lowballing of some $20 billion in claims from the 1994 Northridge earthquake.

Not unlike other cases, it was the chief of staff, George Grays, who was left holding the proverbial bag. Having pled guilty to lesser charges in exchange for his testimony against Quackenbush, Grays was instead made the fall guy by Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, and last July reported to federal prison to commence his 5-year sentence, while Quqckenbush was allowed to move to Honolulu and assist Hawaii Republicans during 2001-03.

I've become intimately familiar with the case, only because Quackenbush was working for House Republicans at the State Capitol while I was legislative director for the majority Democrats. He and I eventually had a very high-profile confrontation about his past in April 2003 that made the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser, and was also reported in the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News and other California papers. Soon after, Quackenbush and his family departed for the mainland.

Chuck Quackenbush and family now live in south Florida, where ironically he works in local law enforcement. Not so incredibly, he also portrays himself as the victim of a partisan political vendetta.

George W. Bush should be fired for poor performance problems. As his employer, I can tell you that his attitude, competence and integrity are all as low as you can go.

The Detroit News has been trying to figure out why Chiara was fired. Her predecessor thinks it was because she "wasn't a team player" when it came to the death penalty:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/POLITICS/703210393/1022

Purgegate?? So now we are down to 5 fired attorneys as the big scandal? Don't most scandals get bigger instead of smaller?

Lots of smoke, no fire.

Why be coy? As Christy posted yesterday, these five US Attorneys are in purple states.

What could be clearer? First, change the law, surreptitiously, without a vote, to end confirmation hearings for USAttorney appointments. Second, fire USAs in purple states that look to be blue in 08, given migration patterns and destroying the Latino vote. Third, replace them with hacks as we go into the 08 election cycle. Hacks who couldn't be confirmed (as one conceded to Jane Mayer in a New Yorker article yesterday).

Why be coy? Even worse, it's clear that this was an initiative from "Rove's shop."

Connect these dots fatman.

a) Tidal surge of popular opposition against
' blood-for-oil' early 2002.
b) Release of 'product' ( manufacturing consent for illegal aggressive war. This is the ' Supreme crime' under the Nuremberg precedent)with Judith Miller taking point. Product is the ' Big Lie' technique as used by Nazi Germany.
c) Exposure of most of product as shoddy goods.
Attempt to return goods results in ' Plamegate' scandal.
d) Underlying SUPREME crime subject to ongoing cover-up. Sear Senate report on use of intel.
'Phase 2'. Compared to this ongoing and snowballing ( the cover-up is also a crime)
' Yellowgate' scandal, getting Bush for abuse-of-power violations in Justice is like getting Capone for tax evasion.

Pretty simple math eh, Kevin?

Follow the yellowgate road you political pussy. I dare you.

I am happy that George Bushs approval rating is dragging aroung 30% I also hope this wakes up some of the other 30% to actually see what he and his administration is going to this country, "why are we still over in Iraq"? fighting there war. They had nothing to do with this so called 9-11 fiasco. Bush lied several times no wmd's , no help for New Orleans as promised, and no help for the "No Child Left Behind"

The One Simple Question:
I saw Tony Snow on all three network morning shows this morning but was disappointed that no one asked him the one simple question that cuts through all the chaff and goes to the heart of this story. It's the question that the President left unanswered in his surly appearance before reporters the other day: why were they fired?
It's the question the former US Attorneys themselves are asking. The administration first said it was for "performance reasons." They've now retracted that -- but they still haven't given any other reason. Instead they want to change the subject to "partisan fishing expeditions" and "show trials," etc.
Mr. Bush, Mr. Snow, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Rove: why were they fired?

Yep, still a case of political loyalism.

And whatever the Dems do, I sure as heck hope they don't sit on those subpeonas, waving them about, it's look bad.

This news has this info:

There is no absolute right to presidential privilege," said Peter Shane, a professor of law at Ohio State University who is writing a book about checks and balances. "What's at stake here is a qualified privilege. Basically, what somebody has to do - and that somebody could ultimately be a court - is consider the interests at stake for both parties ... and which is the weightier."

The president has said he is willing to have the courts decide that question.

Asked during a White House appearance this week whether he was prepared to "go to the mat" and take the issue to court, Bush replied, "Absolutely. I hope the Democrats choose not to do that."

Bush is clearly NOT going to compromise - the only way to talk is send out the subpeonas THEN see if Bush wants to find any common ground.

But Dems won't have any leverage as long as they hold off on the subeonas except to make it look like this confrontion reallys is just politial game Dems are playing.

some legal experts say the White House - in agreeing to let Rove and others be interviewed, albeit privately and without an oath or a transcript - effectively has conceded that their revelations would not compromise the president's right to confidentiality.

The longer Dems don't act on those subpeona the less likely they'll have a case they can win.

AND its time to find out if Chief Justices Roberts is loyal Bushie.

I mean, now that we know Bush wants loyality oaths from lawyers and judges. Did Roberts give Bush one?

As a side bar. Can the American press PLEASE stop adding "gate" to any problem that arises in Washington? It has been 35 years since Watergate so let's move on to a new term.

twc let me answer that question.

They were fired because they could be fired. If they believed their firing was without cause then let them file a grievance against their employer.

I have a feeling that these attorneys were invovled in political activities which went against the administration. If that is so, they should be fired for stupidity - they hold POLITICALLY appointed offices.

Is the problem here that liberals believe that no one working in government should ever be fired?

This is a great use of the congressional schedule.

Much ado about nothing. This is what the Democrat congress will do for the next 2 years.

Amusing attempts at spin, "Orwell." Shame on you for your mendacious defense of this Administration's corruption.

Wingnuts, Fox News, etc. spin this as "See they really were incompetent."

It's interesting that e-mails relating to Ryan's bad management were among the very few that have emerged from the 18-day gap. Not a single thing relating to the big five was discussed during those 18 days, apparently.

I'm so disappointed, Orwell. You promised to answer the question, but then didn't. "They were fired because they could be fired." Yes, but why? Why these 8 and not the other 85? If your "feeling" is correct that they were involved in political activities opposed to the administration then the Justice Department and White House officials could really make the Congresscritters look foolish by accepting their subpoenas and going over to the Hill and laying it all out right there under the "klieg lights" in full view of the public. But for some odd reason they're desperate to avoid testifying -- and to change the subject.
Here's what David Iglesias, a Republican, a Bush appointee, and one of the fired US Attorneys, said yesterday in the New York Times: "With this week's release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, *it seems clear that politics played a role in their ousters.*"
Here's another question: Is the use of the American criminal justice system for partisan political purposes an impeachable offense?

It's interesting that e-mails relating to Ryan's bad management were among the very few that have emerged from the 18-day gap. Not a single thing relating to the big five was discussed during those 18 days, apparently.

This is so amusing to me! You liberals think that the Bush Administration wasn't trying to fight the War on Terror during this time? Perhaps there is an 18 day gap because, during that time, they were locked in mortal combat with terrorists who wanted to cut off our heads and blow up our cities.

The simple fact that it looks like the law could have been broken should be trumped by the fact that our leaders are keeping us safe. Don't you want to be kept safe? Or do you want to keep asking impertinent questions that keep these good people from their jobs?

Following on from Kevin's point, one of the more amusing bits was their attempt to justify firing one of the loyal Bushies after the fact. The grounds? He fought against his firing. Ergo, he was no longer a loyal Bushie! Somehow I think these guys at Justice would have been happier working in the KGB...

Quoting from "Midwest Product" in the TPMMuckraker thread:

Page 46 - Kelley again writes Sampson on December 7 regarding Ryan's complaints over his firing:
"Kyle-Do you mind talking to Scott Jennings about the particulars of Ryan's situation? Ryan is the only one so far calling in political chits (which is reason enough to justify the decision, in my view), but Karl would like to know some particulars as he fields these calls."

If the Fab 5 were not performing I would have produced the paper trail proving they were not performing. The letter from Issa, Cunningham, and Lewis about Lam demonstrates only that some of the targets of her corruption investigation wanted to change the subject.

It is interesting to note that the one guy the clearly say was not fired for performance issues (Cummins) is one of the two rated in the bottom third of US attorneys. I would expect that the fact that Little Rock is really a small midwestern city without the challenges of Los Angeles accounts for his lower numbers.

Norman

You are up early this morning. Have the servants cleared away breakfast?

The simple fact that it looks like the law could have been broken should be trumped by the fact that our leaders are keeping us safe.

There you have it. Fascism in a nutshell. Very neatly done, Norm. I don't think Il Duce himself could have stated it more succinctly.

You are up early this morning. Have the servants cleared away breakfast?

They were fired for insolence. You wouldn't last five minutes working for me, bub.

And let's suppose I did fire everyone who worked for me--would you liberals open an inquiry and send Charles Schumer after me on a rabid, partisan witchhunt? Because I don't employ witches, I have nothing to hide, and I will fire whomever I choose.

Too bad you can't let this administration defend America. What are you going to do when all you get for Fitzmas/Schumer-mas is a corncob and a lump of anthracite coal?

I have the e-mails showing that the houseboy was fired for refusing to offer Norman "comfort."

"Why these 8 and not the other 85?"

Who says they weren't going to be? This was just the first batch so that after the '08 elections, if the new president tried to replace them, that would have to be before their terms had expired. Which would mean that all such firings would be, by their nature, political.
This administration operates using only the reptilian brain. Higher order thinking, such as what is good for the country as opposed to good for them, just doesn't enter into it.
Sheesh, you'd think that was clear by now. C'mon people, keep up. Everything they do is political.

I have the e-mails showing that the houseboy was fired for refusing to offer Norman "comfort."
Posted by: shortstop

Ha! I'd just finished my final cup of coffee for the morning!

The only way you can tell the difference between the real Norman and the parody Norman is the time of day they post.

They were fired for insolence. You wouldn't last five minutes working for me, bub.

Shut-ins shouldn't be complaining about the candy-stripers who help them.

Clean the twinkies out of your fat rolls for once. It may make you appreciate the charitable souls who keep away the bed sores.

I have the e-mails showing that the houseboy was fired for refusing to offer Norman "comfort."

That is incorrect. He joined the US Marines, was sent to Iraq, and awarded the Silver Star for bravery. Due to the fact that I am his employer and his sponsor for citizenship, I have a little lapel pin that I wear with the colors of the US Silver Star award.

You know, people can get fired in this country, don't you? People get fired every day. People make noises about forming unions, asking for raises, or even calling up those fascists at OSHA for minor things and they get fired for these things. They can get fired because they don't look right for the part--think about that, liberals.

You know, in Hollywood, if some dingbat actress cuts her hair or gets defective rear-end implants, she can get fired from whatever pathetic television programme she is on. It's called enforcing a standard. Now, yes--the courts can remedy certain things but they can't remedy everything.

That's what you're attempting to do here--you want to circumvent the system and try to remedy what you think was a wrong done to these US Attorneys. Well, too bad. You can't solve every ill by sending Charles Schumer off on fishing expeditions so he can raise money for the 2008 election by ruining the reputation of good public servants.

twc it does not matter why these attorneys were fired. The administration has the right to fire them for political reasons. No reason that the administration gives will be good enough for liberals or the Democrat congress. The scandal hungry Democrat party will spin this in any direction they think will benefit their attempt to stay in power.

In other words, any answer the Bush administration uses will be used against them. So they have decided to give them nothing.

"Here's another question: Is the use of the American criminal justice system for partisan political purposes an impeachable offense?" The answer is no because the US attorneys are POLITCIALLY appointed positions. By definition they are part of what you get to appoint by winning the office of president. SEE Janet Reno from 1993.

This same mode of operation whas happening during the Clinton administration and was not a problem for liberals during that time.

Libby's trial proved that liberals will use the court system to try and take down political enemies.

The only way you can tell the difference between the real Norman and the parody Norman is the time of day they post.

This is true. Thank you for pointing that out. Hello? Is that intern still moderating? I would prefer that anyone who tries to quote one of my posts ASK for permission, first.

"We're not talking about ill people who may be using marijuana," said U.S. Attorney Kevin V. Ryan. "We're talking about a criminal enterprise engaged in the widespread distribution of large amounts -- millions of dollars, if you base it on historical evidence -- of marijuana and other drugs, and money laundering their proceeds from these activities."

Kevin Ryan said he was still a "company man" even after getting canned. It is in one of the emails back to the USDOJ near the end of the recent document dump.

I don't agree that Chiara had management problems. The record is fairly devoid of any such complaints before her termination.

Afterwards there is all sorts of justifications, like spreading democracy, preventing the spread of WMD, collaboration with Al Qaeda...oh wait, wrong fiasco.

The only way you can tell the difference between the real Norman and the parody Norman is the time of day they post.

Shaking my head in disbelief...

regarding WH aides testifying, the wingnuts finally have the correct answer:

"Clinton did it, too!"

I would prefer that anyone who tries to quote one of my posts ASK for permission, first.

Dear god what kind of overweaning pompous blowhard would write sometthing like that?

Maybe the same kind who would write something as asinine as

The simple fact that it looks like the law could have been broken should be trumped by the fact that our leaders are keeping us safe.

Parody Norman or real Norman? You're right: it's impossible to tell the difference.

regarding WH aides testifying, the wingnuts finally have the correct answer:
"Clinton did it, too!"

That's a demonstrable lie. First of all, Clinton wasn't trying to defend America from its enemies. Second, he ordered them to lie. Third, he lied himself under oath.

Have a field day with that one, moonbats.

The Clinton administration DID fire the US Attorneys. All of them. For political reasons. Where were the investigations of the 1994 Republican congress concerning those firings? Anyone?

The investigation of the firing is politically motivated, not some righteous search for the truth. benjoya, you know this but are willing to go along because it seems to be a politically beneficial move for the Democrats.

This is how Washington operates.

Anybody who knows anything about the Bush mafia family knows that "good performance" = slavish loyalty. Period.

Oh, and "Orwell" is about a week behind on his brain-dead Rethug talking points.

Yes, Louis XVI did fire all at the start of his reign. However, this is the Committee of Public Safety culling it's own. These were all Republicans who were forced into the tumbrel.

Interestingly, this led to the demise of the Committee; too much blood letting on determining who was the purest of the pure, or in this case, who was and is the biggest syncophant and most loyal toady.

Shortstop, sorry about U of K - now on to the Salukis.

Terry Holt of Dutko Group recently brought this to my attention and I may be altering my opinion on the DoJ purge.

Terry Holt of Dutko Group recently brought this to my attention and I may be altering my opinion on the DoJ purge.

Mr. Smerconish, you are not welcome here. You claim to be a conservative, and yet--and yet, you parrot the liberal talking points back in a way that hurts conservatives everywhere.

If you're going to post here, please ask me for permission first. Until then, please learn the programming language of HTML and someone might learn what the deuce you're talking about.

Thank you.

Man, Kevin. You have some stupid wingnuts here.

The issue isn't whether Bush had the right to fire these USA's. The issue is whether he chose to do so to circumvent investigations that were politically detrimental to his party. The issue is potential obstruction of justice.

Bill Clinton may have asked his aides to tailor their testimony regarding whether he was cheating on his wife. If that rises to the level of obstruction of justice, what do you call Bush firing the prosecutors investigating his administration for bribery and influence peddling?

And yes, Orwell, the position of United States Attorney is a politically appointed one. Once the candidate is in office, however, he works for the people of the United States, not the political party of the President. You are either disingenuous or plainliy stupid if you don't acknowledge that.

Paul, playing just a tad loosely with French history in reaching for that analogy.

Louis XVI fired no one when he came to the throne. He was so appalled to find himself king that he was completely willing to allow his father's courtiers to run things if they'd just quit nagging into actually produce an heir and let him get back to his fascination with locks and clockwork in peace.

Orwell on March 22, 2007 at 9:32 AM:

Libby's trial proved that Americans will use the court system to try and hold political operatives accountable.

Fixed it for ya, Orwie!

Yeah, Uncle Paul - Told you, told you, not to play fast and loose with facts - Nit and picked by the best.

Bill Clinton may have asked his aides to tailor their testimony regarding whether he was cheating on his wife. If that rises to the level of obstruction of justice, what do you call Bush firing the prosecutors investigating his administration for bribery and influence peddling?

Bingo! B I N G O!

Finally, a liberal admits the truth.

Bill Clinton told his aides to "tailor" their testimony. Otherwise known as "Obstruction of Justice" and "Lying under oath to Congress!"

That's why my sharp eye and my command of the facts has put me in the singular position of telling all you how things work. You're welcome!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

git: damn straight.

Louis came his ultimate cropper at the hands of the Estates General when he refused to recognize their limits on his royal prerogatives and ordered them, at the urging of his wife, to go home and they refused.

Now there's your analogy.

C'mon Orwell, are you a moron or a dishonest hack?
it does not matter why these attorneys were fired.

Umm, yes it does matter. Especially if they were fired for pursuing corruption cases against Republicans - that's called obstruction of justice.

The Clinton administration DID fire the US Attorneys.

Ho hum. Keep up with your own inane talking points will ya? Your side has moved beyond the "Clinton did it too" because that dog didn't hunt. Of course Clinton replaced all USAs as did Bush the lesser, as did Bush I, as does every President - it's part of the normal transition of power with a new administration.

Orwell, when you commented that the scandal was shrinking instead of expanding, I guess you hadn't read the posts preceding yours.

Posters pointed out three possible additional scandals.

1) Deliberate stalling of the GOP phone jamming investigation until after the 2004 election.

2) Politically motivated interference in the tobacco case to mitigate the punishment of the tobacco companies and executives

3) Political interference that let former State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush Quackenbush go free after accepting millions of dollars in kickbacks from insurance companies

So don't worry that this will fizzle out. You see, the other side of 8 U.S. Attorneys fired for not being sufficiently politically motivated is dozens who were TOO politically motivated. So we'll be hearing from all the folks who feel they were victims of political bias in cases prosecuted by the other 85. And sometimes that will be true and other times it will not. Rest assured, it will take months and months to sort everything out.

It would have been better if Bush had just come clean about why the 8 were fired, as embarrassing as the truth is. What really happened is that, at Bush's request, Gonzales brought him pictures of all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Bush picked out the 8 with the least purdy mouths to be fired.

The Clinton administration DID fire the US Attorneys. All of them. For political reasons. Where were the investigations of the 1994 Republican congress concerning those firings? Anyone?

The BushI, Raygun, Carter, Nixon, Johnson... Administration fired US Attorneys. All of them. For political reasons. Where were the investigations of the 1988 and before congresses concerning these firings. Anyone.

Damn these trolls are the most worthless liars in the world outside the junta.

Bill Clinton may have asked his aides to tailor their testimony regarding whether he was cheating on his wife. If that rises to the level of obstruction of justice, what do you call Bush firing the prosecutors investigating his administration for bribery and influence peddling?

|| Bingo! B I N G O!

Finally, a liberal admits the truth.

The words "if" and "may" are used in English to indicate a conditional statement. For a guy who postures as a pompous blowhard, you do seem to have some trouble with basic grammar. Glad I could straighten you out on that.

DrBB:

Doesn't matter. The truth shall set you free.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Beat me to it DrBB.

Beat me to it DrBB.

A battle of speed and wits betwixt klyde and DrBB? Oh, that's rich!

To correct something Orwell was wrong about earlier--re: the 1994 Congress. It was clear that the firing of the US Attorney in Washington DC was an attempt to derail the prosecution of the noted gangster Dan Rostenkowski. The Clinton Administration fired every US Attorney it could get its hands on and tried to keep old Dan out of the hoosegow. It didn't work! Why? Because the Republican Party held the torch and illuminated the wrongdoing of the monstrous Janet Reno and her despicable lapdogs.

Drum: Well, the two who did have performance problems were given reviews that contained actual hard evidence of poor office management...Margaret Chiara, another loyalist who appeared to have genuine management problems

Where did you see this for Margaret Chiara, Kev? You've provided a summary doc in you linked post, but I've seen precious little to support your conclusion that she was a 'loyalist who appeared to have genuine management problems.' From the 'link cited earlier:

Documents from the department suggest there were "management issues" in her office, which came as news to Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Holmes Bell. "We were all very satisfied with the performance of her office," he said.

The documents provide tantalizing insights but no clear answers as to why Chiara was axed..

Chiara's predecessor as U.S. attorney from 1994-2001, Clinton appointee Michael Dettmer, believes Chiara did not meet the Bush loyalty test and came into conflict with the administration over her opposition to the death penalty.

Two Grand Rapids lawyers who handled death penalty cases in federal court in Grand Rapids, Larry Phelan and Paul Mitchell, both agreed with Dettmer's assessment.

"I know she was not a team player when it came to the death penalty," said Mitchell.

Your assessment seems a bit flawed, Kevin. Based on what's available, you could just as easily say that Chiara is a 62-year-old female US attorney that didn't play well with a politicized DoJ, and that the decision was made to clear this person out to make room for someone more compliant to the will of the White House.

But, yes, I'll admit that I haven't seen all the docs regarding Chiara, performance reviews, et cetera. Would you care to point us in the right direction?

Warned those Californian Reaganauts that allowing history instead of more and more Home Ec was going to be a mistake at T Oaks.

Libby's trial proved that liberals will use the court system to try and take down political enemies

Patrick Fitzgerald is such pinko

There was a post here a few weeks ago about the exception that proves the rule. This Kevin Ryan of San Francisco is one.

Corrected link here.

C'mon Orwell, are you a moron or a dishonest hack?

I'm compelled to point out -- as if our resident trolls don't demonstrate it on a daily basis -- that these two premises are not mutually exclusive.

A battle of speed and wits betwixt klyde and DrBB? Oh, that's rich!

Cheap insult that in no way addresses the bitch slapping DrBB gave him. That's rethug thinkifying at it's clearest.

3rdP - My tenure in the CA public school system pre-dated the Reaganite accession by several years.

Might have been Pat Brown?

Anyway, back when it was the best in the country. Which automatically means B.R. (Before Reagan).

Cheap insult that in no way addresses the bitch slapping DrBB gave him.

My dear sir, I was not "bitch slapped" and I will caution you to refrain from such sexist and inflammatory language. What do you have against "bitches" and why must they be slapped? Why can't they just be "corrected in writing" or merely "reoriented towards the truth?"

Who was gov of CA during the period 1960-1963?

I'm too lazy to look it up.

"This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power." - Rep. Dennis]Kucinich

It was Pat Brown. Nixon lost against him in '62, when he made the famous "won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" speech.

I am such a freaking Nixon geek, which, considering my age, is weird.

Edwards is suspending his campaign--another chance for Newt to get his message out. Newt MUST denounce Edwards for NOT divorcing his cancer-stricken wife.

SS: Thanks, babe. I pretty much thought so.

Norman Rogers, your first about the administration "fighting the war on terror" and "locked into mortal combat" during those 18 days (but apparently not the others) is probably the most priceless bit of satire I've seen outside on Jon Swift's blog in months.

Well done.

SS: Nixon lost against him in '62, when he made the famous "won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" speech.

I remember my Dad saying something along the lines of: 'I'll believe that when I see it. We should only be so lucky.'

Ack, two typos in one post. Apologies.

Ack, two typos in one post. Apologies.

So a drunken greek who can't spell is accusing me of being a parody?

Delightful.

...probably the most priceless bit of satire I've seen outside on Jon Swift's blog in months.

I dunno. "Newt MUST denounce Edwards for NOT divorcing his cancer-stricken wife" made coffee come out of my nose as I, unlike the more restrained MsNThrope, continue to lap the stuff up all morning.

To correct something Orwell was wrong about earlier--re: the 1994 Congress.

Actually, Orwell was wrong about even that. The 1994 Congress was Democratic. The Republicans won in the November 1994 election, which means they didn't actually come to power until 1995.

This has always been a bete noire of mine, like always hearing that Clinton was President from 1992 to 2000 when in fact he was President from 1993 to 2001.

Norman, accidentally typing the wrong character on a keyboard and failing to notice it is not the same as having an inability to spell.

But I guess there's no point saying that to someone who can write something like your first post and be surprised that he's not considered on the level.

They were fired for insolence. You wouldn't last five minutes working for me, bub. Early Morning Norman

Norman, you couldn't afford me.

And let's suppose I did fire everyone who worked for me--would you liberals open an inquiry and send Charles Schumer after me on a rabid, partisan witchhunt? Because I don't employ witches, I have nothing to hide, and I will fire whomever I choose.

No Norman, we would give every one of them the Metal of Freedom.

This has always been a bete noire of mine, like always hearing that Clinton was President from 1992 to 2000 when in fact he was President from 1993 to 2001.

I can add a true and somewhat funny anecdote to that. Federal contractors used to tell me stories about the 1992 cuts that were put in place by the forward-thinking Dept of Defense, then run by Cheney. They watched thousands of people lose their jobs in 1992 when there were layoffs at places like NSA and the Pentagon-and, to a man, they swear up and down that Clinton was the one that fired them all.

I just saw this ad at the Washington Post,

Today in Slate, Why Obama is Like a Serial Killer.

I won't read it, but the ad will always get more circulation than the story will.

Norman, you couldn't afford me.

I can buy virtually anyone alive. I can meet your price, sir. The question is--do you have the guts to admit that I can buy you? Of course not.

Bwa!

shortstop -

I didn't even notice that one. You're right, that's even better. You really are talented, Norman.

Meanwhile, America faces a new enemy rising in the East.

TOKYO - Blond, blue-eyed Westerners probably can’t be as successful at Middle East diplomacy as Japanese with their “yellow faces,” Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso was quoted by media as saying on Wednesday.

“Japan is doing what Americans can’t do,” the Nikkei business daily quoted the gaffe-prone Aso as saying in a speech.

“Japanese are trusted. If (you have) blue eyes and blond hair, it’s probably no good,” he said. “Luckily, we Japanese have yellow faces.”

Foreign Ministry officials were unable to comment on the report, which said Aso elaborated by saying Japan had never exploited the Middle East, started a war there or fired a shot.

Given that there is a new menace to our liberty afoot, who would you rather have defending this country? Is the Democrat-controlled Congress preparing to surrender to another enemy?

I can buy virtually anyone alive. I can meet your price, sir. The question is--do you have the guts to admit that I can buy you? Of course not.

Posted by: Mid Morning Before 11 Norman Rogers

Norman, If you are so rich (and I presume powerful) why are you reduced to working for Trolls R' Us. Given the number of times each day you "comment," I can only assume you are paid per comment and you are very, very hungry.

Given the number of times each day you "comment," I can only assume you are paid per comment and you are very, very hungry.

Thank you for your concern--no, I had some crackers earlier. I'm fine, probably going to have fish for dinner this evening.

Subpoenas are going out for Rove and others:

A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote and without dissent, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The panel approved subpoenas for Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, their deputies and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, who resigned over the uproar last week.

The committee rejected Bush's offer of a day earlier that his aides could to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.

Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?

``Absolutely,'' Bush declared.

The game is on...

grapey, my understanding is that the House has approved subpoenas, but not yet issued them. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to do the same today (unless it already has). Whether either group will issue subpoenas or hold them as bargaining chips is still up for grabs.

Should have checked before running my mouth...the Senate committee approved, but did not issue, subpoenas within the last hour.

I understand the Senate Judiciary Committee has now authorized subpoenas. A voice vote, only two Republicans voted against. Grassley specifically said he wanted to be on record as favoring the subpoenas. So much for the partisan witch hunt defense. It seems Bush and his AG have pissed off a bunch of Republicans.

This is shaping up to be an institutional battle.

I had some crackers earlier.

Looking for love in the trailer park again, eh?

This is shaping up to be an institutional battle.

I just love when Spring brings with it a Constitutional Crisis.

RB: It seems Bush and his AG have pissed off a bunch of Republicans.

They fired Republican USA's. People who had the connections to pick up the phone and make some strenuous objections in their own behalf.

I had some crackers earlier.

Looking for love in the trailer park again, eh?

Posted by: Disputo on March 22, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Probably more along the lines of fava beans and a nice chianti...

Back in November when we were all wondering what was going through Karl Rove's mind as he lost the House and Senate;

Now we know. This was their response to the November 2006 election. Dems get subpoena power? Let them. The fact that they didn't replace ALL the prosecutors shows that they were scared.

Please - let us not besmirch my grandfather's memory by calling these feckless neocon thugs Republicans.

And it looks like perhaps the real Republicans are ready to take back their party.

Of course, I tend towards optimism...

Stop with all the distractions!

Ali Tarstani just confessed under torture to assassinating Archduke Ferdinand.

Ali Tarstani just confessed under torture to assassinating Archduke Ferdinand.
Posted by: absent observer

*sputtering*

As well as having a hand in the premature demise of King Tut.

The game is on...
Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

No.

The Delay Tactic is on.

Sheesh.

You think Karl Rove will be forced to testify under oath before the next ice age?

shortstop on March 22, 2007 at 12:18 PM:

Should have checked before running my mouth...

Nah. I was unclear, and excerpted the wrong article, which added to the confusion. Here is the article I meant to include. Some highlights:

"We're authorizing that ability but we're not issuing them," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said of the subpoenas. "It'll only strengthen our hand in getting to the bottom of this."

No subpoenas will actually be issued Thursday, leaving room for continued negotiation between the White House and Congress on a possible compromise..

Snow, in an interview on CBS's The Early Show accused supporters of subpoenas of wanting "a Perry Mason scene where people are hot-dogging and grandstanding and trying to score political points."

The president's chief spokesman had said Wednesday that proposal, which he called Mr. Bush's final offer, could be rescinded. "If they issue subpoenas, yes, the offer is withdrawn," Snow said. Democrats "will have rejected the offer."

Countered Leahy: "They came up and said, 'This is our offer. Take it or leave it. Accept these papers where we've erased 100 pages or more so you don't even know what's on there. Do a closed door hearing where the public has no idea what is said and they're not under oath, and if you don't like that, take it or leave it.' Well nobody's going to take that."

Leahy, appearing on NBC's "Today" show, complained that a hundred or more pages of the documents provided by the White House have been redacted.

Even as both sides dug in publicly, prominent lawmakers worked behind the scenes to avert a court battle between the executive and legislative branches. Specter, the panel's senior Republican, is working to cut a deal with the White House to avoid having to issue the subpoenas.

Democrats have rejected Mr. Bush's offer — relayed to Capitol Hill on Tuesday by White House counsel Fred Fielding — in large part because there would be no transcript and the testimony would not be public.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader, said it would be "outrageous," to allow Rove to testify off the record.

"Anyone who would take that deal isn't playing with a full deck," Reid said.

I wasn't exactly accurate in saying that subpoenas are "going out", but, if Specter can't pull off some grand trick of negotiation, they will be.

ER: Back in November when we were all wondering what was going through Karl Rove's mind as he lost the House and Senate...

In November 2006, the WH must have been reeling over the Repub meltdown during the midterm elections. What was a huge factor in the Repubs losses? Corruption. Oh, and Iraq. The day after the election results, Bush fires Rumsfeld. And on Repub corruption... you can connect the dots to the USAs. Can't have a repeat of 2006 in a 2008 presidential election year, oh, no.

I had some crackers earlier.

Looking for love in the trailer park again, eh?

Norman Rogers: The simple fact that it looks like the law could have been broken should be trumped by the fact that our leaders are keeping us safe. Don't you want to be kept safe? Or do you want to keep asking impertinent questions that keep these good people from their jobs?

You're embarrassing. This is a serious issue.

Ron Byers: I understand the Senate Judiciary Committee has now authorized subpoenas. A voice vote, only two Republicans voted against. Grassley specifically said he wanted to be on record as favoring the subpoenas. So much for the partisan witch hunt defense. It seems Bush and his AG have pissed off a bunch of Republicans.

It's a shame that Hastert interfered with the investigation of William Jefferson.

The Delay Tactic is on.

I doubt that there will be much delay. I expect that SCOTUS will immediately confirm POTUS's right to do whatever he pleases.

“Japanese are trusted. If (you have) blue eyes and blond hair, it’s probably no good,” he said. “Luckily, we Japanese have yellow faces.”

Speaking as a tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed man, he's right. We're not to be trusted, we scrutable Occidentals.

You think Karl Rove will be forced to testify under oath before the next ice age?
Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld

This line of inquiry might be directed to one of the Global Climate Change threads...failure of the Gulf Stream and so forth.

And it looks like perhaps the real Republicans are ready to take back their party.

Thank you. As I begin to reorganize the Republican Party here in the Northeast, I'm struck by the tone of you liberals--one would think it is Fitzmas all over again!

And how did that turn out for you?

Methinks you've already been outsmarted--no laws were broken, nothing but an issue of patronage here. The Republican Party takes care of their own. Once these US Attorneys shut their yaps, there will be work for them elsewhere. This is proof that the departure of Mr. Delay actually hurts the party--he knew how to dole out favors and keep people in line. If we were to find a man with similar talents, no doubt we could tamp down these scandals and get back to the business of defending America.

In defense of the "-gate" suffix.

It it a really handy augmentation of the English language, as it facilitates the creation of very short names for government scandals.

Extradite Rumsfeld on March 22, 2007 at 12:48 PM:

You think Karl Rove will be forced to testify under oath before the next ice age?

Yes. He may only say "I don't remember" and "I plead the Fifth", but he'll testify under oath.

I hope not to be proven wrong.

And it looks like perhaps the real Republicans are ready to take back their party.

What real Republicans? The ones who've been silent for the past six years in guilty complicity as their party engaged in a massive assault on civil liberties and the rule of law coupled with a campaign of illegal war, torture, kidnapping, corruption and repression the likes of which this country has never seen? Fuck them to a man, the whole simpering gutless craven cowardly bunch of them.

a lump of anthracite coal?
Posted by: Norman Rogers

i believe this is redundancy, normy.

It it a really handy augmentation of the English language, as it facilitates the creation of very short names for government scandals.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler

But where's the creative stuff like 'Ab-scam'?

Yes. He may only say "I don't remember" and "I plead the Fifth", but he'll testify under oath.
Posted by: grape_crush on March 22, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - those "conservatives".

Hate and try to destroy the First Amendment.
Hate, and skirt the Fourth.
Completely ignore the 9th.
Scam campaign contributions while giving lip-service to the Second.
. . .
Make copious use of the Fifth.

It it a really handy augmentation of the English language, as it facilitates the creation of very short names for government scandals.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 22, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

. . . very short names for REPUBLICAN scandals. . .

Fuck them to a man, the whole simpering gutless craven cowardly bunch of them.
Posted by: Stefan

Can I get an 'Amen'?

Thus, the very same Congressional Republican caucus now pretending to be so shocked and upset over these abuses were the ones who spent the last six years enabling these very abuses. They vested these powers and then completely abdicated their responsibilities to exercise oversight. - Glenn Greenwald

Oh, you are not blond-haired and blue-eyed Stefan; you're dark and saturnine, with wryly expressive eyebrows. I hate it when my little online friends mess with my mental pictures!

Here's a half-assed one for Apollo:

November seventh:
Panic! Subpoenas coming!
Walls come tumbling down.

THIS is why a nation's leaders cannot afford to be distracted by minor, trivial things:

An Iraqi air force colonel disappeared recently from an Alabama Air Force base and is being sought in a regional manhunt by federal and military agents, defense officials say.
The colonel, who was not identified, was studying at the Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base, near Montgomery, since last winter in a leadership training course that is part of U.S. efforts to rebuild the Iraqi air force.
The officer disappeared along with his family, who were living either on the base or in the Montgomery area. He left a note stating that he was leaving the yearlong military course because he did not want to return to war-torn Iraq, said officials familiar with the case.
Air Force security, FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have started a search throughout the Southeast for the colonel and his family.
One official said that the Iraqi is a "high-interest" target and that Montgomery police are involved in the search. He is thought to be planning to hide in the United States or to be fleeing to Mexico.