David C. Iglesias (in photo), the former U.S. attorney from New Mexico, wrote a commentary in the New York Times explaining about how politics factored into the Justice Department decision to fire him — and why it shouldn’t have.
Even though U.S. attorneys are appointed through a political process, he wrote, they are supposed to be insulated from politics, and politics are supposed to play no role during their tenure. "Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political," he wrote.
He said that Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, Republicans from New Mexico, called him about a corruption case involving local Democrats. He said he was evasive with Wilson, because attorneys are prohibited from talking about indictments, and he told Domenici that he didn’t think he would file charges before the November election.
"A few weeks after those phone calls," he wrote, "my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate."
Meanwhile, both the Senate and House Judiciary committees have now authorized the issuing of subpoenas to summon Karl Rove and other officials to testify under oath about the dismissals.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
56 Comments
Clinton fired all U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.The only mistake here was not firing them all.
this just proves it’s a Pony Show..
call them up to capital hill and lets hear what they have to say.
if they don’t tell them what they want to know, then issue the Subpoenas..
they just want an assumed scandal..
Eisenhower replaced all US Atorneys when he took over from Truman. Kennedy replaced all USAs when he took over from Ike. Nixon fired all USAs when he succeeded LBJ. Carter replaced all USAs when he defeated Ford. Reagan replaced all USAs when he won office in 1981. Clinton, in fact, did replace all 93 USAs when the Democrats regained the White House in 1993. George WMD Bush replaced all USAs within months of taking (literally) office in 2001.
See a pattern here, Poindexter?
USAs are political appointments, pure and simple. But here’s why this case is different.
(It’s a little arcane, so read carefully and slowly so your lips don’t get tired. Sound out the words. Ask a grown-up to explain things you can’t understand.)
Before Shrub, USAs had to get Senate approval. Even though Bill Clinton named new USAs for Kansas, he had to pick individuals who were acceptable to then-Senator Dole and Pat Roberts. Any Senator had the right to prevent an unacceptable appointee as US Attorney in his/her state.
Then, in the dead of night, the Republicans slipped in a tiny little sub-paragraph in the so-called P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act that gave Karl Rove and George WMD Bush the power to replace USAs *without* Senate confirmation.
So, even though the 9 fired USA’s were Shrub appointees, they had to be acceptable to, for example, both Democratic Senators in California. At least that was the way it’d been since Eisenhower. Ah, but thanks to a dead-of-night amendment to the P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act, Shrub could install political cronies into USA positions and replace those who didn’t persecute Demcorats and didn’t ignore the corruption of Reps such as Duke Cunningham, Jerry Lewis, et al.
Oh, and along the way, Gonzo lied when he said the replacing of the 9 fired USAs was *not* political, but based on “poor performance.” None of the fired USAs had received any poor performance reviews prior to their firings. Gonzo lied. Then he changed his story and said he didn’t know what was going on. Then he changed his story and said “Mistakes were made.” Gonzo has more stories than the Empire State Building. Even if one of his stories is the truth, all the rest of them are lies.
“Clinton did it, too!” you lied; the worst kind of lie because it’s a carefully-crafted half-truth. It’s an excuse worthy of a third-grader, especially since we suffered through eight years of peace and prosperty in the 1990s with Republicans whining about everything Clinton accomplished.
Good lord, if Clinton was so awful, where do you get off with the “Clinton did it, too!” defense?! If “Clinton did it, too!” is your position, you’d be demanding the impeachment of George WMD Bush.
Face it, Poindexter: you are a Bush Cultist. Shrub is your Jim Jones, your Carlie Manson, your David Koresch, your Baghwan. You’ll bow down and stick you butt in the air for anything your beloved Shrub says, hoping he’ll do to you personally what he’s been doing to democracy for the past six years.
Good luck with that.
“…you’d be demanding the impeachment of George WMD Bush.”
I think you people should get that started. From what I read, he is Satan.
Write or wrong, Bush had the legal right to do what he did.
Bush also has the legal right to ignore the subpoena’s.
No crime is in the making here. If there was any hint of a crime, Dems would be asking for a “special prosecutor.”
Just because you dont agree with the President, it does NOT give you the “right” do sworn testimony, under oath.
If Bush does not back down, he will win this one!
Right or WrongI know.bush again.
“Write or wrong, Bush had the legal right to do what he did.”
Correct; however, he is the only one who can sign off. Apparently, he didn’t. So who fired them and what was their authority for doing so.
peace and prosperity..
yeah right, the longest periiod of terrorist attacks..and for prosperity.. look at the dot.com bust during his tenure.. that was one heck of a recession. I lost allot of money during that time period. I also believe the most of Enrons misdeeds were during Clintons so called get Economy..
I AM THE DECIDER! I CAN FIRE WHOEVER I WANT WHENEVER I WANT! I CAN LIE ABOUT IT ALL I WANT!
9/11!
NATIONAL SECURITY!
THE PEOPLE LOVE ME!
See if we have this right…We have A POLITICAL Appointed position.
People are fired for not following along with the political position of those that appointed them…
hmmmm. how outrageous.
never heard of such,…please feign as much outrage as you can gin up…then move on to bitching about the waterwalk or something.
BG –
“yeah right, the longest periiod of terrorist attacks..”
Are you on acid?
Even Laura Bush admits to “one terrorist bombing a day” in Iraq.
And, of course, she’s wrong. There have been far more terrorist attacks against Americans since George WMD Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” almost four years ago.
More dead Americans in Iraq than in the World Trade Center (also under Shrub’s watch…back when it was more important to cut brush in Texas than to read “Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.” Ten thousand maimed Americans from terrorist attacks from people who never would attack American soldiers and Marines had not Shrub squandered universal approval of his Afghanistan campaign by unilaterally attack Iraq under false pretenses.
Republicans blaming all their problems on Clinton is a sad, flaccid meme that simply doesn’t play after six years of George WMD Bush’s administration. You might as well blame President Garfield.
You broke it. You own it.
so we are fighting terrorist in Iraq.
Mrbil –
“See if we have this right…We have A POLITICAL Appointed position.
“People are fired for not following along with the political position of those that appointed them…
“hmmmm. how outrageous.”
And ya know something, “Mrbil,” you might have had a point before the Bushies started lying about the firing being “for performance,” or “I didn’t know what was happening,” or “Mistakes were made,” or “we’ll testify as long as we don’t have to swear to tell the truth and there’s no record of what we say,” and all the other bullsh*t.
Bush pisses on you and tells you it’s raining and you start dancing like Gene Kelly.
Even if, upon taking his second term, Shrub had said, “It’s a new administration, there’s a new Attorney General, and we’re going to readdress the direction of the Justice Department so all USAs submit their resignations and we’ll accept only eight of them,” there might have been a mini-flap, but it wouldn’t be the collosal screw-up Bush and Rove and Gonzo are facing today.
George WMD Bush is running the government of the United States of America with all the skill, insight, and perception he displayed when he sold Sammy Sosa and led the Texas Rangers to a 4th place finish in the American League.
He’s a 4th Place President. He had the sympathy and the backing of most all Americans and nearly all free peoples around the world after 9/11. And he has subsequently, consistently, corruptly and stupidly squandered America’s place in the world.
Harry Truman once noted that Richard Nixon “lies even when he doesn’t have to, just to keep his hand in.”
If George WMD Bush is the answer, you’re asking pretty bizzare questions.
so we are fighting terrorist in Iraq.
Posted by: BG | March 22, 2007 at 03:25 PM
No, we’re not, but nice try BG. And although I don’t post often, I try to read as much as I can everyday, it’s usually interesting, or at least entertaining. But I’m surprised that some of these posters, especially the more moderate republicans, don’t seem to get what many of us are concerned about with the firing of these attorneys. Yes, everybody does it, AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS. But as was pointed out previously, this was done after an amendment was added to the patriot act that allows appointments to be made without senate approval. That is unprecedented!!
MonkeyHawk is obviously upset about something.
Someone needs to let his family know – there will be beatings tonight.
as the democrats said..
elections have consequences..you lost the last preidential election.. and if Pres. Bush wants to fire the AG’s he hired, he can. That is his right and privledge..
and as for the Patriot act.. your senators voted for it as well. right..
so let’s blame them as well..
LOL captain poindexter. :) :)
Watch them snakes squirm under oath!
Steve, Even I would squirm under oath if subpoenaed before Congress simply because it will be an intimidating setting by people who think Republican party affiliation is admission of guilt.
And I have nothing to do with the firings of the attorneys. :)
How un-American, and un-patriotic is it to advocate that the Justice System, as represented by the USA’s should have to execute their duties in deference to the Administration’s biases and petty politics! Soundrel, thy name is Republican.
Political selections and firings by Political people…as specified under and by the laws of Congress…
How odd the Democrats would make such an assertion that the firings might be political…
well duh…
I’m confident you’re used to saying, “well, duh…” a lot, “Republican.”
So explain the lies Gonzo gave that the firings *weren’t* political. And then that he didn’t know what was going on in the Justice Department he headed. And then that “mistakes were made.”
You obviously don’t believe all the different versions. Then again, maybe you do.
Well “duh” is the only appropriate response you’re left with.
I’d rub your nose in it a little more but it’s beginning to feel like booing at the Special Olympics.
Sorry to force reality on you. You obviously can’t comprehend it.
Since your Democratic friends in Congress are voting for subpoeans we may never find out it will be held up in court until 2008.
subpoenas
The US Attorneys serve at the will of the President and the President has a right to fire them for any reason or no reason at all. Although I am enjoying seeing the Bushites scream and squrim, I think the Democrats should be careful because in 2008 we are going to have to clean house too!
BG,No, we’re not fighting terrorists in Iraq, we’re creating them!
“Political selections and firings by Political people…as specified under and by the laws of Congress…
How odd the Democrats would make such an assertion that the firings might be political…”Posted by: Republican | March 22, 2007 at 05:58 PM
The problem that Bush and his supporters (especially here; e.g., Republican) is that none of you make a distinction between proper and improper political behavior.
To wit:
“But the word “political” in this context has two meanings, one philosophic, one partisan. The prosecutors are properly political when their choices are influenced by the policy priorities of elected officeholders. If the president thinks prosecutors should spend more time going after terrorists, prosecutors should follow his lead.
But prosecutors are improperly political if they bow to pressure to protect members of the president’s party or team. Most would agree that Harry Truman was being improperly political when he tried to block the reappointment of Maurice Milligan, a U.S. attorney investigating the Pendergast political machine in Missouri. …
When you look at the prosecutors who were fired by the Bush administration, you see some who were fired for proper political reasons and some who were fired for improper ones. Carol Lam seems to have been properly let go because she did not share the president’s priorities on illegal immigration cases. David Iglesias seems to have been improperly let go because he offended some members of the president’s party.
But what’s striking in reading through the Justice Department e-mail messages is that senior people in that agency seem never to have thought about the proper role of politics in their decision-making. They reacted like chickens with their heads cut off when this scandal broke because they could not articulate the differences between a proper political firing and an improper one.
Moreover, they had no coherent sense of honor. Alberto Gonzales apparently never communicated a code of conduct to guide them as they wrestled with various political pressures. That’s a grievous failure of leadership.
The bad behavior has not stopped there. The Democrats, apparently out of legislative ideas after only 11 weeks in the majority, have gone into full scandal mode, professing to be shocked because politics played a role in prosecutorial priorities. They and those on their media food chain have made wild accusations far in advance of the evidence, producing enough cacophonous demagoguery to make rational discussion nearly impossible.
And the White House, instead of trying to restore some proportion, has picked a fight over a transcript. The president says he will allow White House staff to appear before Congress, but not in public, not under oath and not with a transcript. The president apparently expects his supporters to rally behind the sacred cause of No Transcript. In time of war, he’s decided to expend political capital so that his staffers can lie to Congress without legal consequences.
This is a position only a lawyer can love. From compassionate conservatism, we’ve descended to pedantic or legalistic conservatism.
As often happens when you have a government unencumbered by adult supervision, this affair is now spiraling down to the partisan depths. It will take on a life of its own and muddy everyone who touches it. But it all could have been prevented with a few distinctions about the proper role of politics, and a little sense of honor.”
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/opinion/22brooks.html
Yeah, one more in a damn long line of failures of leadership by the President and those who “work” for him.
Republican rallying cry, “If We Can’t Lie, We Won’t Testify!”
The Treasury Dept. is part of the Executive Branch, following the logic put forth by the Bushies, If the IRS Commissioner refused to honor the President’s desire to audit specifc Democrats, or Democrats exclusively, then the pres. would be justified in firing him. Same goes for the Fed. REserve Commissioner, if he didn’t listen to the Pres.’s advice on which way interest rates were to be moved, he could be ‘justifiably’ removed. Where does this line of reasoning end?
The reasons for the firing will be coming through shortly. Those fired will realize they didn’t follow what was expected of them and will have to acknowledge the reasons why they were fired.
The Democrats attempting will hang their heads in shame because they won’t admit defeat.
You’ll see. :)
We’ve seen what happens when the head of the CIA plays political ball, it gets us into an ill conceived war.
Thank you for making my point steve. You Democrats don’t want to hear the truth in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
You want to score political points and use it as a show trial.
Why?
Because you got your butts kicked in two consecutive Presidential Elections. :)
Can ya dig it! :D LOL!
We’ll only get the truth, when people are forced to speak it under oath. Start the party, it’s high time this country received some straight talk!
Make with the subpeonas already! bush resists, the advisers refuse to testify and it’s contempt of Congress.
Just another “contempt” to heap on the most contemptible administration in history.
“Oh, and along the way, Gonzo lied when he said the replacing of the 9 fired USAs was *not* political, but based on “poor performance.” None of the fired USAs had received any poor performance reviews prior to their firings.”
SURE they did. ALL 9 of these USA’s that were fired ALL received complaints from DEMOCRATIC PARTY Senators and Representatives. IT is in the public record. Fienstien bitched about one, so die the Senator from NM, and one from Washington.
This is about nothing more than renerating a scandal.
Notice how the Dems handle these “hearings”. They bring up V. Plame to their “hearing”, but do not call anyone who was her supervisor to give us the answer of whether she was covert or nor, whether she was “BY JOB DESCRIPTION” an “operative”. They do not want to know. They just want to put broadsides into Pres. Bush.
One question though to the liberals here:
Is this what the Democratic Party is going to run on again? Are they going to run another campaign against a guy that is not running? ie BUSH? Can’t the Dems come up with a plan or a vision, other than bitching about “the other guys”?
If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and you’re not troubled by what’s being done to the Justice Department by the Bush administration, you are either a thoroughly unprincipled hypocrite or you are a complete idiot. It’s that simple.
During the 90s all I heard from Republicans was “RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!” or “Ours is a country of laws not men!” Now all I hear from Republicans is that the President can do any damn thing he wants because he’s the Decider!
It’s really simple, kids. You either stand for the rule of law, or you don’t.
It’s really simple, kids. You either stand for the rule of law, or you don’t.Posted by: Condor | March 23, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Another Lib who failed critical thinking class.
what’s wrong Repub typical conservative thinking hurts when applied your way?
Republican,
The other day you and I had what I thought was a fairly reasonable exchange on this topic. After initially giving a kneejerk dismissal, you actually seemed to give some thought to the points I made.
In this thread I see that you’ve had a complete relapse and you’re back to your drooling “nothing to see here” brainless dismissals.
I have a simple question for you: Do you believe in the rule or law or not?
If you believe in the rule of law, you should be very troubled by what the Bush administration is doing to the Department of Justice. Don’t believe me? Listen to Bob Barr, for heaven’s sake. Yes, Bob Barr. You know, Bob Barr, the former REPUBLICAN Congressman who who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Here’s what Barr said on CNN the other day:
“CNN: Is this defiance or executive privilege?
BARR: It’s probably some of both. But what’s really unfortunate here, both from the White House standpoint as well as the standpoint of what’s best for the country, is the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who’s the toughest hombre in all this. It’s very unfortunate. I’m not sure the administration has chosen the best line in the sand to draw here, so to speak. Congress clearly has a right to inquire into the running of the Department of Justice, to inquire into the integrity of the process of hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys, notwithstanding the fact that that is technically a prerogative of the president. Rather than fight this, the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush 1 administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.”
Here’s a pretty moving picture if reading that transcript was too taxing for you:http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/21/barr-attorney-purge
Again, do you believe in the rule of law or not? It’s an honest question.
Love, Condor
Bob Barr not convincing enough for you?
Associated Press: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS08/703210440
“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.
The analysis undercuts Justice Department claims that the prosecutors were dismissed because of lackluster job performance. Democrats contend the firings were politically motivated, and calls are increasing for the resignation or ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.”
Let’s see Condor,
Bob Barr eh?
You mean the Bob Barr that is now a prominent member of the American Civil Liberties Union, sometimes doing paid consulting on privacy issues?
Or the Bob Barr that abandoned the Republican Party and publicly endorsed the presidential ticket of the United States Libertarian Party?
Perhaps you are referring to the Bob Barr whose talk radio show on Radio America called Bob Barr’s Laws of the Universe, has as its first rule, “the world is full of idiots?”
That Bob Barr?
Since you’ve sidestepped my honest question with irrelevant litmus tests I feel comfortable informing you that Bob Barr’s first rule applies to you.
If you need further substantiation of that oh-so-incivil assertion, I give you this:
The LA Times details just how easily people like you are played like puppets on a string:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-talking23mar23,0,3342736,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
“WASHINGTON — Three weeks ago, Justice Department officials settled on a “talking point” to rebut the chorus of Democratic accusations that the Bush administration had wrongly injected politics into law enforcement when it dismissed eight U.S. attorneys.
Why not focus on the Clinton administration’s having “fired all 93 U.S. attorneys” when Janet Reno became attorney general in March 1993? The idea was introduced in a memo from a Justice Department spokeswoman.
The message has been effective. What’s followed has been a surge of complaints on blogs and talk radio that it was the Clinton administration that first politicized the Justice Department.
The facts, it turns out, are more complicated.”
How does it feel to know that the people you’re brainlessly defending know that you’ll brainlessly repeat their lies… er, talking points?
Ah the Tennessean…
Is that the same Tennessean that buried the Al Gore(the Goracle, thanks SOB for that word :)) – story on how he spends $800.00/month to heat his pool and criticizes everyone else on energy use?
Since neither one of us have heard DOJ testify to this issue, hypothetical journalistic argument on something that has yet to occur is quite meaningless.
Got anything else for me Condor?
Let’s talk, yes let’s do that. :)
“Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer sees nothing wrong with firing the eight U.S. attorneys and thinks that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is a decent and honorable man.”
Good enough for me.
Haven’t been part of this one.
I note conspicuous absence of some other posters. No names. But the absence is telling. I wonder if their sentiments are similar to mine and that is why they are not here.
No legal eagle am I. Some things boil down to if something smells right or not.
This doesn’t.
Just because you can do a thing it does not follow that you are just or your motive without question in doing it.
This reeks of corruption and injustice.
Actually, I think it was Reagan that first did politicized the hiring and firing of US attorneys, but I digress…
How can I brainlessly defend anything yet that is all hypothetical? It’s an opinion. This is an opinion Blog? It’s not written in stone?
If my assertions that the Politically hired U.S. attorneys were not fired for Political reasons…which by the way includes what type of cases they should prosecute…then call me on it when all is said and done.
However, playing twenty questions from newspaper excerpts in a hypothetical situation is fruitless and is good for talking about my own pet theories, but it doesn’t add any weight to resolving the so-called legal issue currently being addressed.
It sounds like you are basing your opinion on an expected judgment that hasn’t occurred yet; that is, there is an implied guilt by and from the Bush Administration without due process.
Trial by newspaper, newscast and blog is not under the rule of law as described by our Constitution.
Now, if you want to extrapolate some possible rule of law out of Journalistic blathering about hypothetical situations, then by all means be my guest.
I argue what I know to exist as a fact. That is, US Attorneys can be hired and fired for Political reasons as the current law is written. They serve at the pleasure of the President.
Outside of that, there isn’t any there, there.
“This reeks of corruption and injustice.”
This pretty much sums up everything you think about everything.
Republican,
We HAVE heard testimony on this issue. Gonzales HIMSELF testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue on January 18. Both he and members of the Bush administration have now admitted that he told that committe things that were not true. HE LIED. Here’s just one important example: With Arlen Spector’s help, they secretly slipped a paragraph of wording into the Patrio Act to give the power to replace US Attorney’s without Senate confirmation. We now have thousands of pages of administration and Justice Department communications showing when and how they deliberately planned to use that power in replacing these 8 USAs. Yet Gonzales testified that “I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.” That, right there, is a lie. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES LIED TO CONGRESS WHILE UNDER OATH. Is there a there THERE? I seem to recall a day when more than a few conservatives would get rather worked up over the notion that a senior federal official might lie under oath.
You keep giving me irrelevant commentary on my sources, but you can’t actually dispute anything I’ve posted here. To maintain a veneer of being reasonable and thoughtful you say we should wait until we get testimony. But in other comments you subscribe to the theory of the Imperial Presidency and assert that Bush can do whatever the hell he wants and shouldn’t have to answer to Congress. So do you support congressional testimony on this subject or not? It’s Friday, if knowing the day of the week helps you to remember what persona to adopt.
There’s an term for what you’re doing: FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. It’s the tool of a propagandist. And it’s fundamentally dishonest.
It’s interesting that when I came to the open thread to entice you back into this discussion, the opening comments touched on the postmodern dilemma of unknowable truth. When I was in college in the 90s it was all the rage for my conservative friends to rail against postmodernism and the notion that there wasn’t any objective truth. Only Godless liberals believed that! Here we are a decade later and people like you have fully embraced the tools of postmodernism to deflect any argument that might make you use your own brain to figure out what you believe.
You take great delight in being smug, but you never actually take a position on anything. I suppose it’s easier to sleep at night when your convictions are so casually adopted and discarded.
Don’t tell me that’s all you have Condor?
Please explain to me that you are not making your argument based on a clause in the Patriot Act that was passed as law by the Congress and the Senate.
Please explain to me how the Supreme Court will most likely die from laughter when Democrats hold up in their hands the clause from the Patriot Act then claim ignorance of it, simply because they did not carefully read the act before passing it into law?
Please tell me Condor that isn’t all you have.
BTW, you didn’t give me a time and date when Gonzales testified. Was that before or after the debacle?And wasn’t he talking about new attorney hirings?
Did the Senate pass the Patriot Act?
Did Gonzales say with the Advice and Consent of the Senate or did he say with the approval of the Senate?
The Senate approved the Patriot Act, therefore any action under that act by description is approved by said Senate.
Tell me your side is not going to argue this before the Supreme Court?
Please tell me they are not.
A little something from John Dean on Executive Privilege for your reading enjoyment.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070323.html
Republican,
You obviously don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about, and yet you’re perfectly comfortable prancing around laughingly bashing anyone who is seriously concerned about this issue. That makes you a brainless apologist.
I did give you the date of Gonzales’ testimony. It’s in the first line of my previous post. Perhaps you missed it, but I’m startled to learn that you apparently don’t even know what date the US Attorney’s were “asked to resign.” I supposed that means you also don’t know that there’s a very suspicious 18 day gap in the emails the Justice Department has handed over to Congress on this issue.
Here’s a very detailed timeline on the whole unfolding scandal: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this topic before you make a further fool of yourself.
PS: The Supreme Court scenario you sketch out is very cute, but entirely divorced from reality. Any more flights of fancy like that and I might get the idea that you’re an idiot.
Thanks VT. Question: do you think the Court will go along with “Unitary executive”? And will Miers talk?
“What Exactly Is the Unitary Executive Theory? A Short AnswerBefore the Alito confirmation hearings, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank correctly described the “unitary executive theory” as an “obscure philosophy … that favors an extraordinarily powerful president.” Milbank found an invocation of this philosophy in the notorious “torture memos.”
It Seems Likely Bush, with Fielding, Will Go to the Wall on Executive PrivilegeThis time, it is my belief that Bush — unlike Reagan before him — will not blink. He will not let Fielding strike a deal, as Fielding did for Reagan. Rather, Bush feels that he has his manhood on the line. He knows what his conservative constituency wants: a strong president who protects his prerogatives. He believes in the unitary executive theory of protecting those prerogatives, and of strengthening the presidency by defying Congress.In short, all those who have wanted to see Karl Rove in jail may get their wish, for he will not cave in, either — and may well be prosecuted for contempt, as Gorsuch was not. Bush’s greatest problem here, however, is Harriett Miers. It is dubious he can exert any privilege over a former White House Counsel; I doubt she is ready to go to prison for him; and all who know her say if she is under oath, she will not lie. That could be a problem.
Condor,
This is a Blog and I’m not writing a legal brief here. Would you prefer to be charged by the hour or a contractual agreement?
If calling me a “brainless apologist ” and an “idiot” is your way of conducting an mature, thoughtful conservation, then I guess we’re done here.
Thanks for the link to talkingpointsmemo…
But if I wanted to get my sources from Joshua Michah Marshall the Neo Lib, I would have requested them. I really don’t care for the references from Muckraker or Feinstein’s dot gov releases either.
Thanks, but I’ll research this myself.
Only “fair and balanced” sources for you, I’m sure.
Best of luck.
“If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and you’re not troubled by what’s being done to the Justice Department by the Bush administration, you are either a thoroughly unprincipled hypocrite or you are a complete idiot. It’s that simple.”
Be careful there Condor, that would mean that the impeachment of Pres. Clinton was necessary.
And STILL the more reputable conservative posters are avoiding this one.
Maybe they’d rather not get in this stink.