In her testimony before Congress Wednesday, Monica Goodling, the former White House liaison for the Justice Department, denied any involvement in creating the list of eight U.S. attorneys allegedly fired for political — not performance — reasons. “I did not hold the keys to the kingdom,” she said.
Which leaves the question: Who did hold the keys? Why do we still not know the circumstances surrounding how the list was created and by whom? With all the denials and stonewalling going on, is it really credible at this point to think the White House wasn’t involved?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
83 Comments
Well, maybe it was magic! Since the White House OBVIOUSLY wasn’t involved, after all. Or a little bird, maybe.
Credible, schmedible. Randy’s naivete is touching. So long as the White House and their in-house minions on this blog can keep the plausible deniability going, they’ll continue to do so.
Guilty, guilty guilty. But whom? Smart money/obvious money has only one place to go: Karl Rove. Duh.
They ain’t got nothing.
Janet Reno left the list in her old desk. When someone cleaned out the drawers, they found it lying in the bottom, and gave it to AG AG. AG AG didn’t realizing that the firing list was originally given to Reno by Clinton, being confused by the memo stationery that said ‘From The Desk of The President.’ Therefore, this is all Bill Clinton’s fault, especially since he hired that notorious lesbian communist Janet Reno in the first place.
They ain’t got nothing.Posted by: Republican | May 24, 2007 at 01:25 AM
Either Goodling was lying, or AGAG was lying.
Pick one.
Tom,I guess I must thank Clinton for having a very clear vision of the future and prepared accordingly to create the current furor with Beto.
Tom,
No kiddin’. Get substantive, Republican. Or are you going to dodge the question by saying that CF2K likes to beat up on women?
Obviously, Rove just dawdled a wish list, threw it in a trash can, the cleaning woman at the wh thought it was important and passed it on to the cleaning woman at the justice dept., who then placed it on goody goody goodling’s desk. She mistakenly thought one of her bosses put it there and acted accordingly. Simply a comedy of errors. Move on, nothing to see here, you got nuthin!
Perhaps there was no list. Just a broad sword that swept some Dem Lawyers out of their cozy positions.
They ain’t got nothing.
No list? The names are just materialising out of thin air? And aren’t they Republican attorneys?
Besides, “… ain’t got nothing.” other than being double negative, can also be construed that there IS something. An admission in your part, then?
Republican,”Just a broad sword that swept some Dem Lawyers out of their cozy positions.
They ain’t got nothing.”
List the “Dem Lawyers” that got fired.
They got something. Just probably don’t have the stones to do anything about it.
“Perhaps there was no list. Just a broad sword that swept some Dem Lawyers out of their cozy positions.”
And there is the telling crux of the matter: using political affiliation as a basis for hiring and firing the lawyers is a no-no. They got plenty.
Let me put that in words some can understand: the justice department should be the one department that is totally apolitical. The bush machine is agenda driven. They don’t, and can’t, understand apolitical.
“Perhaps there was no list. Just a broad sword that swept some Dem Lawyers out of their cozy positions.”
———
Heaven forbid! The Dems MUST have a conspiracy – they must, they must.
What are their pointy hats for, if not to wear during the conspiracy hearings?
This will make them SOOO sad.
Each of the eight firings is different and presumably for different reasons. Even if they were each for political reasons, were these firings illegal? I thought I read that they were not, since the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.
If this is true, why invest so much time and effort in getting to the bottom the firings when the most that could be done is to say tsk, tsk…? The answer, of course, is politics.
Either change them to offices that are not political appointees or live with the fact that they will be political.
I know, I know! Let’s not actually watch the hearings or pay any attention to this, then we can comment later!
If I haven’t seen it, it must not exist!
Yes, it’s illegal to fire the attorneys IF the firing is because they would not prosecute politically-motivated cases. That’s in the Hatch Act that they’ve all been talking about, and David Iglesias filed the complaint that the AG had violated it that got all this started.
I know, I know! Let’s not actually watch the hearings or pay any attention to this, then we can comment later!
If I haven’t seen it, it must not exist!
Yes, it’s illegal to fire the attorneys IF the firing is because they would not prosecute politically-motivated cases. That’s in the Hatch Act that they’ve all been talking about, and David Iglesias filed the complaint that the AG had violated it that got all this started.
Why did Goodling take the 5th? Because she broke the law in how she was HIRING career employees. She admitted that in the testimony.
I repeat my 1:33 post:
Either Goodling lied, or AGAG lied.
Pick one. Just one. It’s not like there’s a lot of choices here – just two people who have told opposite tales of the same incidents. One of them is lying.
Pick one!
Tom and delsol,
Exactly. The Wingnuts ’round these parts ain’t got nothin’. They’re the ones stuck on stupid.
outlander,
Thanks for bringing that up. Because the whole ‘the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President’ line of justification doesn’t go down so well with actual career U.S. Attorneys, since it appears to license the idea that ‘the attorneys therefore do the President’s bidding’–which isn’t so hot for the idea that the rule of law ought to be impartial. Justice is blind, outlander–remember?
Here’s a nice discussion among present and former U.S. Attorneys, which shows exactly what THEY think of this idea that because Federal Prosecutors are appointed by the President, that political influence may therefore be exercised over them. Because don’t forget, outlander, GSheridan, Republican, and others, that this is precisely what is being alleged in many of the cases. In particular, read below what the U.S. Attorneys think of the pressure that Sen. Pete Domenici exercised over David Iglesias to get him to pursue phony voter fraud cases.
As for Republican’s “just a broad sword that swept some Dem lawyers out of their positions,” well, Republican, I can’t help it if you’re a pathological liar and insist on lying and changing the subject to avoid having to admit that you’re wrong. Because that’s what you’re doing.
Here’s the discussion from Firedoglake.com, which is entitled “Older and wiser heads.” Frankly, it’s good to hear from some grownups in all this. It shows just what feckless liars Republican and Gsheridan are, and it shows how misleading outlander’s line of argument on this matter truly is.
**********************************
“Last night I sat in the stately ceremonial courtroom in the United States Courthouse for the Southern District of New York. In the room were lawyers from some of the most powerful law firms in the country. There were current and former “career” DOJ employees, there were former political appointees.
Sitting on the bench was a panel of experts discussing the “Hiring, Retention, and Firing of United States Attorneys”. It was hard to say who was more outraged by the current rape of the Department of Justice, the massacre of United States Attorneys or the the obliteration of the concept of the rule of law and impartial administration of justice: the republicans on the panel or the democrats.
This is NOT a partisan issue any more. Republicans who respect the law and revere the honor and traditions of the Department of Justice are just as horrified as anyone who regularly swims here in the Lake. So, I thought I would give you some idea of the thoughts and opinions (publicly expressed–The Law Journal even had a reporter there–so I’m not telling tales out of school) of people of far greater stature and experience than I on the havoc that has been wrought by this administration.
Arnold Burns former Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan seemed truly distraught by this situation. He has gone so far as to write an OpEd for the NYTimes suggesting that the Attorney General be taken out of the President’s Cabinet altogether and that DOJ become a totally merit based agency.
His goal? “The goal is an apolitical Department of Justice.” He said that currently “DOJ has lost all its credibility. We have to address this both at the Main Justice level and in the US Attorney’s Offices.”
Alan Vinegrad, who spent 15 months as United States Attorney in the EDNY when he was appointed by the judges of that district after his predecessor resigned, moderated the program and did not pull any punches with his questions. He dove right into the issue of whether it is ever appropriate for a US Senator to have a role in complaining that a US Attorney is not taking care of a crime problem in his state.
On this, the panel was unanimous. There is NEVER EVER a right way for a Senator (or any other politician) to attempt to complain about an individual case. However, let’s say the Senator felt that the US Attorney was not paying enough attention to a particular category of case. Well, in that circumstance, there would be a place for that Senator to complain–the Office of Legislative Affairs. OLA’s job is to act as a buffer and to insulate United States Attorneys from political pressure.
Do you honestly believe that someone who has been in the Senate as long as Pete Domenici wouldn’t know that? No wonder Iglesias felt sick to his stomach after the phone call. It’s on a par with Comey wondering to himself whether or not he was going to have to “physically” intervene to prevent Gonzales from having Ashcroft sign on the dotted line during the Wednesday Night Ambush. And far from acting as a buffer from political pressure, it seems that Mr. Hertlinger thinks the current OLA’s job is to stifle any former or current USA who gets ask to provide information to Congress. Yes, my blood is beginning to boil!
There was a great deal of discussion of ways to change the system by which Attorneys General and US Attorneys are selected and Arnold Burns’ suggestion was that they serve for a longer fixed term that is NOT co-terminus with the President’s. Such a system is currently in place for the FBI Director.
But Bernard Nussbaum, former Counsel to President Clinton, pointed out that current selection system (which is virtually the same way we pick and confirm federal judges) is not the problem. He said “GOOD PEOPLE can make this system work.” [emphasis his].
This sentiment was echoed by former USA SDNY Mary Jo White, who pointed out that the so called “political” selection of US Attorneys had, at least in NY, in the main, resulted in a merit based selection. I can attest that, thanks in large measure to the truly bipartisan approach taken by Senators Moynihan and Javits and their reverence for excellence, and the really heavy lifting Chuck Schumer has done to continue in their footsteps, the Empire State has been particularly blessed in our US Attorneys. Some were/are better than others, but there hasn’t been a wanker in generations.
Richard Briffault, the Joseph Chamberlain Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School, echoed that as well. “The better and more professional the persons appointed, the more we want to support this system and keep them as holdovers [referring to President Carter's decision to allow USA SDNY Robert Fiske–a legend–to finish out his term which had two more years to go instead of replacing him with a Democrat when Carter took office]. The more partisan the appointees, the more we want to have them fired [when a new administration comes in].
Alan Vinegrad asked another question that brought a unanimous response from the panel when he wanted to know what the criteria for selective removal of USAs [as opposed to the wholesale removal when a new president is sworn in] would be. They all agreed, there have been only two reasons:
-misconduct
-severe management problems.
That’s it.
When I say misconduct, we are talking about things like a US Attorney getting indicted himself. When I say major management problems, I’m talking about an office in complete disarray, the financials don’t match up, the career people are leaving in droves, the judges are complaining.
Prof. Briffault pointed out that the Congressional Research Service did a little audit and found that in the 25 years from 1982 until the beginning of 2006, only 10, yes 10 TOTAL US Attorneys were selectively removed.
Mary Jo White had an interesting observation towards the end of the evening. After pointing out the tradition in the SDNY that in order to be considered to be USA there, you had to have served the office previously in a career capacity, and opining that it would not be fair to the USA to appoint someone who had never been a prosecutor before because they “wouldn’t have a clue” of how to do the job; she noted that “those who devised this plan were young political operatives with no understanding of DOJ or its traditions. Alberto Gonzales had no federal experience. Harriet Myers had no federal experience.” Mary Jo, quite charitably, noted that they had no idea how DOJ is supposed to work and for 6 years had no experience with a Congress composed of a loyal opposition, so there were never any grownups in charge.
You can blame Rove. Like Tweety, you can say this has Cheney’s fingerprints all over it.
But me, I blame the President. After the Wednesday Night Ambush, he knew he had principled people in pretty high places at DOJ. There WERE some grownups in charge. Instead of relying on that expertise and experience, he allowed Kyle Sampson to try to strip Comey of the DAG’s traditional role with respect to supervision of the US Attorneys, and eventually, once Comey was gone, the power of the DAG’s office was gone before McNulty came in, and Alberto Gonzales was installed as AG. He put the Kiddie Kampers in charge.
Last night there was talk of whether everyone hired in the last 6-8 months needs to go. Imagine how disruptive that would be to the Department’s work. Comey was right, I don’t know how you put the genie back in the bottle, or where you go to get the Department’s reputation back.
So, the only good news here is for the criminals, oh yeah and the terrorists. I remember the days when Dave Kelley and Pat Fitzgerald with the support and, yes, insulation from Main Justice from Mary Jo White, were actually building cases and putting terrorists in jail. I remember when they were able to foil plots before anyone got hurt or any computer networks melted down. I remember when terrorist atrocities were met with competent evidence, indictments returned on probable cause and convictions gained after trial.
I remember what the rule of law looked like. More importantly, I remember what it felt like. It made me proud to be an American. It made me proud to know that although there were scary bad men out there who wanted to hurt us, grownups–talented, smart, hardworking, sincere and honorable grownups–were in charge. It was their respect for the Constitution, for both the spirit and the letter of the law THAT made me feel safe.
As long as our system of Justice and our whole country is in the hands of the Kiddie Kampers, no one will feel safe…because no one will be safe.”
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/05/23/older-and-wiser-heads
CF2Flake – posting that amount is copyright infringement.
GSheridan,
DING DING DING!
That’s the Joe Williams bell, which is rung every time someone writes something exceptionally obtuse or outright stupid. In this case, it is rung to celebrate your tacit acknowledgement that your defense of the U.S. Attorney firings is dead in the water.
DING DING DING!
But by all means, if you feel the need to tell on CF2K, let Christy and Jane over at Firedoglake.com know that he’s citing their discussion as an authoritative refutation of the Right Wing’s phony argument regarding the status of U.S. Attorneys as “political” appointees.
If Christy and Jane feel the need to dress him down, CF2K will listen respectfully and abide by their wishes. They are, after all, attorneys.
yap yap yap – CF2K sounds like a pregnant Chihuahua.
They ain’t got nothing.
Republican,
I’ll ask for the third time: Which was lying? Goodling? AGAG? For the sake of argument, I’ll accept either answer. But one of them is indeed lying to Congress. Pick one.
Thanks.
Tom, nice job there with the civility.
I see the epidemic of self-discrediting now extends to Republican. ‘Yap yap yap,’ indeed.
Which one was lying about what Tom?
Why do you want me to answer an ambigous question?
Who cares? They’re political appointees. You media weasels said nothing when Clinton fired all 93, and now it’s one crocodile tear after another.
The appropriate answer is “Clinton fired all 93, we only fired 8. Go to hell.”
The appropriate answer is “Clinton fired all 93, we only fired 8. Go to hell.”Posted by: Melvin Cyznfski | May 24, 2007 at 09:40 AM
Somebody needs a hug. No need for such language Melvin
Have we even figured out what law was broken yet?
Republican,
Here’s a quote from another thread to refresh your memory:
Rep. Davis: “General Gonzales testified that he never saw the US Attorneys list, the list of terminated US Attorneys, is that accurate to your knowledge Ms. Goodling?”
Goodling: “Um, I believe he did see a list.”
Rep. Davis: “So if General Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the list, you believe that would be inaccurate testimony on his part don’t you?”
Goodling: “I believe he saw a list.”
Rep. Davis: “So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony?”
Goodling: “Yes.”
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=415
There are two more points in the above testimony where Goodling contradicts Gonzales’ testimony.
So which is it, Republican? Which one is telling the truth? Which one is lying?
And Clinton firing ALL 93 is the point. That is the traditional thing to do at the beginning of a presidential term. You don’t pick 8 that have not served your political needs to fire in the middle of a term.
CF2K beat me to my post. Thanks, CF :)
Melvyn,
Please. Read the thread. Your spin has long since passed its expiration date.
Tom,
I know–bad form on my part. Got ahead of myself there, sticking my nose into others’ exchanges.
Melvin,
When Clinton fired all 93, he had their replacements confirmed by the US Senate. Likewise, when Bush fired all 93 in 2001, he had _their_ replacements confirmed by the US Senate.
One of the things that stinks about this round of firings is that Bush and AGAG waited until _after_ the so-called PATRIOT Act was amended to allow the US Attorneys to be appointed without Senate confirmation. As soon as that new law took effect, lists of politically unreliable USA’s were drawn up, and several were forced from office, encouraged to resign, or outright fired. Their replacements weren’t hired for their litigation skills, but for their political reliability. Again, without any need for Senate confirmation.
This whole thing stinks.
Ah CF, once again the old memory test. Create a crime, where none existed before.
Better get Fitz on the phone. He has proven good at getting criminal convictions on the “crime” of memory lapse.
CF2Flake,
DING, DING, DING.
Hey, there’s that bell again.
It tolls for you, dear.
So Gonzales looking at a list he didn’t prepare is a crime how? I tell people I look at a lot things without even reading it. It only means that there was something I looked at and not necessarily absorbed.
Besides, what you are talking about is facts not in evidence and cannot be proven with “He says She says.” It is hearsay and not a standard for any type of prosecution.
As before -
That ain’t got nothing.
They=that
outlander,
That makes for a trifecta of self-discrediting. Congratulations.
As has been said elsewhere, imposing ideological purity tests on nominees, or retroactively imposing them on sitting U.S. Attorneys, that violates the Hatch Act.
If drawing up the list of prosecutors to be fired and implementing it wasn’t illegal, outlander, then why all the fancy footwork to obscure the origin of the list?
Outlander,
Was AGAG lying under oath? Or was Monica Goodling? One of them lied.
If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall an effort by the Republican Congress to evict Clinton for doing nothing more than lying under oath about a sexual affair with a different Monica.
For the record: I think having sex with the hired help on company property on company time is a firing offense. Nevermind lying to the company owners, which is _also_ a firing offense. Gore should have been President in 1998.
“If my memory serves me correctly,”Posted by: Tom | May 24, 2007 at 09:54 AM
Okay Tom, let’s pretend you are the Attorney General and you make that statement.
Now, someone else recalls the situation in question as “I BELIEVE I saw AG TOM WITT read the statement.”
Would you want to be prosecuted on the statement “If my memory serves me correctly.”
That’s the standard you and other Liberal democrats are applying.
They ain’t got nothing.
Republicantheliar said,
“So Gonzales looking at a list he didn’t prepare is a crime how? I tell people I look at a lot things without even reading it.”
Well, it’s a crime if, while under oath, he said he didn’t, when he actually did. So you’re wrong. Gonzales was UNDER OATH in his testimony.
This isn’t so hard, Republican.
And as usual, what comes forward in the remarks of GSheridan / Republican / outlander most strongly here is their sneering contempt for the rule of law, and their flexible ‘catch me if you can’ Republican ‘morals.’
What law was broken?
Nope CF2K, you and Tom and the other Libs are applying a standard of testimony that doesn’t exist.
You can’t prosecute non-recollection.
If that were true, then Hillary Clinton would be in jail now for her hundreds of “I do not recall” statements in the Whitewater case.
Nathan,
What law was broken when Clinton had sex with Lewinsky?
As has been said elsewhere, imposing ideological purity tests on nominees, or retroactively imposing them on sitting U.S. Attorneys, that violates the Hatch Act.
If drawing up the list of prosecutors to be fired and implementing it wasn’t illegal, outlander, then why all the fancy footwork to obscure the origin of the list?
Posted by: CF2K | May 24, 2007 at 09:54 AM
Could you please enlighten me as to how? I perused but did not study the Hatch Act, and I didn’t see how it fits. Please understand, I am not arguing. I would actually like to know.That said, I think this is a political “keep scandal in the news” witch hunt. Unfortunately, gonzolez gave them the rope needed to hang him. He should have just said, they work for the president at his pleasure, he was no pleased to have him as an employee. Would it still stink? Yeah, As one who serves “at the pleasure” I think it stinks. Would it have gone away? I think so. Stupid damn politicians
Stupid damn politiciansPosted by: littlejohn | May 24, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Yep.
Exactly Nathan. Political fishing. But that’s OK, because there might have been a rule broken. Or, failing that maybe someone will forget something that we can prosecute them for.
Republican,
I don’t recall giving you permission to post my full name here. If I choose to do so, that’s my choice, but it’s not yours, whether or not I’ve posted my full name here in the past.
littlejohn,
I was proceeding from delsol’s point above about the Hatch Act’s prohibition against using nonpartisan civil servants for partisan political ends. Plainly, firing someone who won’t go along with bringing trumped-up, partisan charges would violate the Act.
I may have been mistaken to connect the rationale against ideological purity tests to the Hatch Act. But Gooding’s action plainly violated Federal hiring rules. Here’s a bit from the NYT:
“But civil service rules prohibit such questions when federal agencies are hiring or promoting staff members for career positions. Violations could be unlawful, although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said. Two internal investigative units have begun an inquiry into Ms. Goodling’s screening practices.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/washington/24monica.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Not sure how something can be “unlawful” without also being a “crime,” but who knows.
At any rate, it’s clear that underlings like Goodling violated the requirement that hirings in the Justice Department be nonpartisan, and it’s clear that sitting prosecutors in multiple districts faced pressure to use their offices for Republican political advantage. Bingo: Hatch Act violated.
To CF2K and Tom–
I think that Dahlia Lithwick from Slate has her finger on the pulse of what’s at the heart of the problem–this administration’s belief in “the unitary executive” (monarchies):
http://www.slate.com/id/2164751/
This would explain Gonzales’ disdain for the process and for the rule of law: He doesn’t believe in the seperation of powers. This would lead him to try to block Congress from any information at all, no matter how relevant–which he has done in several cases, including the Patriot Act surveillance program and Abu Ghraib–his stonewalling has been persistent and consistent, as has his willingness to flout the law anytime he sees fit (again, Patriot Act, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Justice Department).
I think it is really scary to have a person like this in a position of this kind of power, and I am sure Senators Schumer, Specter, and Leahy have caught on to this game. It also says a lot for the President to consistently have soemone like this around, and to use his “skills” in this way, repeatedly.
The fact is the AG has committed many crimes and/or advised the President that his admin can exceed the limits on Presidential power, because even impeachemnt has no real teeth. Testimonies to the above scandals have consistently revealed their disinterest in accountability. But the President is very good at stonewalling as well, and this admin has always kept just enough behind closed doors to continue the kingship.
Why else wouldn’t they let the WH staff testify under oath? Same sh*t, different day.
CF2K-
Thanks for the reply. I will take some time and digest.
I don’t think the republicans had to set up a perjury trap to get Clinton…
Oh well.
Either way, he continued being President.
So, if the comparison is that this is similar to what Clinton did, then nothing should happen beyond the House impeaching him.
He should stay in Office and continue.
Since we are making comparisons…
Nathan, the President remained in office because NO ONE CAN FIRE HIM.
Not the same with the AG.
He could have quit?
I don’t recall the democrats demanding his resignation…
How many millions of tax payer dollars were spent on Clinton/Lewinsky? All to pursue perjury charges. If you lie under oath(such as Clinton did) then you have committed a crime.
AG AG testified under oath that he never saw the list of attorneys to be fired. Goodling contradicted that testimony yesterday so the AG should not only be fired, he should be prosecuted.
I see they still wont chose which wingnut side was lying. I guess they are keeping their options open.
Or maybe they are waiting to hear what rush says, or hannity or billo. They are good soldiers. They wait for their marching orders concerning which message of the day to push…..
I see they still wont chose which wingnut side was lying. I guess they are keeping their options open.
Or maybe they are waiting to hear what rush says, or hannity or billo. They are good soldiers. They wait for their marching orders concerning which message of the day to push…..
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 24, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Maybe they are waiting to fine evidence of which one? Obviously somebody lied. It was be premature and irresponsible to say which one, would it not? Without a bit of evidence to which?
Goodling is lying.. there I said it!! fire that lier
Now what????
the only one that can fire the AG is the President.. don’t think that will happen.
“Maybe they are waiting to fine evidence of which one? Obviously somebody lied.”
Thank you lj. I can accept that. And thanks for admitting the obvious, that somebody lied. I think that was really the point.
And if prosecution for perjury is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander too!
And if prosecution for perjury is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander too!
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Absolutely.
Which one was lying? C’mon! These are attorneys and politicians we’re talking about here. It’s more than likely they’re ALL lying!
For those of you having trouble with the concepts of the Hatch Act, just think of it as an act which prevents someone like bush/rove from setting up their own baath party control of governmental agencies.
I heard a commentator say after the Scooter Libby fiasco (I still don’t understand how Bob Novak escaped a charge in that one) that it’s often not the activity itself that gets people in trouble, but the cover-up of the activity.
Under “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” AGAG has created a ton of smoke to try to sift through. There may be no fire, but somebody’s blowing a lot of smoke.
Why wouldn’t Dems think Rove is involved? We know the White House was involved–they’ve all stated that it was consulted on “The List”–Rove is by very definition a political operative, just like AG was before the Justice Dept.
Problem is that AG sees no difference in his job status. Remember, when asked who mandated the list, AGAG said he didn’t know, then later when asked if Bush, Rove, or Cheney made the list, he said “No.” When asked in follow-up how he could be so certain in light of his earlier ignorance, he said “I know they wouldn’t do that…I just know.”
What clear-thinking person would accept that as a legitimate answer?
“For those of you having trouble with the concepts of the Hatch Act, just think of it as an act which prevents someone like bush/rove from setting up their own baath party control of governmental agencies.”
Steve, the irony is that the neo-cons actually believe in such control through their own stated belief in the “theory of the unitary executive”:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/08/unitary_executive_or_autocracy.php
“Should a Democrat win the White House in 2008, no doubt many conservative proponents of the theory of autocracy known as the “unitary executive” will awaken as from a dream, and revert to the belief that unlimited power vested in the hands of a president might not be quite compatible with our democratic heritage. Or perhaps not—perhaps their belief in the president’s absolute authority really is about principle, and not just about power. That would be even more frightening.”
It is ironic when you consider our politics have moved in the direction of all that we have opposed historically.
Tom, get over yourself about your name, it’s on each and every post you make here.
What a maroon.
SPEAKING OF MORONS, OR MAROONS,
I really love this exchange from this blog:
“Republican,
Here’s a quote from another thread to refresh your memory:
Rep. Davis: “General Gonzales testified that he never saw the US Attorneys list, the list of terminated US Attorneys, is that accurate to your knowledge Ms. Goodling?”
Goodling: “Um, I believe he did see a list.”
Rep. Davis: “So if General Gonzales testified that he didn’t see the list, you believe that would be inaccurate testimony on his part don’t you?”
Goodling: “I believe he saw a list.”
Rep. Davis: “So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony?”
Goodling: “Yes.”
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=415
There are two more points in the above testimony where Goodling contradicts Gonzales’ testimony.”—
“Nope CF2K, you and Tom and the other Libs are applying a standard of testimony that doesn’t exist.
You can’t prosecute non-recollection…”
Can you actually comprehend what you read, Republican? Are you a non-native speaker?Please explain how denying seeing the list/seeing the list says “non-recollection” to you.
From Dan Froomkin (Wash Post):”And then Bush criticized the congressional investigation for ‘taking a long time. It’s going to — kind of being drug out, I suspect, for political questions — political reasons.’
“It takes a lot of chutzpah to stonewall — and then blame the investigators for a delay.”
Definition of chutzpah – one murders both of one’s parents and then throws oneself on the mercy of the court because one is an orphan.
Was anyone else surprised to see a Bush appointee that made Michael Brown look competent?
Monica Goodling admitted to breaking laws related to hiring for political reasons. I presume she will not be prosecuted for those.
Either Monica or Gonzales committed perjury. As part of her limited immunity deal, Monica was not allowed to commit perjury. Based on that alone, I am inclined to think that Gonzales committed perjury rather than Goodling.
I am still betting Bush will be out of office before 01-17-09.
They ain’t got nothing.
Republican,
I’m certain that you know the difference between my first name, which appears on all my posts, and my last name, which you publicly used here without my permission.
Even if I did know your real name, I would never presume on your privacy in that way. I know several people here by their full names, and would never presume on their privacy, either.
But thanks for your consideration.
It’s a simple concept Tom, if you don’t want your name published on each and every post, change it in Typekey.
Or is that too sophisticated for you to do?
And stop whining about a so-called injury that you did yourself.
He’s outed others Tom and he’s been outed too. You should have heard him howl like a banshee. I guess he can dish it out, but he cant take it.
“I believe he saw a list.”
“So therefore you believe it would be inaccurate testimony?”
“Yes.”
Republican,
For someone who claims to have been a “netizen” as long as you have, I would expect that you would have a better comprehension of netiquette than you’re displaying here.
But then, I always expect the best from people. No wonder my life is full of disappointment ;)
You always point a loaded gun at your own foot Tom or is that part of your netiquette practices?
You disappointment originates in your own decision making.
Republican,
As Farmgrrl has pointed out, your full name has allegedly been posted on WEBlog. Even if I thought that was truly your name (I have no way of knowing, quite frankly), I would never use it unless you had given specific permission, or like others (Vaughn Tolle comes to mind) you used it in your sig line.
You haven’t, so I won’t.
Presnit Idiot still supports AG. Read it and weep reich wingers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_pr_wh/gonzales_prosecutors
Your boy is more loyal than my dog.
I can almost understand Goodling’s thought process. She was appointed for her political ideology/connections/loyalty to party, why shouldn’t she use the same evaluation procedure?
Oh Tom – I think you mean that James Macklin guy pointed out by ksfoamgull. Pretty sure he is a second amendment type of guy.
I have nothing against the second amendment, but never have been a promoter of handguns.
We are of different philosophies.
As from the previous day, i still wonder who are the worse, types like gs and repub or those that respond to them… Does make for interesting reading though, i do believe frued would have a hayday with these two. Many books would be written and social acceptance, instead of humor, would be the norm for understanding these types.
It’s obvious that Republican really has nothing to contribute, he’s just a gadfly.
I hate that I feel complelled to respond to this idiocy, because it’s clearly only there to provoke.