Powered by TypePad

« Long John Edwards - Pirate Of the Caribbean | Main | Nooo! We Were Meant To Capitulate To The Insurgents! »

May 24, 2007

Comments

Pofarmer

I'm sure this is the first time, anywhere, ever, that the politics of political appointees has ever been looked at or discussed.

Other Tom

I continue to insist that these dopes have long since shot their wad on the long-awiated "oversight" role, and the public is becoming bored, and increasingly annoyed, with all of it. See, e.g., the delightfully plummeting congressional approval numbers.

Other Tom

Off-topic again, but what the hell. A bit of a torture update. Unquestionably, this stuff would never have crossed their minds if it weren't for Bushitler, and it serves us right. And anyway, they learned all this stuff from the Abu Ghraib survivors.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

PatHMV

The problem, alas, is that Assistant U.S. Attorneys are not considered "political" appointees. As the post and many other articles have properly pointed out, these are, essentially, civil service hires, and consideration of their politics is inappropriate and in fact against the law.

If we were talking the actual U.S. Attorneys themselves, then no problem considering their politics; they have policy-making and policy-advocating roles. The AUSAs do not, under the law.

What I hear, from people (Republicans) who would know, is that Goodling and like-minded individuals at Justice continued, even escalated, the politicization of DOJ that began under Clinton with his mass firings of the US Attorneys. It wasn't good when Clinton did it, and it's not good when our guys did it.

manys

Ha ha, "Clinton did it!" and "It's happened before!" As if there aren't any valid standards to aspire to, besides a race to the bottom. It's all just partisan, eh?

Foo Bar

the politicization of DOJ that began under Clinton with his mass firings of the US Attorneys

??

Reagan replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys within the first 2 years of his presidency.

Foo Bar

... which is not to say that the tradition started with Reagan. That's just the earliest data point I can find.

Daddy

Drudge, in a story up today about 14 illegal aliens arested in Idaho who were working for the Federal Government, has unwittingly supplied the solution to this problem of unlawful political screening of applicants for government jobs.
Simply institute a new policy of only hiring illegals for all GS jobs.
The partisan political hiring angle will disappear, the savings to taxpayers in them being unable to collect their government benefits will be tremendous, and soon we'll have a Federal Bureaucracy every bit as good as Mexico's. Whats not to like?

Never said anything about the Clintons. History didn't start with Clinton, or Reagan, or Bush. The view of history here is rather short. What's the basis for comparison?

seamus

The purging of Democrats here kind of mirrors the purging of Baathists over there...and well, I'm sure the Repubs here think Democrats are the enemy, so Monica was just doing the Goodling!

Everything is politicized and well, maybe that's how it's always been. Justice isn't blind, she just has one eye open at a time.

anduril

Paul at Powerline notes that many of the job applicants that came across Goodling's desk were applying for political positions, but also asked to be considered for civil service positions if the political one didn't pan out.

I assume that Goodling had to come up with some kind of minimally plausible concern that she had somehow violated a law--a concern which seems fairly dubious--to justify her demand for immunity. Having performed that required little song and dance, she then proceeded to wad up the House's subpoena and oh so nicely invited the collective institution to shove it where the sun don't shine. Good for her.

Sara

Who cares?

Paleokaus

I'm sorry. You want the New York Times to explain a semi-comprehensible comment from DOJ?

Goodling's original "perjury trap" justification, although supported by Sean Hannity, Richard Cohen and other legal beagles, was not flying. So there is this hiring business and the even less likely charge of preparing McNulty to lie.

I am still waiting for a description of the process worthy of the DOJ that resulted in Carol Lam being fired. It seems to me that Comey put the Gonzales/Sampson talking points to rest.

Jane

It seems to me that Comey put the Gonzales/Sampson talking points to rest

Not much of a regular around here eh, Paleokaus?

anduril

If it's a Bad Thing to fire a US Attorney for political reasons--whatever that really means--is it also bad to fire the AG for politcal reasons?

Les Nessman

"And why her desire for immunity of she did not commit a crime?"

Good grief, is that a serious question?

After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'. Why in the world would anyone take a chance of persecution? Sure, *you* may know you have committed no crime, but why take a chance?

Seriously, why take the chance? I would like to hear an answer to that.

Say nothing or be given immunity; those are the only choices a sane person should consider these days.

Maybeex

She did contradict McNulty, right? A man Schumer had already stated he would support as replacement AG.
Indeed, being on the wrong side of someone Schumer supports seems to be quite criminal these days. But I'm sure that only looks political.

manys

Say nothing or be given immunity; those are the only choices a sane person should consider these days.

I guess taking responsibility is passe. Maybe the new standard should be that if the person doesn't think it is (or should be) illegal then it isn't.

maryrose

Schumer's plan to replace Gonzales with his errand boy McNulty blew up in his face. And now he's stuck with bupkis. Al D'Amato was right...Schumer is a putz. In this particular case he has no power and Gonzales can stay as long as President Bush wants. Oh and by the way, they won't be getting Rove anytime soon either. Truly an exercise in futility that wasted taxpayer money.

woof2222

Reagan replaced 89 of 93 U.S. Attorneys within the first 2 years of his presidency.


Foo bar - Foo bar - Foo bar you can't simply post lying bs anymore. Its too easy to use google and find out the real facts.

When your link saying Reagan fired prosecutors didn't work - gee that was suspicious, I googled and found that ::::::


The Congressional Research Service reports that from 1981-2006, only two US Attorneys were clearly forced from their job, mid-term. That's two out of 486 -- and both were in the Reagan Administration. (tip)
And unlike in the current controversy, in one case there was clear cause and in the other, public political conflict.

Reportedly, in 1984 President Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, for having loose lips. Petro was later convicted of disclosing information about an indictment. Sounds like cause to me.

Reagan also dismissed William Kennedy, US Attorney for the Southern District of California, in 1982, reportedly for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case. Sounds like publicly arguing with your boss. Nothing like today's cases. And besides, it's only one, not eight.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208046.htm

TWO fired by Reagan --not 93.

In the future you can do it too, google stuff your going to post so you don't look like a liar.

woof2222

After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'.


Yep, and after Martha Stewart, I wouldn't even discuss the weather with a federal investigator. My only conversation will be about the imminent arrival of my attorney.

clarice

If she had to ask, she was really dumb. In these applications you must list every organization you belonged to, detail all your professional activities and give names of references. And it is perfectly acceptable to ask in the interview the applicant to describe his views on various legal issues. If you can't tall after all that, you are stupid.
(I was nominated for a judgeship on 3 occasions--the Carter WH apparently thought I was too conservative; the Reagan WH thought I was too liberal--and probably both were right.)

topsecretk9

Reagan dismissed J. William Petro, US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, for having loose lips.

Sounds like the Carol Lam situation ( and prolly the Arizona situation too)

Lam looks to have leaked in such an egregious manner the DOJ would be derelict not to have canned her.

BTW - I find it delicious to see Emptiness embracing the leaking of GJ testimony.

Tom Maguire

1. Here is a link to what is almost surely the LA Times piece cited by Foo Bar - Google points to the LA Times but delivers a 404.

2. Foo Bar lying? Please - people make mistakes, but let's not be saying he (She? They?) lied, especially when they haven't - see (3).

3. Grand reconciliation (or an attempt) - Reagan may perfectly well have replaced Carter's attorneys as their 4 year terms came due, and why not? That is different from firing them during their term, which he may well have done only twice.

The alternative view, that Reagan left the Carter appointees in place, strikes me as deeply unlikely. (Note to linguists - for some reason, "deeply" unlikely means the same as "highly" unlikely - why? A level of unlikeliness that represents an extreme? Or am I making that phrase up?)

Since Bush was firing many of his own appointees, the second term purge looked odd.

After Scooter Libbey, I would ask for immunity if someone from the gov't asked me 'how's the weather'.

Well, that was my original theory re Monica, as noted in the post to which I linked (and her attorney cited the Libby trial, too).

topsecretk9

She did contradict McNulty, right? A man Schumer had already stated he would support as replacement AG.
Indeed, being on the wrong side of someone Schumer supports seems to be quite criminal these days. But I'm sure that only looks political.

Well the lefties just know what's going on here and who is wrong or right - McNutly is to be believed! it's the template, it's the hate. Paranoia, deep destroyer...

Insty:

VIA MEMEORANDUM, I see that lefty bloggers are raining scorn on Joe Klein's report on Anbar, which I linked yesterday. Apparently, Klein's a victim of anonymous sources in shiny uniforms leaking Administration propaganda.

they LOVED them in the Plame affair! I mean ONLY the anon sources that told them 24biz hours or Cheney was demanding this and that on the back of airforce one.

Klein:

JOE KLEIN ASKS THE ANTIWAR LEFTY BLOGGERS:

"I find it amusing that some doubt the military source who told me the good news in Anbar province but don't question the sources who told me about the growing pessimism about the Shi'ites ever putting together a viable government...Why does good news about Iraq, however modest--and this was truly a modest, if intriguing, development--trouble you?"

I find it NORMAL that lefties selective truth like - what's new?...

Allah;

Nor does he note the contempt towards Gen. Petraeus that drips from Rick Ellison McEllensburg’s screed, although he does drily mention in passing Ellison’s sneering reference to “shiny uniforms.”..


...What’s funny is that I remember Eric Boehlert tut-tutting righty bloggers back at the time of the Jamil Hussein story about not being able to accept the reality in Iraq as reported by the mainstream media. In fact, the opposite has always been true: any good news, however small and no matter what its mainstream media pedigree, is received by the left with hostility and summarily adjudged discredited. That’s especially true in this case because Anbar was written off by military insiders last fall as lost to Al Qaeda, so to see hope revive in an area that was supposed to serve as Exhibit A in the left’s case for withdrawal is an especially bitter pill for them to swallow. For most of America, of course, it’s good news.

Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?

Anyways...see a pattern? Lefty bloggers wanting to believe they're template NOT the reality of things? So, they really do want things to be as shitty as possible -- they see that as a means of power grab -- not very admirable or inspiring.

I suppose that's why they "timetables" took a Pelosi.

topsecretk9

Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?---

Rick Ellison McEllensburg I meant...not Insty.

BarbaraS

Klein is about two weeks late with this news. The blogs had this then. And we are now in Dilaya (sp) doing the same thing. I wonder if Klein will report that in another two weeks.

Jeff Dobbs

tops:
Glenn sounds sorta like the leader of a cult, doesn't he?---

Rick Ellison McEllensburg I meant...not Insty.


I don't know. I think Reynolds is just taking it slowly. Army of Davids was sowing seeds...

Just wait until he organizes a YearlyInsta conference and has everyone converge on Knoxville......

Pofarmer

Since Bush was firing many of his own appointees, the second term purge looked odd.

But wasn't this started immediately after the 04 elections? It certainly wouldn't have made sense to waste time on it before(cart before the horse and all that). The only thing that made it look odd is that it took so long to get it done, not that that's anything new in the govt. It shows that there was obviously some standards here for Prosecutors and choosing which ones were let go.

Foo Bar

woof2222:

Foo bar - Foo bar - Foo bar you can't simply post lying bs anymore.

Maybe not, but I can hope that people attempting to refute me actually take the time to read the links they cite in response.

Here is your uspolitics.about.com link. If you manage to make it halfway down the page, you'll find this quote from testimony from Stuart Gerson, a Bush 41 DOJ official:

The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration

OK, so what did your about.com page mean when it said only 2 U.S. attorneys had been clearly forced from their job "mid-term"? Well, if you click through to the Congressional Research Service report and look at the fourth sentence, you'll see it says:

This report provides data on U.S. attorneys who did not complete their full fouryear term after confirmation by the Senate and whose terms did not carry over a change in presidential administration.

So only 2 U.S. attorneys whose terms spanned a single presidential administration were clearly forced out mid-term. The CRS report focused on those whose terms spanned a single administration precisely because it is so common for them to be removed at the start of a new administration, which is what happened under both Reagan and Clinton.

Given that my point was to respond to the idea that Clinton had been the first to do a wholesale purge at the start of his presidency, and given that your cite said only 2 had been removed midterm from '81-'06, one might have hoped that upon reflection something would seem amiss- I don't see how there's even a misreading of the '81-'06 factoid that absolves Reagan and doesn't absolve Clinton.

1. Here is a link to what is almost surely the LA Times piece cited by Foo Bar - Google points to the LA Times but delivers a 404.

Yes, that was it- thanks, TM. The LA time must have moved the page, since, as you say, it still shows up in Google results.

sophy

I do not know how to use the habbo coins

LOTRO Gold

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame