Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe real story of the U.S. Attorneys scandal that has so endangered the tenure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not that of the eight fired prosecutors. It is that of the 85 U.S. Attorneys around the country who were not let go.
There is mounting evidence that the Bush administration was pressuring U.S. attorneys to politicize their prosecutions prior to the 2006 elections, on the apparent theory that stirring up trouble for Democrats in battleground states might ease concerns about abuses by White House aides, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, former California Congressman Duke Cunningham and the various and sundry GOP solons who had been linked to no-longer-so-super lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
And it certainly looks as if some of the U.S. Attorneys who refused to bow to the pressure to mount prosecutions that might embarrass Democrats were removed from their positions because of their regard for the rule of law.
But what about the U.S. Attorneys who were not fired?
Did they agree to mount political prosecutions in order to keep their jobs? Were they reliably partisan enough to secure White House political czar Karl Rove approval?
Did they act on that partisanship in their official duties?
These are the question of the moment in a number of states, most notably Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is the ultimate battleground state in presidential politics, an almost evenly-divided jurisdiction where the Bush-Gore race of 2000 was decided by barely 5,000 votes and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004 was decided by only a little more than 10,000. Gearing up for 2008, Republicans wanted very much to replace Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, whose control of the state's top job, it was thought, had helped Kerry secure his narrow victory in 2004.
As the 2006 gubernatorial election approached, Doyle appeared to be in solid shape. Then he was linked to a nasty pay-to-play politics scandal. Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, aggressively pursued an investigation of whether political considerations had influenced the awarding of a state travel contract to a Doyle donor.
As the election approached, Biskupic secured the conviction of state employee Georgia Thompson, who was charged with steering the contract to the donor's firm. More prosecutions were reportedly in the offering. Republicans had a field day. They mounted an expensive television ad campaign linking Doyle to the "scandal."
When Democrats criticized Biskupic for pressing what appeared to be a shaky case against Thompson on a schedule that paralleled that of the 2006 gubernatorial race, their arguments were dismissed as nothing more than political spin. Yes, of course, Biskupic was a Republican, with family ties to the state party and friendly relations with the Bush White House. Yes, he had investigated supposed "vote fraud" cases pushed by the state and national GOP, even though the investigations came to nothing. But few independent observers could believe that a career prosecutor would abuse his position for political purposes.
After Doyle was easily reelected in what turned out to be a strong Democratic year, Georgia Thompson was whisked off to a federal prison in Illinois. Biskupic's actions pre-election prosecution of the woman, while suspect to some, was generally accepted as an accident of timing.
Now, however, the complaints about Biskupic's election-season execution of a case involving a Democratic governor in a battleground state are being seen in a new light.
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Thompson, a former state purchasing supervisor, had been wrongly convicted of making sure a state travel contract went to a firm linked to Doyle's re-election campaign.
The judges declared that Thompson was innocent.
They ordered her immediate release from prison.
And they went out of their way to criticize Biskupic's case against the state employee, with Federal Judge Diane Wood saying "the evidence is beyond thin."
The question that arises, at a point when the U.S. House and U.S. Senate judiciary committees are investigating efforts by the Bush administration, Republican members of Congress and GOP operatives to get U.S. attorneys around the country to engage in political prosecutions designed to harm Democrats as the election approached, is whether Biskupic aggressively pursued a case built on evidence that was "beyond thin" in order to assist Republican electoral prospects.
The circumstances surrounding the Thompson prosecution, when seen in the context of the known pressures on U.S. attorneys to conduct political prosecutions, require nothing less. And it happens that Wisconsin's senators, both of whom serve on the Judiciary Committee, are in a position to press the matter. But it should not fall only to Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl to question members of the Bush administration about any and all contacts with Biskupic, and make similar inquiries regarding efforts by current and former Republican Party officials in Wisconsin and nationally to pressure the U.S. Attorney's office.
And the questioning ought not end at the Wisconsin line. As the New York Times noted April 9, in an editorial, "Another Layer of Scandal": "Ms. Thompson's case is not the only one raising questions about whether prosecutors tried last year to tilt close elections toward the Republicans. New Jersey's federal prosecutor conducted an investigation of weak-looking allegations against Senator Robert Menendez that was used in Republican ads."
The bottom line should be clear: The investigation into the politicization of prosecutions by the Bush administration needs to expand dramatically. As this happens, there is good reason to believe that the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys that have to now been so much in the news may turn out to be the lesser scandals brought to light by an inquiry that could yet be the most damning of Bush's presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Once again Mr. Nichols, you're perspicacious indefatigabilty in reporting real "news" eminently impresses. As an appreciater/lover of social justice promoting university towns like Gainesville, Florida and Madison, Wisconsin, I all the more laud your "biscuit" investigating findings provided this evening.
IMPEACH "Chains and Shrub"!
Posted by lewwelge at 04/09/2007 @ 9:39pm
" there is good reason to believe that the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys that have to now been so much in the news may turn out to be the lesser scandals brought to light by an inquiry that could yet be the most damning of Bush's presidency."
Wait a minute so NOW the firings of the USAs may turn out to be the LESSER scandal?!?!?
Geez Louise, Mr Nichols. We haven't even had Gonzales testify before Congress and "perjure himself and then get impeached and then rat out Rove for exoneration and then Rove get indicted and then rat out Bush for a lesser sentence and then Bush get impeached and Cheney too and Speaker Nancy become President"....
and we're already onto the NEXT scandal?!?!?!?
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 9:41pm
(Off topic)
LEW....never got an answer from you, as a PLUNGER fan...
Are you enjoying World War-III and martial law in the USA?
(From the "Move On Townhall" thread)
NUCLEAR WAR IMMINENT – BEGINS FRIDAY
Time is up. World War III starts Friday – and it will coincide with conditions inside the US that lead to Martial Law, through either an Anthrax attack or a phony Bird Flu Outbreak.
Posted by PLUNGER 03/28/2007 @ 7:46pm
Posted by Mask at 04/09/2007 @ 9:45pm
Mask, I'm got plans the next two weekends. Could WWIII be post-poned for a couple of weeks? Back on topic, with the Bush Crime Family you have to stop thinking serially. It isn't one scandal after another, they all overlap and intertwine, kind of like poison ivy.
Posted by hmnpwr at 04/09/2007 @ 11:33pm
You can feel the change of wind direction, and hints of the sweet smell of impeachment are wafting about noticeably.
In the meantime, I have significant concerns about the final acts of the cornered junta on Pennsylvania Av. These are tenuous times.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/10/2007 @ 12:21am
I SWEAR YOU STUPID LIBZ HAVE A PENIS ENVY PROBLEM WITH KARL ROVE....THERE IS NOT A DAMN THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT HIM AND YOU NITWITS KNOW IT
Posted by looneylefties at 04/10/2007 @ 12:33am
So good to hear the words of wisdom from the ambassador of the right. Tell me Looneybin, did you happen to catch your goddess, Katrina, on Colbert this evening? Don't lie. I know you picked out your favorite ball gag (the one you had autographed by Dubya), and prayed to the television that she could step through the screen, and give you the whipping of a lifetime.
Lord knows it might do you some good to be smacked silly. It might even knock some semblence of sense into you.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/10/2007 @ 12:55am
Posted by B_KOOL_66 04/10/2007 @ 12:21am
You can feel the change of wind direction, and hints of the sweet smell of impeachment are wafting about noticeably.
That ain't impeachment you're smelling, dude, it's the cyanide aroma from the vat of kool-aid.
In the meantime, I have significant concerns about the final acts of the cornered junta on Pennsylvania Av. These are tenuous times.
Don't worry, the nice lady with your meds will be along soon.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 05:45am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/10/2007 @ 01:16am
I'm hearing that this scandal may be even bigger than Watergate.
No, Frank, that was the last 'scandal', you remember, don't you? The one where Libby revealed the name of the super duper top-secret spy Valerie Plame? The lady who commuted to CIA HQ in a convertible Jag?
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 05:50am
Posted by HMNPWR 04/09/2007 @ 11:33pm
Tangled mess that poison ivy......I figure it'll take about 21 months, 12 days to sort out.
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 09:00am
Ponty,
"The one where Libby revealed the name of the super duper top-secret spy Valerie Plame?"
And was convicted for it, while questions remain about Rove's note. we haven't seen the end of that one, despite whatever your wishful utterings on the subject. But enough about treasonously exposing CIA assets during a time of war.
How do you feel about the politicisation of the justice department or the circumvention of document retention rules? Or do you still consider them to be lesser events than a sneaky Joe Blob?
Posted by Draconis at 04/10/2007 @ 09:04am
Pont et al,
This is an enormous problem which you seem to be glossing over like crazy, because the subversion of the legal process is extremely illegal, and this does appear to contain quite a few circumventions, the most obvious being using external email rather than WhiteHouse internal. This is bad from both the angle of the retention of documents and also from a security point of view. Something that apparently Republicans can't be bothered doing more than talk about.
If it appears that Republican appointees were pressured into taking political action over and above the legal requirments, then this subverts the whole concept of Democracy. Again, I'm confused as to what Pontificus thinks he gains by trying to handwave these things off, this is about the rule of law. The rule of law.
Pontificus, you really need to go look into the nations that frequently circumvent their own rule of law to produce political results and ask yourself if you really want to be supporting those kinds of regimes as your posts clearly show.
Posted by Draconis at 04/10/2007 @ 09:12am
Posted by DRACONIS 04/10/2007 @ 09:04am
How do you feel about the politicisation of the justice department or the circumvention of document retention rules?
Well, personally, I'm ready to take to the streets over the circumvention of the document retention rules.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 09:13am
Posted by DRACONIS 04/10/2007 @ 09:04am
How do you feel about the politicisation of the justice department
As soon as someone tells me what they mean by 'politicization of the justice department' during the Bush Administration, and how that differs from what Clinton and any other President did, I'll decide how I feel about that.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 09:16am
Ponti-Gonzales said he wouldn't fire anyone for political reasons and said so under oath.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 09:21am
U.S. attorneys serve at the behest of the present administration. It is their job to argue cases in federal court the way their administration wants them too. Of course they are partisian!
Give me a break.
Posted by Zeddmen at 04/10/2007 @ 09:28am
Looneytunes-Rove never has a woman by his side and never has had one so I don't think penis envy is a problem for us,but maybe is for Rove.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 09:33am
As soon as someone tells me what they mean by 'politicization of the justice department' during the Bush Administration, and how that differs from what Clinton and any other President did, I'll decide how I feel about that.
Posted by PONTIFICUS
So it's okay if Clinton or others did it? That's the same lame excuse the right has been using for Nixon's malfeasance. ("He was only doing what all the others did before him.") First off, Nixon went far beyond simple political shennanigans. Secondly, this is about the law. The right, the "law and order" crowd are always running their mouths about the Dems, but when it's one of their own, they suddenly begin making excuses. Regardless of their party, if a pol chooses to break the law (especially in an attempt to influence elections and/or subvert the Constitution) he/she should be held accountable by all. This is not about party affiliation.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 09:37am
Do you recall how confident Rove was going into the 2006 elections? Maybe his "math" meant using U.S. attorneys to derail Democratic candidates.
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/10/2007 @ 09:43am
Again, excuse me, but read what Mr Nichols wrote...
"As this happens, there is good reason to believe that the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys that have to now been so much in the news may turn out to be the lesser scandals brought to light by an inquiry that could yet be the most damning of Bush's presidency."
Now just a while back, the "firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys" WAS the major scandal and all the posts and blogs and talk was how THAT was going to lead to Rove's ouster, impeachment, etc., etc.,etc.
NOW....it's the LESSER scandal?!?!?! And before that? "Fitzmas" and "Plame-gate" were going to "get" Rove/Bush/Cheney. "Got Libby didn't it?"...yeah...and he'll do six months in Minimum Security and then get a cushy job in Dubai with a "certain company", making a couple mill a year. And that's where it ended....Fitzgerald himself said so.
So, at some point folks, might we not be a bit cynical that ANY of these scandals is going to be "The One"?
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 09:54am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 09:37am
Your post is full of straw men and similarly flawed reasoning. You need to simply read and respond to what I said. I never said it was 'okay if Clinton did it'. Tell me what exactly Bush has done that is wrong, and how that differs from the traditional role of Presidents in overseeing the Justice Department. I still haven't heard you respond to that.
I have heard that a number of these attorneys (mostly Democrats, I believe) were less than diligent in pursuing investigations of cases where there was a lot of activity that may or may not have been voter fraud in districts where Democrats won by very very slim margins. I think the Bush Admin did the right thing, the country (or at least my half) deserves better.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 09:59am
Oh, please, Mask, it's a little early for this nit picking chicken shit garbage of yours. You might try a little Zoloft for that obsessive/compulsive problem of yours. Can you read? Try reading it again, maybe this time you'll comprehend what is being stated.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by MASK 04/10/2007 @ 09:54am
So, at some point folks, might we not be a bit cynical that ANY of these scandals is going to be "The One"?
Impeachment is the Great White Whale of the left. The only question is, who should we cast as Captain Ahab? We cerainly have more than enough crew here at The Nation.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 10:01am
As soon as someone tells me what they mean by 'politicization of the justice department' during the Bush Administration, and how that differs from what Clinton and any other President did, I'll decide how I feel about that.
Your post is full of straw men and similarly flawed reasoning. You need to simply read and respond to what I said. I never said it was 'okay if Clinton did it'. Tell me what exactly Bush has done that is wrong, and how that differs from the traditional role of Presidents in overseeing the Justice Department. I still haven't heard you respond to that.
Posted by PONTIFICUS
Did you bother to read what Nichols wrote?
Flawed reasoning?
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:21am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 10:00am
"nit-picking"!?!? Mr Nichols just threw out the whole "firing of the 8 Attorneys" and put it on the 2nd tier of scandals?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 10:21am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 10:01am
I'd love to see Bush and Cheney impeached; apparently it's the ONLY way that Nancy Pelosi can find to end the war...
but it ain't happening and yes, only the delusional think it will.
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 10:22am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 10:00am
"nit-picking"!?!? Mr Nichols just threw out the whole "firing of the 8 Attorneys" and put it on the 2nd tier of scandals?!?!?
Posted by MASK
Try reading what he wrote, git.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:24am
Can any of you thoughtful, truth-seeking posters produce any relevant statisics on the crime of voter fraud?
If it is as pervasive a threat to our democratic process as has been asserted, it would behoove us all as voting citizens to arm ourselves with as complete a knowledge of the subject as possible.
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 10:25am
Posted by DRHAMMER
Yeah, afterall the Repubs are in control of the Justice Dept; you would think that if this wide spread voter fraud really existed, it would be investigated, revealed, prosecuted.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:29am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 10:21am
Did you bother to read what Nichols wrote?
Flawed reasoning?
I did read it. Nichols accuses the Bush Administration of pervaasive corruption based on his analysis of what 'looks like' politically-motivated prosecutions and one case in which it appears a prosecutor may have gone over-the-line Fitzgerald-style. A mighty thin gruel, indeed. It may look like red-meat to you and the other partisan hacks, however, but it doesn't look like much to the rest of us.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 10:30am
Posted by PONTIFICUS
If this was the only instance of wrong doing on the part of the present administration, sure it would be nothing more than a reach. With this cabal's track record, however, only a partisan hack could fail to connect the dots. How often does an appeals court overturn a conviction and make such a strong comment? Almost never.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:35am
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/10/2007 @ 10:25am
Can any of you thoughtful, truth-seeking posters produce any relevant statisics on the crime of voter fraud?
As the nation becomes more and more equally divided and polarized, it is more important than ever that each and every vote be counted accurately and that every citizen is provided a reasonable assurance that that is the case. In several traditional Democratic states, there is an awful lot of suspicious activity, e.g., phony ballots, ballots cast by dead voters, and boxes of ballots 'discovered' in the process of recounts. It seems more than a little suspicious that the more recounting that is done in Democratic districts, the more Democratic votes are 'discovered'.
From what I have heard, a number of the DA's that were shitcanned were Democrats who were less than diligent in pursuing voter fraud investigations in districts that were very narrowly won by Democrats AND where there was a lot of suspicious ballot and electioneering activity by Democratic local party machines. Clinton never had this problem, because he cashiered every single holdover from Bush I and replaced them with his own people. In contrast, Bush in the spirit of bipartisanship declined the wholesale replacement of officials with party hacks that was not uncommon prior to his election. This is yet another case where Bush II's attempt at bipartisanship has come back to bite him in the ass.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 10:39am
As soon as someone tells me what they mean by 'politicization of the justice department' during the Bush Administration, and how that differs from what Clinton and any other President did, I'll decide how I feel about that.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 09:16am
It may look like red-meat to you and the other partisan hacks, however, but it doesn't look like much to the rest of us.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 10:30am
Let's just see what Pontificus thinks when a Democrat is in the White House. I bet he will have a firm grasp of the issues then.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:41am
"From what I have heard..." Posted by PONTIFICUS
Let's see some references. I hear a lot of things; it doesn't mean it's true. And as I said, the Repubs are in control of the Justice Dept...
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:42am
This is yet another case where Bush II's attempt at bipartisanship has come back to bite him in the ass.
Posted by PONTIFICUS
Are you on drugs? Bipartisanship? This administration? You need to watch something besides Faux News.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 10:44am
Here's another interesting twist on the U.S. Attorney issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR200704 0901227.html?hpid=topnews
Posted by BlueTexan at 04/10/2007 @ 10:51am
Opinion and anecdote certainly have their place in our discourse, but they are not what I was looking for. For the sake of clarity, I will repeat my request:
Can any of you thoughtful, truth-seeking posters produce any relevant statisics on the crime of voter fraud?
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 11:06am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 10:44am
Are you on drugs? Bipartisanship? This administration? You need to watch something besides Faux News.
And I contend that it is YOU who are on drugs and under the influence of propaganda.
Bush, unlike his predecessors, did NOT replace all 90-odd US Attorneys with his own people, ie., he let Democrat holdovers stay in office. In contrast, Clinton fired everyone (just like he did the travel office) and replaced them with Party faithful. And you call BUSH partisan? You need a reality check.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 11:08am
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/10/2007 @ 11:06am
Can any of you thoughtful, truth-seeking posters produce any relevant statisics on the crime of voter fraud?
You'll have to be a little more specific. It seems sure that there's been a lot of voter fraud in this country, and it seems sure that it almost never gets caught. In most cases, all we have are anecdotes.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 11:12am
Clinton was not the only Prez to do that; furthmore, he did it at the very beginning of his term, (which is what the other presidents did) rather than cherry picking late in the cycle. If you watched something other than Faux News you would understand that.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 11:14am
In most cases, all we have are anecdotes.
Posted by PONTIFICU
All you have is hear say spread by the likes of Faux News.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 11:15am
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 11:14am
Clinton was not the only Prez to do that; furthmore, he did it at the very beginning of his term, (which is what the other presidents did) rather than cherry picking late in the cycle. If you watched something other than Faux News you would understand that.
And again you miss the point. Clinton had the right to do that, it's just that it's classed as a partisan action, whereas NOT doing wholesale cashiering is the reverse. We were talking about bipartisanship, and how Clinton's handling of DA's was partisan and Bush's was not. You just don't seem to be capable of staying on-point.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 11:16am
Ponti-Bush could be the most partisan president in our history.He is the only president to divide the nation following an attack on the nation.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 11:17am
"From what I have heard..." Posted by PONTIFICUS
I think you heard wrong.
Harry Earnest "Bud" Cummins III - In 1996 he ran as a Republican for the U.S. Congress, losing 52-48 to Democrat Vic Snyder in a race noted for personal attacks. He later served as Governor Mike Huckabee's Chief Legal Counsel.
David Iglesias - He ran for New Mexico Attorney General as a Republican in 1998.
John McKay - He had been a top litigator, was popular with law enforcement, and was a solid Republican and supporter of the Patriot Act.
Kevin V. Ryan - The Los Angeles Times reported on March 22, 2007, that Ryan was a "loyal Bush supporter." "You would have to know Kevin," said UC Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little. "You can't find a stronger supporter of the Bush administration agenda." Some lawyers in San Francisco speculated that Ryan hung on so long because of strong political connections. One of them, Gerald Parsky, a Los Angeles-based Republican fundraiser who vetted federal appointments in California for the Bush administration, quickly came to Ryan's aid.
Daniel G. Bogden – He remembered getting a call almost six years ago from U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and being asked about his party affiliation. I said, "Sir, you know, I vote with my conscience, and I will vote with the best candidate, whether that's a Democrat or Republican. So I guess you have to say I'm independent. And he still went ahead and nominated me." (from the Las Vegas Sun, March 25, 2007)
I could not find much either way on the other three (Lam, Charlton and Chiara), but perhaps you "heard" something. I didn't find anything indicating any are Democrats.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2007 @ 11:17am
In most cases, all we have are anecdotes.
Posted by PONTIFICU
Was it Hitler or Goebbels that said you have only to repeat a lie over and over again until it is accepted as fact? That's all you're attempting to do. Like I said, the Repubs are running the Justice Dept right now; if there was voter fraud you'd think they could uncover it.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 11:18am
I'm nobody,
You're not suggesting that Rove was the reason that Jeff Gannon (an uncredentialed "reporter" who was really a gay male prostitute) was admitted dozens of times (when there wasn't even press briefings) without EVER passing a real security screening are you?
Now come I'm nobody that would be just AWFUL of you to suggest something that muckraking!!!
Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2007 @ 11:18am
And again you miss the point. Clinton had the right to do that, it's just that it's classed as a partisan action, whereas NOT doing wholesale cashiering is the reverse. We were talking about bipartisanship, and how Clinton's handling of DA's was partisan and Bush's was not. You just don't seem to be capable of staying on-point.
Posted by PONTIFICUS
No, you fail to get the point.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 11:18am
FreedomPlease-I was trying to avoid being caught muckraking by appearing to make a casual observation,but you caught me.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 11:28am
Was it Hitler or Goebbels that said you have only to repeat a lie over and over again until it is accepted as fact? That's all you're attempting to do. Like I said, the Repubs are running the Justice Dept right now; if there was voter fraud you'd think they could uncover it.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 11:18am
DING! DING! DING!.....First "Nazi" reference for the week....
the Godwin Award goes to...MTSPENCE!!!!!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 11:32am
Whoops, wait....the Judges have disputed that...
seems I'M NOBODY discussing Fox News earlier said that any Democrats going on it would be like Jews going to the "goebbels network".
Followed shortly by John Nichols saying that Democrats SHOULD go on Fox.
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 11:34am
I'm nobody,
Oh my bad then!!!
For the record, I want to say that I DO NOT think that Gannon was in the WH for anything other than real "reporter" reasons (even the very late night visits).
On the other hand I think that Ann Coulter's visits have been due to a top / bottom relationship she has with Condi Rice!
Posted by freedomplease at 04/10/2007 @ 11:41am
Mask-It's a matter of having knowledge about history and using that knowledge when appropriate.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 11:44am
FreedomPlease-Ann and Condi?Good thing I already ate breakfast or the thought of that would have ruined my appetite.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 11:12am
Actually, if you read the question closely, you will see that I am asking my fellow posters, yourself included, to be specific.
Your response still falls short of answering my question. Still, your assertion that "In most cases, all we have are anecdotes.", implies that in the others, there is evidence of wrongdoing. Therefore, anyone looking to substantiate this argument should be able to produce either documentation of credible evidence not acted upon, or statistics for subsequent indictments, in any jurisdiction, political affiliations notwithstanding.
How would you feel about being investigated, and/or indicted, and/or destroyed in the media on the strength of anecdote, without corroborating evidence?
And my question stands.
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 11:55am
PONTI with his "from what I have heard" is strangely similar to FOX's "people are saying" bit to qualify the balderdash they foist upon the public who then "decides" (reflects each and every humbug sold to them before brilliant flags and skellums barking the most inane trumpery). Such tiny catchpolls as PONTI epitomize the utter lack of individual thought in the USA, proving how lazy people have become by relying upon the boob tube as their primary source of knowledge and of course, conversation.
But to belabor the existence of fraud in US politics is ridiculous, for both sides benefit from it, from voter registration to gerrymandering to corrupted voting machines. Is the whole enterprise a sordid mess? Do you bite a chip every time you eat a Chips Ahoy? It's easy to cast blame upon Bush, Clinton or their myriad minions, but the corruption stretches much higher to the banks and corporate interests who finance the campaigns and make the legislation that allows the world to become as tractable and predictable as the little game of electing the next president. Bush just gets paid to read speeches written by his monied overlords… and blow international support after 9-11 while bungling what should have been an easy war. But oh, how the bankers love debt and the fetters it introduces...
Posted by chimichenga at 04/10/2007 @ 12:01pm
I SWEAR YOU STUPID LIBZ HAVE A PENIS ENVY PROBLEM WITH KARL ROVE..
Gee, Rove HAS a dick?
I always thought he was Just Another Dickless Wonder. Filled with hate and bile, but dickless none the less.
has he ever been seen in the comany of a woman?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 12:22pm
Imagine you're a US Attorney.
A senator, or congressperson, or DOJ official indicates that you should be pursuing allegations of voter fraud involving a certain citizen. With the utmost diligence and concern for the law, you determine that there is simply not enough evidence to indict, or even pursue an investigation. When pressed by superiors, you, as a principled career attorney say either:
a.) "OK. We'll find something.", or
b.) "I'm not going to bring this guy to trial if there's no evidence."
Because US Attorney John McKay chose (his version of) b.).
And he got shit-canned for it.
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 12:23pm
From what I have heard, a number of the DA's that were shitcanned were Democrats who were less than diligent in pursuing voter fraud investigations in districts that were very narrowly won by Democrats AND where there was a lot of suspicious ballot and electioneering activity by Democratic local party machines.
Ponti you are so full of shit.
Iglesias was a good Rep foot soldier who found no evidence of voter fraud, refused to peruse it according to Karl Roves wishes in order to pollute the election, and was shit canned for not trumping up charges to help re-elect repugs.
Can your little mind grasp how that destroys democracy, or are you really just an ignorant, shit-spewing old fool?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 12:46pm
Bush, unlike his predecessors, did NOT replace all 90-odd US Attorneys with his own people, ie., he let Democrat holdovers stay in office. In contrast, Clinton fired everyone (just like he did the travel office) and replaced them with Party faithful. And you call BUSH partisan? You need a reality check.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 11:08am
ARE YOU DELUSIONAL????? Bush replaced ALL us attorneys on taking office, asshole. Jesus christ, at least TRY to be SOMEWHAT honest would you?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 12:22pm
Karl Rove's sexual preference is of no concern to me, but you hit on a theme that intrigues me, (at least in my more testosterone-poisoned moments.)
Most of the chickenhawk neocon jerk-offs responsible for trashing our nation seem to be doughy little geeks with something to prove, as if they'd had too many towels snapped at them in gym class, or had been relieved of their lunch money too many times. Now they're in their glory, simultaneously orchestrating Machiavellian political plots while facilitating our invasion and occupation of non-threatening, energy-rich nations from the comfort of their leather-wrapped, hemorrhoid-donutted desk chairs.
I know that this rant is more gut-level than clinical, but fuck these PNAC peckerheads. Each and every last one of 'em should be ferreted out and sent packing.
With a crippling wedgie.
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 12:48pm
Ponti-Bush could be the most partisan president in our history.He is the only president to divide the nation following an attack on the nation.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/10/2007 @ 11:17am
AND FOR PURELY POLITCIAL SELF_SERVING REASONS.
KKKarl Rove should fucking hang for what he and his ilk have done to this country.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 12:50pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 12:48pm
Get used to it with Pontificus.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2007 @ 1:02pm
a.) "OK. We'll find something.", or
b.) "I'm not going to bring this guy to trial if there's no evidence."
Because US Attorney John McKay chose (his version of) b.).
And he got shit-canned for it.
As well as Iglesias.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 04/10/2007 @ 12:48pm
I'm in, big time. We'll wedgie until there's nothing left to wedgie.
And I think you hit it on the head with the rest of your analysis.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 1:28pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/10/2007 @ 1:02pm
And that poor benighted creature claims to be a man of GOD?
No wonder organized religion is held in such low regard.
I wonder if he's a kiddie fucker too.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 1:29pm
Mask-It's a matter of having knowledge about history and using that knowledge when appropriate.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 04/10/2007 @ 11:44am
History includes things 8 days ago...right?
The Nation editorial | posted April 2, 2007 (April 16, 2007 issue) A Wider Corruption
"The US Attorneys scandal is at once particular to the Justice Department and part of a much broader picture. The narrow scandal--the subject of scheduled testimony by Gonzales scapegoat Kyle Sampson and of Senate subpoenas to top White House staff--is bad enough: The allegation that Gonzales fired US Attorneys who would not elevate politics above professionalism goes to the heart of public safety and the rule of law. By itself, this scandal should finish not just Gonzales but Karl Rove, Bush's top political operative, and Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel, and anyone else involved. They all deserve investigation, and probably indictments."
Mr Nichols TODAY--"The real story of the U.S. Attorneys scandal that has so endangered the tenure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not that of the eight fired prosecutors."
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 1:38pm
Mr Nichols TODAY--"The real story of the U.S. Attorneys scandal that has so endangered the tenure of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not that of the eight fired prosecutors."
Posted by MASK
Look at me, look at me, I'm so cute and smart. Pathetic.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/10/2007 @ 1:43pm
Mask-Yes,history does include anything in the past including 8 days ago.
Posted by i'm nobody at 04/10/2007 @ 1:43pm
I could not find much either way on the other three (Lam, Charlton and Chiara), but perhaps you "heard" something. I didn't find anything indicating any are Democrats.
Posted by HMAN23 04/10/2007 @ 11:17am | ignore this person
Don't ask Hatch HMAN....partisan politics indeed!
"You don't call, you don't write...orrin hatch
I've just about exhausted myself trying to get someone in your office to call me back this week. Please apologize to your adorable receptionist on my behalf - the poor man now gets audibly exasperated as soon as I say "hello".
What I'd like to talk with you about is very simple: on NBC's Meet the Press this past Sunday, you said this about Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego who was fired by the Justice Department in December:
"She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton"
I checked the transcript against the video, and it's clear to me that you weren't misquoted.
Here's my question for you or your staff: what in the Lord's name are you talking about?
Here at Air America, we called John Emerson, who managed Clinton's California campaign in '92 and again in '96 to ask if Carol Lam had been the "campaign manager in Southern California for Clinton" - you might have thought we'd asked him if the sky was green.
First of all, uh, NO, she wasn't.
And second, Carol Lam was an Assistant US Attorney at the time of Clinton's campaigns, and she therefore couldn't have also been a campaign manager for any presidential candidate without violating the (ironically-named) Hatch Act, which restricts political activity by federal government employees.
Then we called a source close to Carol Lam in California, who expressed utter bewilderment at what old Orrin said on Meet the Press.
The source confirmed for us publicly-available documents about Lam's career which indicate that she is not a law professor, she's "been a federal prosecutor for nearly 18 years and [has] never been a fundraiser for any president".
Senator Hatch, what's going on here?
Were you thinking of someone else? You seemed under the weather on Sunday -- did you maybe fall asleep and wake up in the middle of what you thought was a totally different interview - an interview about someone who DID work for Clinton's campaign?
Don't you want to apologize and set the record straight? Won't you be embarrassed if Meet the Press has to run a correction about something you said, that you won't retract?
Or do you have secret information that no one else has, that will back up your off-the-wall claims about Carol Lam?
Senator Hatch, call me.
My voicemails have filled up the systems on all of your press guys' phones, so I know you know how to reach me.
When you call me back, I'll give you all the time you want on my radio show to either explain your top-secret Carol Lam information, or to apologize for your utterly outrageous, inexplicable smear.
I know it's difficult to have to defend the Bush Administration for their political purge of the US Attorneys -- but that doesn't mean you get to make stuff up about the US attorneys that you think will make it seem like they deserved what they got.
Come on, come on, Senator Hatch. I caught you on this one. Return my calls -- I'll help you make it all better.
All best wishes,
Rachel Maddow
Host, "The Rachel Maddow Show"
Posted by OneVote at 04/10/2007 @ 1:48pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 11:18am
And again you miss the point. ...
Posted by PONTIFICUS
No, you fail to get the point.
Empty, if you can't do better than that, you're going on IGNORE. I really don't have the time to argue using 5th grade logic.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 1:59pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 1:59pm
How about a little good old fashioned honesty?
Do you have time for THAT? Or is that another one of those quiant liberal notions - you know, tell the truth?
Isn't there some commandment about that too?
I'm not a preacher, but it rings a bell.......
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:11pm
Or is it a matter of being incapable of dealing with facts?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:11pm
Either way, it would appear you would stand on your head to excuse bushes in-excusable behavior.
Is that a Christian thing?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:12pm
Over time, conservatism's hideously twisted moral sense has spawned abortion-clinic bombers, KKK nightriders, antiunion thugs, cruel gaybashers, and rabid witch hunters. Its "righteousness" is responsible for the murders of literally millions of infidels, Indians, and slaves. It also started the majority of humankind's dirtiest wars.
That's your heritage, ponti. Proud?
Who Would Jesus Hate?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:18pm
You are one piss-poor excuse for a human being ponti.
Not that you care.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:21pm
Look at me, look at me, I'm so cute and smart. Pathetic.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/10/2007 @ 1:43pm
I'm sorry....did you actually refute what I posted?
10 days ago, the FIRING OF THE 8 US ATTORNEYS (to quote the editors of "The Nation") "goes to the heart of public safety and the rule of law" and "By itself, ...should finish not just Gonzales but Karl Rove"
NOW (to quote John Nichols) "the real story" is NOT "that of the eight fired prosecutors".
Now you Orwellians may believe what you read in the Times, and flush the rest down the "memory hole"....but I for one REMEMBER when Oceania was at war with Eurasia, not Eastasia!
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 2:25pm
Posted by MASK 04/10/2007 @ 2:25pm
Times change, try to keep up.
Think of it as the tip of the corrupt bush regime iceberg.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:27pm
Like when a cop pulls a guy over for speeding and then finds out the car is stolen.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 2:37pm
HMAN,
As always, although I might otherwise bother to refute your well-documented but nevertheless misguided erudition, I will decline to re-invent the wheel and simply re-direct you away from the overheated bloviations of The Nation to saner precincts, namely in this case the Chicago Sun-Times (which if it has not previously been linked to the vast right wing conspiracy, surely it has now been):
All the fuss about fired U.S. attorneys is just a partisan ploy (http://www.suntimes.com/news/laney/302727,CST-EDT-LANEY19.article)
March 19, 2007
BY MARY LANEY
It's getting old. It's hurting my ears. It's wasting our tax dollars. This partisan fighting in Washington just has to end. There is business, I presume, to take care of in the halls of Congress. Finding fake issues and feeding them to the news machines is not what we elected our senators and members of Congress to do.
Taking issue with everything the Bush administration attempts to do and labeling it as wrong, illegal, a challenge to our civil rights or overreaching one's authority has become a partisan mantra built on fake issues.
Fake issue No. 1: the hoopla being made over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of several U.S. attorneys. Critics -- otherwise known as left-leaning Democrats -- are holding hearings into just why the federal prosecutors were fired.
Now, the Democrats know that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the administration. They also know that President Bill Clinton had his attorney general, Janet Reno, fire all 93 U.S. attorneys when he was in the White House -- marking the first time such a mass firing was ever ordered by any administration. Prior to that, prosecutors were replaced when their terms had lapsed or the attorney general decided it was time to bring in a replacement.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has stated that the Clinton administration's massive firing was OK because it came at the beginning of the Clinton administration and all new administrations have a right to make changes. What she didn't mention was this: The U.S. attorney in Arkansas was in the middle of an investigation into the Clintons' questionable dealings in that state. When that U.S. attorney was fired, the investigation went up in smoke. Why? Could it be because President Clinton replaced the U.S. attorney in Arkansas with his friend from law school, Harry E. Cummins III? Just asking. Cummins, by the way, is one of the U.S. attorneys whom Gonzales just ousted.
I should point out that one of the ousted U.S. attorneys led the prosecution of those border patrol officers who were sent to prison for shooting and wounding a drug trafficker who had attempted to cross the Mexican-U.S. border. Isn't this the type of U.S. attorney that the attorney general might be dissatisfied with? Isn't it up to the attorney general to decide just who is doing a solid job and which federal prosecutors might do better, say, in another line of work?
Some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are complaining that Gonzales is too close to the White House. Hmmm. President John Kennedy named his brother Robert attorney general, and you can't get much closer than that.
As far as the White House influencing the attorney general, did these same Democrats wonder why Reno refused to investigate how a member of the Clinton administration got ahold of private FBI files? Did they complain and feed such information to the news media? You know the answer: no.
So why all the hoopla over Gonzales firing these U.S. attorneys? Why are some partisans declaring that Gonzales should step down from the post? They know that the attorney general could legally fire all 93 U.S. attorneys. They've seen it happen. They're just counting on you not knowing nor remembering it.
The hoopla isn't about these U.S. attorneys. The flak we're being served on a daily basis simply has to do with politics. It has to do with control. It has to do with winning at all costs. It has to do with 2008 and making certain they win in 2008.
This partisan fighting isn't about getting things done for us, the taxpayers; it's about taking control for themselves, the candidates.
Tell them to forget it.
Tell them to stop the partisan fighting and get some work done.
Your tax dollars are paying for it -- and for them.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 2:21pm
You are one piss-poor excuse for a human being ponti.
Not that you care.
Doc, just to humor me, would you give us a rendition of "Avast ye mateys, yonder blows the Great White Whale!! ARRRRR!!!"
Come on, just for me. Jingle the bells on your hat, PLEASE???
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 3:00pm
Over time, conservatism's hideously twisted moral sense has spawned abortion-clinic bombers, KKK nightriders, antiunion thugs, cruel gaybashers, and rabid witch hunters. Its "righteousness" is responsible for the murders of literally millions of infidels, Indians, and slaves. It also started the majority of humankind's dirtiest wars.
That's your heritage, ponti. Proud?
Who Would Jesus Hate?
If I had to make a choice, I'd take the horrors of the Inquisition and the domestic terrorism of the KKK over the totalitarianism and systematic slaughter of tens of millions of people that the misguided utopianism of the left brought us over the last 100 years.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 3:08pm
"President John Kennedy named his brother Robert attorney general, and you can't get much closer than that."
So you affirm your political beliefs by quoting someone who would compare Alberto Gonzales to RFK.
Wow.
Posted by drhammer at 04/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 3:00pm
Right after you kiss me bloody fookin' arse, moron.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
If I had to make a choice, I'd take the horrors of the Inquisition and the domestic terrorism of the KKK over the totalitarianism and systematic slaughter of tens of millions of people that the misguided utopianism of the left brought us over the last 100 years.
Ponti
So move to Iran, asswipe.
You don't deserve freedom, it frightens you too much.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
Right after you kiss me bloody fookin' arse, moron.
Hey Doc, when this 'scandal' blows away, which 'issue' will be next to 'justify' Bush's impeachment? Funny, but the Plame investigation seems in retrospect to be a microcosm of the whole effort to impeach Bush: "We haven't found out why yet, but we just know Bush ought to be impeached! And the fact that we haven't found out yet just proves what evil liars they are!!!"
Ah, brings me back to my college days. How did it go then?
'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'
'What's in it?' said the Queen.
'I haven't opened it yet,' said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to - to somebody.'
'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'
'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.
'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'
'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.
'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)
'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'
'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'
There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 3:20pm
Nice of you to be so dismissive of the multitude of crimes commited by your gang.
Were you so dismissive during the Clinton years? Somehow I think not.
Wiull you be so dismissive when we finally have the whole truth, and yor gang is revealed to be the power mad bunch of shits they are?
Will you find some way to stand truth on it's head and say, well, the Clintons were worse?
Is that what they taught you in Divinity School, or are you a fucking mail order preacher?
Do you have ANY morals at all?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:29pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 3:29pm
Nice of you to be so dismissive of the multitude of crimes commited by your gang.
Yeah, all those crimes. Wow, just look at them all. Oh wait a minute, there aren't any.
Why don't you throw a few more profanities around, Doc. Maybe you'll sound more convincing.
Posted by pontificus at 04/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
YO PONTI,
Come on, just for me. Jingle the bells on your hat, PLEASE???
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 3:00pm
I see you have locked horns with one Dr Loudmouth apparently, total waste of electrons old sport..take a pass and move on....give it up Ponti..he will resort to name calling shortly into any conversation with almost school girl like manner. Go back and reread his posts and I believe you ,too, will conclude you are fishing in shallow water where your bait is more desirable than anything you may catch...so to speak.
And by the way..it is not a hat with bells...it is a hat with a spinning propellar on top...a red one..the bell sound must have come from his ears...it could be a new phenomena...or species of emotional loon..we may have to erect a new tier to the kook section.
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/10/2007 @ 3:37pm
Make you a deal.....
You try to act like a Christian......
And I'll watch my language.
Until then what are you, a 12 year old school girl?
As Mr Civility, dick cheney once said "go fuck yourself"
Gee, I feel much better!
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/10/2007 @ 3:38pm
Hey twinkle toes, same to you.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:40pm
Ponti, you failed to answer the rest of the questions, namely:
Is that what they taught you in Divinity School, or are you a fucking mail order preacher?
Do you have ANY morals at all?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:42pm
I'm not the nice forgiving easy to smack around liberal you're used to huh?
Too bad bubba.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 3:43pm
I believe you ,too, will conclude you are fishing in shallow water where your bait is more desirable than anything you may catch...so to speak.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/10/2007 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person
Pontdufus...I think John means that your arguments are shallow and meant to bait intelligent people into a reaction with a dufus which is a waste of time. John is a very good fisherman as evidenced by his shallow water posts.
Posted by OneVote at 04/10/2007 @ 4:40pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/10/2007 @ 4:40pm
Nice try...Chumbing the waters?....:)
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 4:52pm
Whatever bozo.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 4:54pm
Think of it as the tip of the corrupt bush regime iceberg.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/10/2007 @ 2:27pm
Sorry, Doc...but wasn't "Plame-gate" the "tip of the corrupt bush regime iceberg" just a year or so ago?
Or is it like "twin peaks"?...or more like Uluru and a big plateau of corruption?....or some other glacio-geological formation?
Oops, wait a minute, with global warming....maybe the PREVIOUS "iceberg tip" melted and the berg flipped to the "blue side" and this is THAT "tip"?
Either way, HSUBFOOLS has predicted bills of impeachment out of the US House no later than Halloween this year.....so in 6 months or so, we'll know if THIS was a "tip"....or just some free flowing chunk ice that bounces harmlessly off the hull and Jack and Rose go onto live out happy lives in Chippewa Falls. (obscure reference)
Posted by Mask at 04/10/2007 @ 4:56pm
Nice try...Chumbing the waters?....:)
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/10/2007 @ 4:52pm | ignore this person
Yep...just caught myself a lamprey eel.
Posted by OneVote at 04/10/2007 @ 5:00pm
"happy lives in Chippewa Falls. (obscure reference)"
An small town in Northwestern Wisconsin and home of Leinenkugel brewry over 100 years old and in the same family...won international beer awards..in Germany...
For you mask.
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 5:01pm
Throw cash at it..
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 5:01pm
Altho a lamprey does fit the government attitutde towards a tax payer...
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 5:02pm
Whatever bozo.
Dems pay bills, Repugs just charge it to our children.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 5:10pm
Pontificus –
As a preliminary point, my post to you responded to your unfounded contnetion that most of the US attorneys fired were Democrats, a claim you have yet to support. I found information showing 5 of the 8 are Republicans, a few even running for office as Republicans. Since, then, I found out Chiara is a Republican and Bogden and Lam are Independents. So, I can see why you want to "re-direct" me after batting .000 in that regard.
As for Ms. Laney's article, I have a few points, and since you are speaking through her, I guess I will direct them to you:
1. The "critics" of the current scandal encompass more than just "left leaning Democrats." Many Republicans have been highly critical of Gonzales and the adminsitration, inlduing among others, Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Hagel, John Sununu, and Lee Terry, among others. Also note that more than 70% of the American public support the investigation into the White House role in the firings; I wonder if Laney thinks 70% of the public is "lef leaning."
2. Laney is just plain wrong that Bill Clinton appointed Bud Cummins. Everything I have read indicates that Bush appointed Cummins (a Republican who ran for Congress in 1996) in November 2001.
3.Laney is mistaken to allude that Clinton's replacement of the U.S. Attorneys during his first term was somhow unique. In contrast, this is a common occurrence for all administrations from Reagan to the present.
L.A. Times [tinyurl.com]
Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.
In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.
The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.
4. Another falsehood from Laney is that Clinton fired ALL of the 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.
(From the above article)
In Los Angeles . . . Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992, and he served through 1993, Clinton's first year in office. Nora Manella, Clinton's choice for the post, took over in 1994.
In Pittsburgh, Corbett stayed in office until August [1993], when a new Clinton appointee won confirmation.
In New Jersey, Michael Chertoff, a 1990 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, continued into the Clinton administration before leaving in 1994.
In western Michigan, John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, served until the beginning of 1994. "I knew I would be resigning, but I wasn't sure of the timing. I ended up serving for one year of the Clinton administration," he said.
5. Most importantly, Laney fails to acknowledge is that what is unique in this situation is the fact that eight U.S. Attorneys were fired in the MIDDLE of their terms (and not as a result of a changing administration).
CRS Report for Congress [tinyurl.com]
At least 54 U.S. Attorneys appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate left office before the completion of a four-year term between 1981 and 2006 (not counting those whose tenure were interrupted by a change in presidential administration). Of those 54, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died, and 15 left to enter or return to private practice.
Of the remaining eight . . . two were apparently dismissed by the President [William Kennedy by Reagan in 1982; and J. William Petro by Reagan in 1982] . . . three resigned after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal actions. No information was available on the three remaining U.S. Attorneys who had resigned.
So, Pontificus, by firing eight, the Bush administration has exceeded by four times the number of U.S. Attorneys fired during the previous 25 years (2 firings).
Tellingly, this is this point that you have refuse to even acknowledge.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/10/2007 @ 5:39pm
Another falsehood from Laney is that Clinton fired ALL of the 93 U.S. Attorneys when he took office.
He damned well SHOULD have. Can't have those Repug moles running around causing trouble.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 5:45pm
And let's not forget the use of their new found power in being able to bypass the senate confirmation process in order to install their new stooges as USA's.
Good old Patriot Act, and those wonderfull "midnight additions" the repugs are so fond of slipping in when no one is looking.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/10/2007 @ 5:52pm
Throw cash at it..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/10/2007 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person
John your experience with Republicans doesn't imply that everyone and everything in life can be bought by throwing cash at it....especially everyone else's cash.
Good call on the beer though. Had a few of those myself.
Posted by OneVote at 04/10/2007 @ 5:54pm
"Throw cash at it..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/10/2007 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person
John your experience with Republicans doesn't imply that everyone and everything in life can be bought by throwing cash at it....especially everyone else's cash.
Good call on the beer though. Had a few of those myself.
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/10/2007 @ 5:54pm
The cash is being thrown to the govt as I meant the Lamprey was the govt metaphor..not some corporation..
On a more important point...you should take a brewry tour up there...a very beautiful part of America...and the beer is fabulous...the tour beer samples are not pastuerize, so the beer is alive, like bread...and taste wonderful.
Posted by john maasch at 04/10/2007 @ 9:34pm
Which ones did as Rove commanded? - why all those still on the payroll even if they are now not doing their jobs (as if they ever did)
Posted by tucanofulano at 04/11/2007 @ 8:05pm