• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

He really is that stupid.

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Spilling the end game before they can coat it in frankl luntz-approved dogwhistles.

The republican caucus is already covering themselves with something, and it’s not glory.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

In my day, never was longer.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

“woke” is the new caravan.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / Pants On Fire

Pants On Fire

by Tim F|  March 24, 20079:10 am| 70 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Let’s stipulate that in any normal administration AG Gonzales would have committed the firing error weeks ago. To be fair, in a normal administration the idea a president tapping his own lawyer as AG would have been a firing error in itself. Recall the endless hysterics from rightwingers over Janet Reno’s insufficient independence. Where have you gone, Lucianne Goldberg?

So much for normal times. Given our unique circumstances I would avoid claiming a la Josh Marshall that dumped documents revealing Gonzales’s second clear lie to Congress (after his claim that politics had nothing to do with the firings) will be the straw that broke Alberto’s back. As I see it the administration cannot just tap any old qualified lawyer for Gonzales’s job. Given the weight of bad acts bubbling just under the surface, even John Ashcroft might not have enough partisan reliability for the job (recall the trouble he caused when he refused to snuff or slow-roll the Plame leak). They really can’t afford to accidentally tap a Souter or, god forbid, Stuart Bowen. Finally the candidate has to want the job, which means he will need a very weak grasp of legal jeopardy. Alberto will only step aside when and if the right patsy candidate shows his face.

***

On a side note Josh also quotes the NYT:

Department officials said there had not been an intentional effort to delay the release of the new material. Instead, they said, the e-mail messages were overlooked in past searches of office files and computers. Many, they said, were copies of e-mail that had already been disclosed. The latest batch of documents shows just how completely the department misjudged what the reaction would be to the dismissals.

Really. The DOJ just accidentally released the more innocuous emails on a Monday, stringing the (relatively) good news over a week. Then they “discovered” the meatier stuff just in time to dump on Friday afternoon, ensuring that the news will disappear into Saturday papers that nobody reads. Surely just a coincidence.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Tim F. Theory Of Government And Everything
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

70Comments

  1. 1.

    jdw

    March 24, 2007 at 9:36 am

    The Attorney Genral Alberto Gonzales and Bush are playing Congress and the American people for fools. Does anyone really believe that this doesn’t go all the way to the top?

    It’s been nothing but lie after lie with this administration. I don’t know how anyone can stomach this. I’m a conservative, my dad and his dad were staunch conservatives. I can tell you that what we are seeing here is not conservatism. I’m not sure what it is but the smell is getting worse.

  2. 2.

    skip

    March 24, 2007 at 9:49 am

    One must laugh at the very notion of this administration passing olympian judgments of attornies’ competence. After all, the Bushies had already axed O Neill and D Ulio for having the temerity to voice opinions.

  3. 3.

    BarneyG2000

    March 24, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Hey Tony, how come no emails for 18-days? Tony: Everyone was on vacation.

    Hey Sampson is going to testify! WOW, look at all the emails we found.

  4. 4.

    Halffasthero

    March 24, 2007 at 10:02 am

    So AG gonzales was caught in a lie – or perhaps, he forgot to remember that he had ok’d the dismissals. It was legal anyway. They had the authority to dismiss whomever they wanted regardless of what the reasons were and regardless of the investigations they were undertaking. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  5. 5.

    Maxwell

    March 24, 2007 at 10:14 am

    The Administration will not be able to appoint another political hack as AG because the Senate would not confirm such a person. A distinguished, less-political AG would be confirmed but could not be relied upon to keep a lid on all of the investigations. So Gonzales will stay as long as they can keep him.

  6. 6.

    demimondian

    March 24, 2007 at 10:36 am

    Hey Sampson is going to testify! WOW, look at all the emails we found

    I don’t think that this is the major reason for the delay — the reason is to bring the damning stuff up in the Saturday papers — but I’m sure that Sampson’s agreeing to testify made them more generous with this stuff. It makes his information less valuable.

    Of course, it also corroborates much of what he’s going to say, which will make any really strong claims he makes (if any) that much more devastating.

  7. 7.

    Keith

    March 24, 2007 at 10:41 am

    And come Monday, Tony Snow will tell the press that the documents actually show that Gonzalez was being completely truthful. Or better yet, it wasn’t the Bush Administration’s fault for the Friday doc dump; it was the newspapers fault for *running* the items over the weekend when no one pays attention.

  8. 8.

    CaseyL

    March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

    I’m not sure Sampson will testify to stuff that’s not already known. He’s a Bushist, and Bushists never tell the truth unless the truth is already out there (and mostly, they lie even then).

    But I agree that Gonzales won’t quit and Bush won’t fire him. I’m not even sure Bush could fire Gonzales to save his own skin: if there’s evidence of Bush interfering with DJ investigations, that’s enough to impeach Bush right there, regardless of what happens with Gonzales.

    So Gonazales stays as AG.

  9. 9.

    jake

    March 24, 2007 at 10:45 am

    The Administration will not be able to appoint another political hack as AG because the Senate would not confirm such a person.

    Translation: Forget it Harriet!

    A distinguished, less-political AG would be confirmed but could not be relied upon to keep a lid on all of the investigations. So Gonzales will stay as long as they can keep him.

    Exactly. Not to mention what Going, Going, GoneZo might suddenly remember if he were fired or encouraged to “spend more time with his family.” Job security is knowing all the dirt.

    Speaking of the Saturday papers, this story is front page in the Washington Post today:

    Spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said last night that there is no “inconsistency” between the Nov. 27 meeting and Gonzales’s remarks. [“I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on,”] She argued that Gonzales was simply emphasizing at the news conference that he was not involved in the details of Sampson’s plans.

    Shades of “How do you define ‘is’?” Methinks the White House SpinTronic3000 (TM) has thrown a rod.

    The Justice Department also said yesterday that Monica Goodling, a senior counselor to Gonzales who worked closely with Sampson on the firings, took an indefinite personal leave from her job on Monday.

    Really, she just wants to spend time with her family!

    This is great stuff.

  10. 10.

    Kirk Spencer

    March 24, 2007 at 10:47 am

    There are two things that have to happen (I think) for Gonzales to resign to spend more time with his family. One has already been mentioned – find a reliable replacement. It’s a reflection of the other problem, which is finding a route of exit for Gonzales which is acceptable to him. Both of these are due to a key point which need recognized:

    Alberto Gonzales knows where almost all the bodies are buried.

    Alberto Gonzales started working (officially) with the current president in 1994, when he was his General Counsel. He became his state Secretary of State after that. There’s a two year hiatus during which he was a justice of the Texas Supreme Court – though he still provided the president with campaign assistance – and then it was back to being part of the President’s staff.

    He has to exit in such fashion that he doesn’t feel it needful to go public with what he knows, and his replacement has to be able to handle what he did in an equally reliable fashion.

    Not an easy task.

  11. 11.

    RSA

    March 24, 2007 at 10:52 am

    Not to mention what Going, Going, GoneZo might suddenly remember if he were fired or encouraged to “spend more time with his family.”

    Gonzo: My lies aren’t even in the same league as Bush and Cheney’s, and I’m the one to get fired? Fuck that.

  12. 12.

    Punchy

    March 24, 2007 at 11:20 am

    And come Monday, Tony Snow will tell the press that the documents actually show that Gonzalez was being completely truthful.

    Praise Allah, somebody else sees this coming, too. Snowjob will giddy-up to the podium and just declare, with a straight face, that no, these documents do NOT show Gonzo lied. They, in fact, show that he was truthful, honest, and helped rescue 10 old ladies and some orphans from a fire in a Walla Walla supermarket.

    And the press corps(e) will ask as a obvious follow-up Q: which supermarket?

  13. 13.

    Daniel DiRito

    March 24, 2007 at 11:29 am

    So on Thursday Alberto Gonzales is telling us he is working tirelessly to be sure he has every American’s back covered…especially our children. Then on Friday they dump the docs that tell us he may have lied about the U.S. Attorney firings. Should that make us feel better?

    I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve always been suspicious of the guy that seems to go out of his way to tell you he’s “got your back covered”.

    See a sarcastic visual that demonstrates how many Americans feel when the Attorney General reassures us that he’s got our backs covered…here:

    http://www.thoughttheater.com

  14. 14.

    Quiddity

    March 24, 2007 at 11:41 am

    Why can’t Gonzales leave and Bush simply not appoint a replacement? Just soldier on with an “acting” AG.

  15. 15.

    p.lukasiak

    March 24, 2007 at 11:41 am

    The Attorney Genral Alberto Gonzales and Bush are playing Congress and the American people for fools. Does anyone really believe that this doesn’t go all the way to the top?

    what is it the administration keeps saying….”They serve at the pleasure of the President”, right?

    So, of course it goes all the way to the top. Either Bush was aware of what was going on, or his closest advisors conspired to lie to him.

    So far, the press hasn’t been asking the question “Why did BUSH fire these attorneys?”….

    *******
    oh, btw, Tony Snow won’t be at the podium for at least a couple of weeks….they’ve found some kind of growth in his stomach, and he’s being operated on Monday.

  16. 16.

    Paul Wartenberg

    March 24, 2007 at 11:59 am

    Halffasthero Says:

    So AG gonzales was caught in a lie – or perhaps, he forgot to remember that he had ok’d the dismissals. It was legal anyway. They had the authority to dismiss whomever they wanted regardless of what the reasons were and regardless of the investigations they were undertaking. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    There is evidence some of these ‘dismissals’ were to stymie criminal investigations: one of the USAs (Carol Lam) was closing in on various participants into the corruption circle that ‘Duke’ Cunningham was in. Another USA removed earlier than the 8 being looked at (a USA in Los Angeles was offered a conveniently nice job elsewhere) was also involved in a major corruption probe: there is just too much circumstantial evidence to overlook the possibility of obstruction of justice taking place here.

    There is also evidence that another three of the USAs that were removed had lost their jobs due to political pressure (esp. Iglesies in NM, where two elected officials from that state were calling him directly to push questionable ‘voter fraud’ probes by election day 2006). There *is* a reason those two NM officials (Wilson and Domenici) have lawyered up: they could face criminal charges for what they’ve done.

    The biggest reason for this scandal: Gonzales LIED to Congress when asked about the US Attorney firings. It doesn’t matter if the Prez could fire the attorneys or not: any lie to Congress is illegal. If Alberto had just simply told Congress the firings were at the discretion of the President and left it at that, he wouldn’t be in trouble. Instead, he is facing possible impeachment, and even possible criminal charges (the problem with the criminal charges is that the DOJ has to actually do that, and it would be insane to think Gonzales would arrest himself).

  17. 17.

    John S.

    March 24, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    My favorite quote:

    “I think most of them will resign quietly,” said Ms. Scolinos, the department’s chief spokeswoman, in a Nov. 17 e-mail message, a few weeks before the dismissals. “It’s only six U.S. attorneys (there are 94) and they don’t get anything out of making it public they were asked to leave in terms of future job prospects. I don’t see it as being a national story — especially if it phases in over a few months.”

    It’s never a good idea to have your blueprints discovered after you’ve made a clean getaway.

  18. 18.

    CaseyL

    March 24, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    Well, except that they did resign quietly – back then.

    They had no way of knowing their dismissals were part of an orchestrated plot to obstruct justice and put reliable apparatchiks in place in time for the 2008 election.

    Now that they know at least the first, they’re a little less quiet.

  19. 19.

    ThymeZone

    March 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    There’s nothing I like more than the “No controlling legal authority” defense.

    It worked so well for Al Gore in the Buddhist Temple thing, and it works so well here for Gonzales.

  20. 20.

    Dulcie

    March 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    The point that I don’t see many people making is what were the other 93 USA’s doing? How many politically motivated investigations were were the “Loyal Bushies” pursuing?

  21. 21.

    Fruitbat Jones

    March 24, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    OT–Can we shit on more allies first?

    Even before Rice’s arrival in Aswan, Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit leveled harsh criticism against the Bush administration’s chief diplomat.

    “Even if Egypt and the United States have a friendly, strategic relationship, Egypt can’t accept interference in its affairs from any of its friends,” Aboul Gheit said.

    “It is unimaginable that someone would speak about and judge an Egyptian internal political process before it even starts,” Aboul Gheit said.

    I’m surprised our allies use the word “unimaginable” when describing anything the Bush Team does anymore. Really, every and all things at this point are imaginable with these clowns.

  22. 22.

    Darrell, D'Souza, Delay and Strauss

    March 24, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    I’m surprised our allies use the word “unimaginable” when describing anything the Bush Team does anymore. Really, every and all things at this point are imaginable with these clowns.

    What is perfectly imaginable is that you fruitbats think we should just pander to a virtual dictator like Mubarak. Do you even have a clue about what Rice was talking about, or is this your standard no-think BDS reply?

    The amendments will enshrine in the constitution a ban on parties based on religion and will give the authorities wide powers of arrest, surveillance and trial in special courts.

    Well, sounds great, Mubarak-lover fruitbat. If this is so wonderful, how about we propose it in Iraq or Pakistan? I’m sure you wouldn’t jump out of your seat and scream about the evil ChimpyMcHalliburton.

  23. 23.

    jake

    March 24, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    oh, btw, Tony Snow won’t be at the podium for at least a couple of weeks….they’ve found some kind of growth in his stomach, and he’s being operated on Monday.

    comment deleted. we don’t need commentary like that. -ed.

  24. 24.

    canuckistani

    March 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Next time, I’m in Washingtom, I’m going to stay at the Watergate Hotel.
    Watergate… Watergate.. ahh, that word is so resonant in the midst of this discussion.

  25. 25.

    Bobo

    March 24, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Our government has been a bit of a sham for a while. These clowns have made it even MORE of a sham but the good news is that they did it in a heavy handed and obvious way bringing it to the attention of the wider public.

    Viva le Gonzo, and Bush, and Rove, et. al.

    Incompetence, corruption, and naked greed for power has been the BEST thing to happen to us in some time.

    Bobo

  26. 26.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 24, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    jake Says:

    oh, btw, Tony Snow won’t be at the podium for at least a couple of weeks….they’ve found some kind of growth in his stomach, and he’s being operated on Monday.

    comment deleted. we don’t need commentary like that. -ed

    I heard that Snow’s conscience and self-respect reappeared, and that he is having them removed again before they ruin his career.

    Some people say that, it is said.

  27. 27.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 24, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Not wishing Snow anything but the best, of course. Wish him healing, of all kinds. May take more than a few weeks, though.

  28. 28.

    jake

    March 24, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Whoops. I promise to stick to jokes about porn stars, horny pastors and calling moonbats filthy f^cking lying scum.

  29. 29.

    ConservativelyLiberal

    March 24, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    Bush finding someone who can replace Gonzo? Has to find a replacement of the same ‘caliber’? Heck, our prisons are full of con men, all he has to do is go recruit one.

    Sorry all of you Bushies, but Bush is no conservative. Neither are the rest of the crooks in cahoots with him. The Republican party I have known and loved is no more, it has been hijacked by crooks and liars. I watch Washington Journal every AM, and I am hearing more and more old, longtime Republicans coming on there and saying the same thing I did above. Their party has been hijacked, and the lunatics are now running the asylum. And don’t give me the standard excuse that I am only hearing Democrats calling in on the Republican line, and that REAL Republicans are behind the prez. I can tell when a Dem call sneaks in, and that happens. But real Republicans are starting to step off of the party line and are starting to voice their concerns about what is happening to their party and the country.

    To all of you extreme wingnuts who like to say that people like me are supporting the enemy by telling the truth about BushCo, and that we should leave the country, go suck eggs. This is my country, and despite what you wish we still have a few freedoms left. If you want to goose step in perfect time with this administration, go for it. If you expect people like me to shut up and go away, get a life. You love the person and party, and hate everyone else who does not conform to YOUR ideals. I love our nation, and everyone in it. Even you people who seem to hate me so much. I say you have a right to exist, and I do not call you names like traitor, Benedict Arnold or tell you to leave the country. But you sure have no problem with doing the opposite.

    History will not be kind to BushCo and his cronies, and I predict that this administration will go down as one of the most destructive and corrupt administrations in history. Our assets are being sold off, our jobs are being moved overseas, we are allowing illegal immigration to force labor costs down and depress the middle class (what is left of it), we are going around bullying other countries in an attempt to intimidate them into getting what we want and there is just too much to mention. I grew up seeing ‘Made in USA’ on products, and all I see is ‘Made in China’ today. We barely make anything any more, and if we REALLY had to go to war (lets talk the scale of WWII), we could not supply our troops from within our country. We no longer have that capability.

    Well, people like me are going to raise hell when we see our country being trashed like it is. Extremists on either side scare the hell out of me, and with the poll numbers the way they are I would say that the rest of America is coming to the same conclusion. I will only follow those who can lead, and all this Prez does is mislead. I don’t care which party is in power, if I see corruption, I will say something about it. And I have.

  30. 30.

    tBone

    March 24, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Whoops. I promise to stick to jokes about porn stars, horny pastors and calling moonbats filthy f^cking lying scum.

    Well, it’s a fine line. A commenter repeatedly calling other commenters lying scum or filth – and even urging a fellow commenter to kill themselves – is just part of the rough & tumble BJ comments section, and should be ignored if you’re offended.

    A tasteless, mean joke about the health of a political appointee crosses every bound of decency and can’t be tolerated, though.

  31. 31.

    Punchy

    March 24, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    If this is so wonderful, how about we propose it in Iraq or Pakistan?

    Because telling other countries how to run their fucking countries is so necessary…..

  32. 32.

    Darrell, D'Souza, Delay and Strauss

    March 24, 2007 at 8:51 pm

    I’m a conservative, my dad and his dad were staunch conservatives. I can tell you that what we are seeing here is not conservatism.

    Yawn. It’s because of people like you the Gingrich movement failed. But I bet you still voted for Bush. Probably twice.

    The Republican party I have known and loved is no more, it has been hijacked by crooks and liars.

    More blah blah blah. You weren’t ever really a republican, ppGaz. Please enlighten us as to when your love affair ended. You’re probably one of these nuts who calls himself a “Goldwater Republican”, when in fact your just another confused moderate who flip-flops about every election.

    Because telling other countries how to run their fucking countries is so necessary…..

    We send more aid to Egypt than any other country but Israel. And I’m sure you don’t have any problem telling them how to run their country. So if a country on the US tit, which is rife with anti-US populus, decides to Constitutionalize their dictatorship and enact Orwellian standards for their secret police… You’re just dandy with that.

    This is what passes for intellect on the left. And I’m the spoof. Right.

  33. 33.

    The Other Steve

    March 25, 2007 at 1:41 am

    There’s a JoinRudy2008 add over on the left… and in all honesty that’s got to be the worst picture I’ve ever seen. The guy looks like he’s 115 years old and about to keel over.

  34. 34.

    Ted

    March 25, 2007 at 3:25 am

    I didn’t even know there were ads at all on this site. I guess I adblocked whatever site the ads are from long ago and forgot about it.

  35. 35.

    grandpa john

    March 25, 2007 at 6:56 am

    perhaps we should limit our observations on snow jobs health to the same kind of oservations the wingnuts are making about Elizabeth Edwards health

  36. 36.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    March 25, 2007 at 8:10 am

    If George W. Bush had been President during the attack on Pearl Harbor, would the whole world be speaking German by now? Discuss.

  37. 37.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 25, 2007 at 8:39 am

    If George Bush had been Churchill during WWI would he have invaded Galipoli?

    If he were King Philip would he have arrested all the Templars (I SO want to blame Bush for Dan Brown)?

    If he were Alcibiades during the Peloponesian war, would he have knocked the penises off of all the statues?

    Hey Kids, let’s put on a Victor David Hanson show!

  38. 38.

    demimondian

    March 25, 2007 at 10:26 am

    I’m one of those “pragmatist Dems” that the purists hate. I argued for investigation, not impeachment, explicitly saying “once we find something impeachamble, then we should go for impeachment. Until then, the tool of the purse and of oversight, the budget and the subpoena, are the correct mechanisms.”

    This is what that looks like. Bush is facing a supplemental which can tie his hands, and he’s throwing tantrums. The AG’s subordinates attempted to obstruct Congress, and they’ve started either “spending more time with their families” or “being placed on indefinite administrative leave with pay.” None of this touches the President directly, but, despite that, it’s killing his administration.

    Bush has shown that he can’t deal with opposition in any form, and he’s always gotten away with it. Now, though, he’s got opposition that the press has to see, and which he can’t fire or, apparently, buy off. I don’t think that Pretzeldent Tantrum Boy has what it takes.

  39. 39.

    Face

    March 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Look what a Republican congressman just said:

    Cannon said that there is “nothing wrong with firing a U.S. attorney for the reason of politics,” and Democrats have been unable to prove there was any corruption involved.

    That’s vomit-in-the-mouth stunning. They’re NOW defending the right to hire/fire US Attys based on loyalty to the party instead of the rule of law.

    I’m always marveled at how unethical, unreasonable, and how power-hungry crazy this modern Republican party has become, but this is just insane. This is exactly how you kill a democracy–ruin the judicial branch.

  40. 40.

    demimondian

    March 25, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Cannon said that there is “nothing wrong with firing a U.S. attorney for the reason of politics,”

    But that’s true. it’s also a jackalope.

    There’s nothing wrong with firing political appointees for political reasons. There’s everything wrong with eliminating people because they weren’t pursuing unwarranted indictments or weren’t suppressing sound indictments because of politics. That’s the issue here, not the dismissals.

  41. 41.

    CaseyL

    March 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    There’s nothing wrong with firing political appointees for political reasons. There’s everything wrong with eliminating people because they weren’t pursuing unwarranted indictments or weren’t suppressing sound indictments because of politics. That’s the issue here, not the dismissals.

    That’s only true on the face of it.

    Think about it: what possible ‘political’ reason could there be to fire a USA that would not involve a criminal case or investigation? Because that’s what USAs do, and it seems to me that any attempt to guage their political usefulness, or loyalty, or whatever, must inevitably conflict with their job.

    Can you think of any political reason to fire a USA that would not come under that category?

  42. 42.

    Perry Como

    March 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Can you think of any political reason to fire a USA that would not come under that category?

    The administration has decided to focus on obscenity and a USA’s office has decided to focus on something else. The focus is political and the President has every right to dismiss the USA for not following the administration’s priorities.

  43. 43.

    CaseyL

    March 25, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    If you’re referring to Dan Bogden, even that justification is open to question.

    (From TPM):

    Last year Ward and some of his team came to an adult video awards conference in Las Vegas.
    “They go in there, and in their super-sleuthing work, they come up with the name of an individual who may be selling obscene videos over the Internet,” Bogden said. . . .

    Ward’s team wanted to send a message and wanted Bogden to take it on.

    He declined, citing the weakness of the case, and staff levels at his office, which had declined under the Bush administration despite Nevada’s growth.

    Then the e-mails emerged recently revealing Ward’s harsh words about him.

    “It just enraged me,” Bogden said. “You see those e-mails and the things they say about me and the other attorneys, people who are very respected. And they are just demeaning and belittling and unprofessional.

    And, from the same article:

    [Bogden] started asking questions, and finally reached acting – Associate Attorney General William Mercer, the No. 3 man at Justice. . . .
    “He says, ‘The administration has a short two-year window of opportunity where they can get candidates out to your positions, where they can get the resume together, they can have the experience of the U.S. attorney in their background that would make them a more viable candidate for future judgeships, for political office.’ ” . . .

    At least, that’s what he was told behind the scenes.

    Bogden notes that when Gonzales said the reason for the firings wasn’t political, he was lying.

    And if it is OK to fire USAs for political-only reasons, why lie about it? Why make up “demeaning and belittling and unprofessional” lies about USAs’ performance, if you can just say “Look, it was for political reasons, got that”?

  44. 44.

    demimondian

    March 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    if it is OK to fire USAs for political-only reasons, why lie about it? Why make up “demeaning and belittling and unprofessional” lies about USAs’ performance, if you can just say “Look, it was for political reasons, got that”?

    Because there is an issue with the appearance of firing people for political reasons. Just because the action is legal doesn’t mean it was wise, sensible, or good theater.

    Had the administration told the truth, the Democrats would have restored the requirement that US Attorneys be confirmed by the Senate, and that would have been the end of it. Remember that much of this was planned before 11/7 of last year, and the last details were nailed down during the first few weeks after the election, before the reality of the shift in Congressional control had really sunk in. The AG and his cronies took a chance, and decided to roll the dice with it just blowing over.

  45. 45.

    ThymeZone

    March 25, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    More blah blah blah. You weren’t ever really a republican, ppGaz.

    Yeah, you know, spoofing requires a little more diligence than you are apparently willing to put into your work here, dude.

    I did not write, and in fact never saw, the stuff you are replying to.

    In two years of being here and thousands of posts, I never ever claimed to have been anything other than a Democrat, and proud of it.

    You just can’t get anything right when you are sucking the crack pipe and posting at the same time.

  46. 46.

    CaseyL

    March 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Had the administration told the truth…

    Except, see, it wasn’t the truth.

    The USAs were not fired merely for political purposes.

    They were fired in order to obstruct justice: to stop investigations into Republican corruption from going higher, and (in McKaye’s case) in order to punish the USA for not bringing bogus charges of vote fraud against Democrats.

    Sabotaging a criminal investigation, and trying to bring false charges of criminal activity, are both obstructions of justice.

  47. 47.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    March 25, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    If George Bush had been Churchill during WWI would he have invaded Galipoli?

    Yes.

    If he were King Philip would he have arrested all the Templars (I SO want to blame Bush for Dan Brown)?

    Probably not, they were very wealthy and would’ve been the base of his constituency.

    If he were Alcibiades during the Peloponesian war, would he have knocked the penises off of all the statues?

    I think that was a frame-up; Alcibiades was really into that sort of thing. (So is Bush, I’m told. Hmmm…)

    He would, however, have invaded Sicily with inadequate forces, then betrayed his country to Sparta.

    Hey Kids, let’s put on a Victor David Hanson show!

    Who?

  48. 48.

    Fruitbat

    March 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Incidentally, I object to my name being utilized by a potential spoofer to characterize all left-of-center folks. It only happened once in this thread, but it’s gotta be nipped in the bud.

    And also, I’m not the same person as this Fruitbat Jones guy who posted earlier. As I’ve stated before, I’m Donald Rumsfeld.

  49. 49.

    Zifnab

    March 25, 2007 at 7:55 pm

    Can you think of any political reason to fire a USA that would not come under that category?

    How much did they donate to Moveon.org?

  50. 50.

    demimondian

    March 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    The USAs were not fired merely for political purposes.

    I have seen no proof of that claim. To be sure, there’s evidence that the attorneys in question were not “team Bush players”, and didn’t follow the administration’s priorities on voter fraud cases — but I have yet to see any objective evidence that the AG’s intent was to intimidate US Attorneys who didn’t pursue meritless cases against Democrats.

    It’s early days yet, and that evidence could certainly be forthcoming, but the chickens certainly hatched yet, if they ever will. I’d be in less of a hurry to count them.

  51. 51.

    Jimmm

    March 25, 2007 at 8:56 pm

    Face:

    DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, not the judiciary.

  52. 52.

    Punchy

    March 25, 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Incidentally, I object to my name being utilized by a potential spoofer to characterize all left-of-center folks. It only happened once in this thread, but it’s gotta be nipped in the bud.

    And also, I’m not the same person as this Fruitbat Jones guy who posted earlier. As I’ve stated before, I’m Donald Rumsfeld.

    Christ, now we have 2 Fruitbats, one angry Fruitbat, a spoofer claiming to be fruitbattish, bud-nipping, and all by a guy sockpuppeting as Don Rumsfeld. Confused I am so.

  53. 53.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 25, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Scruffy-
    Victor Davi[s] Hanson is a fellow at the Hoover Institute, specializes in plundering antiquity for morals and examples of how to succeed as a an empire. He is a notable character in the “wouldn’t it be nice if we were not saddled by religion or the enlightenment and could just exterminate the brutes” school of wingnut apologetics.

    He has a remarkable talent for drawing especially wrong lessons from history.

  54. 54.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Jimmm-

    All lawyers (including the AG) hold their credentials by courtesy of the Judicial branch – they are officers of the court, and can be disciplined by the courts for perfectly legal behaviour that violates the ethical standards established by the judiciary. The USAs can, under certain circumstances, be appointed directly by Federal judges.

    The Judiciary committees of Congress have the authority to investigate alleged misconduct by the USAs. Congress until very recently had the power to advise and consent to their appointments, and by tradition (and Senate rules, I think) had to be approved by the local senators, regardless of party affiliation.

    The USAs are, by law and by tradition, operating under the authority and the oversight of all three branches of government. Thus, the politically motivated firings and hirings by the White House step on the toes of Congress and the Judiciary, and the co-equal branches of the government are right to cry foul.

  55. 55.

    J. Michael Neal

    March 25, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    I’m surprised our allies use the word “unimaginable” when describing anything the Bush Team does anymore.

    Very true. It’s probably a mistranslation from Arabic, and he actually said, “Inconceivable!”

  56. 56.

    demimondian

    March 25, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    The USAs can, under certain circumstances, be appointed directly by Federal judges.

    Actually, that power was removed from the judicial branch by the Spector clause in the renewal of the Patriot Act.

  57. 57.

    Andrew

    March 26, 2007 at 1:24 am

    Hey Kids, let’s put on a Victor David Hanson show!

    You mean, “Call the local frat house, order the Spartan costumes and baby oil, and invite Mark Steyn and Michael Ledeen over for a speed masturbating contest”?

  58. 58.

    Darrell, D'Souza, Delay and Strauss

    March 26, 2007 at 2:44 am

    Incidentally, I object to my name being utilized by a potential spoofer to characterize all left-of-center folks. It only happened once in this thread, but it’s gotta be nipped in the bud.

    And also, I’m not the same person as this Fruitbat Jones guy who posted earlier. As I’ve stated before, I’m Donald Rumsfeld.

    I apologize to Herr Fruitbat for his choice of monikers being reused by Fruitbat Jones (whose brother Chachi I will beat up the next time I see him at Robotspeak).

    This is no doubt a technique used by ppGaz to derail enlightened responses to the Barbara Streisand Moonbat Echo Chamber Orchestra.

    And to the administrator, it’s not my fault your cookies don’t flip properly to new monikers.

  59. 59.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    March 26, 2007 at 4:59 am

    He has a remarkable talent for drawing especially wrong lessons from history.

    Well, at least he shouldn’t have any shortage of examples, if those are his beliefs. Here are mine, which I share with Jack Handey:

    “We tend to laugh at the beliefs of the Ancients. But we cannot laugh at them personally, to their faces, and this is what bothers me.”

  60. 60.

    jake

    March 26, 2007 at 6:13 am

    “wouldn’t it be nice if we were not saddled by religion or the enlightenment and could just exterminate the brutes”

    Since when has religion stopped people from stomping on the “brutes”? Enlightment has also been a fine excuse, as in “I’m more enlightened than you, therefore I get to grind your face, huzzah!”

  61. 61.

    jenniebee

    March 26, 2007 at 8:13 am

    Because there is an issue with the appearance of firing people for political reasons. Just because the action is legal doesn’t mean it was wise, sensible, or good theater.

    Um… no. You’re conceding to the Bush administration the precise point that they need most to win: that the firings were not, in and of themselves, illegal. The problem is that if any of the attorneys were fired to stop an ongoing investigation or as retaliation for not pursuing a particular investigation (as appears to be the case for McKay, Lam and Iglesias at the very least) then that is Obstruction of Justice. It’s an impeachable offense.

    The Bush administration is working furiously right now trying to convince the country that US Attorneys ought not to act independently of the WH political agenda. That the country doesn’t automatically and absolutely know that this is not the case is a strong indictment against high school civics teachers across the nation.

  62. 62.

    Zifnab

    March 26, 2007 at 9:03 am

    The problem is that if any of the attorneys were fired to stop an ongoing investigation or as retaliation for not pursuing a particular investigation (as appears to be the case for McKay, Lam and Iglesias at the very least) then that is Obstruction of Justice. It’s an impeachable offense.

    For some reason no one ever wants to talk about obstruction of justice. Or, if they do, its only to append the fact that if USAs are going after Republicans, they’re probably doing it injustly or out of some political motivation of their own.

    And then it comes back to the old, “pleasure of the President” routine, whatever that means.

  63. 63.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    March 26, 2007 at 9:47 am

    Since when has religion stopped people from stomping on the “brutes”? Enlightment has also been a fine excuse, as in “I’m more enlightened than you, therefore I get to grind your face, huzzah!”

    “When posterity recounts the achievements of Europe, shall we let men say that three centuries of painstaking cultural effort carried us no farther than from religious fanaticism to the insanity of nationalism? In both camps today even scholars behave as though eight months ago they suddenly lost their heads.”

    – Albert Einstein, March 25, 1915

  64. 64.

    demimondian

    March 26, 2007 at 10:22 am

    You’re conceding to the Bush administration the precise point that they need most to win: that the firings were not, in and of themselves, illegal.

    No, I am not. If anything, you are falling into their trap.

    I’m going to type this really slowly…no, wait, that’s stupid, you’ll read it at the same rate anyway, won’t you?

    You’re making a standard logical error. The statement I assert to be true is “If the firings were purely political, then they would be legal.” The point you’re missing is the one that most people miss: the assertion of an implication does not assert the hypothesis of the implication. There’s significant reason to doubt that the firings were purely political, at least in the case of Carol Lam. McKay’s and Iglesias’, unfortunately, are a lot more touchy — is it illegal to fire someone for not pursuing a case because they disagree with you over whether it’s reasonable?

  65. 65.

    Lee

    March 26, 2007 at 10:34 am

    I had a thought about the Friday afternoon data dump scenario.

    My theory is that if it is not already, it will be a bad idea for the Friday afternoon data dump.

    It gives the bloggers all weekend to work over the data.

    The traditional news orgs will dutifully publish whatever blather they can put together for Saturday. The bloggers will do much like TPM(?) did and spread out the analysis to their community and on Monday (or so) have a more in depth (and correct?) analysis of the data.

    eh…just a thought.

  66. 66.

    jenniebee

    March 26, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Glenn Greenwald has a good piece up today about this and about the press’s complicity in it.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the next “throw the bums out” grass roots movement isn’t going to be directed at Congress or the WH (ok, maybe the WH). It’s going to be directed at the Capitol Gang and the National Press Club. How is it possible to have a functioning democracy with this kind of gross complicity between the government and the press?

  67. 67.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 26, 2007 at 11:04 am

    Demi-

    Part of the problem is divergent meanings of ‘political’. In the case of the USAs, choosing or even replacing a USA on a broad policy basis should be fine in most cases. Policy making and implementation is legitimately political – we could flesh this out with hypotheticals, but I don’t think we need to.

    We also commonly use the term ‘political’ to refer to petty partisanship, the sort of Rovian scenario where there is no real policy other than seizing and holding power for the sake of cronies. Even though we use the term political for this scenario, it is clearly wrong where policy-making political motivations are clearly fine.

    It helps to cut through the confusion by focusing on obstruction of justice, especially since a prima facie case appears to exist for the Iglesias and Lam examples. But we still need a straightforward way to distinguish between the two meanings of ‘political’ here – we have a semantic fog behind which the DOJ hacks and the White House are finding cover.

  68. 68.

    ThymeZone

    March 26, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    And then it comes back to the old, “pleasure of the President” routine, whatever that means.

    Well, it means “When the president does it, it’s not illegal”.

    Richard Nixon to David Frost, 1977.

    Precedent was set thirty years ago. Let’s try to keep up.

    Why we hassle presidents any more is beyond me. They are kings, we should treat them as kings.

  69. 69.

    demimondian

    March 26, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    Tulk —

    I’m not at all convinced that there’s a _prima facie_ case against anyone in the Executive branch when it comes to Lam, and I’m quite confident that there’s no such case involving Iglesias. There’s certainly a prima facie case against Wilson and Domenici for obstruction — but it has nothing to do with Iglesias’ dismissal, much as I wish it did.

    Explain to me what you’re seeing that I’m missing?

  70. 70.

    Tulkinghorn

    March 27, 2007 at 3:56 am

    demi:

    This is not my area of specialty, so I may be demonstrating my ignorance here. But if we have a prima facie case of obstruction with one party (Wilson/Domenici), and can demonstrate communication with members of the white house staff who communicate on the subject of retaliation the DOJ, and retaliation by the DOJ takes place, and officers of the DOJ then fail to offer a good faith reason for the firing, is there not all the elements of conspiracy to obstruct as well as the obstruction itself? I may well be off-base, but the email trail of admissions appears to meet what is needed.

    Maybe this fails in some way and we just have the basis for forming a grand jury incvestigation. When you have a conspiracy alleged like this, whether criminal or civil (like an age discrimination case), I thought the pleadings could be less specific.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • unctuous on Friday Night Wind-Down Open Thread – David ‘BoBo’ Brooks Edition (Sep 24, 2023 @ 2:12am)
  • Joey Maloney on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:16am)
  • Alison Rose on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:09am)
  • sab on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 1:06am)
  • Righteous Hazard on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 12:49am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!