T1B

mvscal wrote:No liberal bias in this artificially manufactured "scandal" at all. Nope. Nothing to see here...

mvscal wrote:The entire "controversy" is fake. There is no scandal.

The President can fire any US attorney at any time for any reason. End of story.

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:

mvscal wrote:The entire "controversy" is fake. There is no scandal.

The President can fire any US attorney at any time for any reason. End of story.

It's controversial because it's unprecedented, no-nuts.

Way to regurgitate media lies and spin, you shitstained dumbfuck.

There is nothing unprecedented about it.

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:

mvscal wrote:The entire "controversy" is fake. There is no scandal.

The President can fire any US attorney at any time for any reason. End of story.

It's controversial because it's unprecedented, no-nuts.

Way to regurgitate media lies and spin, you shitstained dumbfuck.

There is nothing unprecedented about it.

mvscal wrote:Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys in 1993 and Dubya dismissed 91 of them in 2001. Carter and Reagan also fired some of them. Oh, but this firing is supposed to be "unprecedented."

You are a fucking moron and that is exactly what the media is counting on when they start shoveling bullshit like this. Ignorant fucking morons who don't know shit from shinola.

mvscal wrote:Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys in 1993 and Dubya dismissed 91 of them in 2001. Carter and Reagan also fired some of them. Oh, but this firing is supposed to be "unprecedented."

You are a fucking moron and that is exactly what the media is counting on when they start shoveling bullshit like this...ignorant fucking morons who don't know shit from shinola.

The Carpetbagger Report - http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com -

The inane ‘Clinton did it too’ defense

As the prosecutor purge scandal continues to become more serious and more damaging for the Bush gang, the right has struggled to come up with a coherent defense. They seem to have embraced one, but it’s surprisingly weak.

Karl Rove got the ball rolling last week.

“Look, by law and by Constitution [sic], these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.”

A few days later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) repeated it.

Graham played down the administration’s purge of U.S. Attorneys, calling it perfectly within President Bush’s authority and merely “poorly handled” and “unseemly.” He also repeated Karl Rove’s lie that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took over,” Graham said.
A day later, the Wall Street Journal editorial page was using it.

[T]hese are the same Democrats who didn’t raise a whimper when Bill Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno sacked all 93 U.S. attorneys in one unclean sweep upon taking office. Previous Presidents had kept the attorneys in place until they could replace each one. That was a more serious abuse than anything known about these Bush dismissals.

Today, a number of far-right blogs have picked up on the same talking point, and even the traditional media is picking up on it, with NBC’s Kevin Corke repeating the meme this morning.

I had hoped this nonsense, debunked last week, would have disappeared by now, but it seems to be the only talking point White House allies can come up with.

The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is sworn in.

In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.

The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the difference.

Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress last week that the entire argument is “pure fiction.”

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.

Josh Marshall added this morning:

First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.

Note to Bush allies: if the “Clinton did it” defense is the best you can do, this scandal must be truly horrifying.

Update: In case there was still any lingering doubt among conservatives on this point, in White House documents released today, there’s an email to Harriet Miers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday), in which Sampsons admits that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.”

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote: Bush replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political reasons.

My goodness!! Political appointees being dismissed for political reasons? What's the world coming to? Why that sure is some "scandal" you got there.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:It's unprecedented because:

Well, I just plungered myself with the Clinton-did-it-too shtick. Oh well, I'll just deny everything

We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans.

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:...prior to their dismissals w/o cause.

Newsflash: The President can dismiss them whenever he wants to with or without cause.

mvscal wrote:

Eaglebauer wrote:

mvscal wrote: Newsflash: The President can dismiss them whenever he wants to with or without cause.

That's understood, MVDeflect.

Evidently not. Much like your evident confusion over the term unprecedented. US attorneys have been fired before in mid-term therefore the act of firing a US attorney mid-term cannot be unprecendented by definition.

mvscal wrote:

And NO ONE has ever said the act of firing *A* US attorney mid-term is unprecedented.

Lie much, dumbfuck.

It's controversial because it's unprecedented, no-nuts.

wrote:Yes it is completely unprecedented, sackless.

Jesus Fucking Christ you must be enjoying the feeling of the plunger crammed in your anal passage.

Firing *A* - *ONE* - *UNO* U.S. Attorney mid-term isn't unprecedented.

Firing EIGHT is.

Tom In VA wrote:
Instead of continuing in the sprialing toilet water of "You're argument that Clinton did it is bogus because some really smart people who write blogs and editorials say it isn't".

Eaglebauer wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:
Instead of continuing in the sprialing toilet water of "You're argument that Clinton did it is bogus because some really smart people who write blogs and editorials say it isn't".

Are you talking about the part where I caught MVpussy spewing complete horeshit that his subscription Neocon Blog-Altert emails were feeding him? That was fucking gold, wasn't it.

And it's not bogus because some other blog says it is. It's bogus because Clinton DIDN'T do it. Jesus.

As for the evidence, there probably isn't any. You're right. All 8 of those prosecutors with positive performance reviews prior to their firings were most likely let go for purely legitimate work-performance-related. and non-political reasons.

Tom In VA wrote:Eagle, where's the information that these people were fired because they didn't or they refused to go after Democrats ?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Eagle, where's the information that these people were fired because they didn't or they refused to go after Democrats ?

As I understand it, they did go after Democrats. They were investigating Democrats at the rate of 7:1 vs. Republicans, anyway. Even that wasn't good enough for the Bush Administration, though -- they wanted charges pressed against Democrats even where there was no evidence to do so.

mvscal wrote:So what's the problem then?

mvscal wrote:Make another law...if you can.

mvscal wrote:The entire "controversy" is fake. There is no scandal.

The President can fire any US attorney at any time for any reason. End of story.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mails indicate the top presidential political adviser, Karl Rove, and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were involved in discussions of a shakeup of U.S. attorneys before Gonzales became attorney general.

A January 9, 2005, White House e-mail shows the subject was broached at least a month before the administration previously said it was -- after Gonzales' February 3, 2005, confirmation as attorney general.

The e-mail discusses the prospect of replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys in President Bush's second term and notes that Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson talked about the matter with his boss "a couple of weeks ago." Gonzales was facing Senate confirmation as attorney general at the time.

Sampson's e-mail was responding to a forwarded message originally from another White House aide, Colin Newman. Newman wrote that Rove had asked "how we were going to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them or selectively replace them, etc." (Watch Rove defend the firings Video)

The White House said the idea for sacking federal prosecutors in Bush's second term came from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who wanted "new blood" in those offices. Miers became White House counsel after Gonzales moved to the attorney general's office.
'Rove was in the middle of this mess'

But the e-mails "show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said -- an assertion the White House disputed.

Eventually, the Justice Department pushed out U.S. attorneys in eight judicial districts, replacing them with interim appointees. This sparked outrage on Capitol Hill over the rare midterm shakeup and spurred calls for Gonzales' resignation from several Democratic senators and one Republican.

The interim appointments were made under a provision of the antiterrorist USA Patriot Act, which says the interim appointees can serve indefinitely without the normal Senate confirmation. (Full story)

Among those calling for Gonzales to step down was Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, who said Thursday that Gonzales lied about plans for the U.S. attorney's position in Arkansas. He said Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration planned to replace prosecutors appointed on an interim basis with nominees who would be confirmed by the Senate.

Gonzales said Tuesday that Sampson had managed the process and kept others in the dark, with the result that Justice Department provided "incomplete" information about the dismissals to Congress.

"As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware of a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all United States attorneys," he said. "That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive."

Thursday night, the Justice Department said Gonzales "has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. attorneys while he was still White House counsel." (Watch the administration work on damage control Video)

"The period of time referred to in the e-mail was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6, 2005, and his focus was on that," Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said in a written statement.

"Of course, discussions of changes in presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes administration-wide."

Though U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be replaced at the president's discretion, it is rare for them to be replaced in the middle of a president's term. Suggestions they were fired for bad performance were rejected outright by the fired lawyers, some of whom have alleged political reasons for the dismissals.

The Justice Department later admitted that one of the eight -- H.E. "Bud" Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas -- was fired to make room for a former Rove aide returning from military service.

But earlier Thursday, Rove told an audience at an Alabama college that the administration had "reasonable and appropriate disagreements" with the remaining seven that justified their removals, and Democrats who control Congress "want to play politics with it."
Senate committee authorizes subpoenas

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to authorize subpoenas for five current and former Justice Department officials and six fired federal prosecutors. The subpoenas have not been served because the committee hopes the officials will testify voluntarily.

On Wednesday, White House counsel Fred Fielding held a half-hour meeting with leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees to discuss lawmakers' requests for testimony about the firings.

A senior administration official said Fielding gave no firm answers as to whether White House aides would testify. Democratic leaders gave him a Friday deadline to respond, but White House and administration officials said Bush was likely to invoke executive privilege and bar his advisers from giving public testimony.

Mikey wrote: In this administration the rule seems to be "make sure the buck stops at least one level below you."

Mikey wrote:Wasn't it Reagan that invented "plausible deniability"?

Definitely SOP since then.

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Then come back here and tell us why this round of firings is not unprecedented.

If one, single US attorney has ever been dismissed mid-term then there is nothing unprecedented about this. Of course we know that that has happened before.

And even if it hadn't happened before...so fucking what? US attorneys have always served at the discretion of the President. He can fire them for wearing cheap suits if he wants to.

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Then come back here and tell us why this round of firings is not unprecedented.

If one, single US attorney has ever been dismissed mid-term then there is nothing unprecedented about this. Of course we know that that has happened before.

And even if it hadn't happened before...so fucking what? US attorneys have always served at the discretion of the President. He can fire them for wearing cheap suits if he wants to.

Whats unprecedented is that this president is either too fucking stupid or too fucking much of a dripping pussy to tell congress to go fuck themselves & keep their fucking noses the fuck out of executive branch prerogatives.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:It's unprecedented because:

Some dipshit liberal wingnut says it is

FTFY