The Credibility Gap

Blame the media:

A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released, two of the ousted prosecutors told McClatchy Newspapers.

While the U.S. attorney who got the call regarded the tone of the conversation as congenial, not intimidating, the prosecutor nonetheless passed the message on to five other fired U.S. attorneys. One of them interpreted the reported comments by Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, as a threat.

Justice Department officials denied that the conversation with the U.S. attorney ever took place, and Elston said he called several of the fired U.S. attorneys but never made any such comments.

“I had no conversation in which I discussed with any U.S. attorney what they should or should not say to the media regarding their removal,” Elston said.

The two prosecutors who described the call demanded anonymity because, they said, they didn’t want to antagonize the Justice Department further.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse criticized McClatchy for running the story. “It is unfortunate that the press would choose to run an allegation from an anonymous source from a conversation that never took place,” he said.

If this was not the every day strategy of this administration, I might believe the notion this is a press conspiracy. But let’s face it- these guys politicized NASA and the FDA- does anyone think this sounds out of line?






90 replies
  1. 1
    Third Eye Open says:

    You’re forgetting one fact which should clear up this whole issue: Un-named sources are only reliable when they are in line with the official executive story.

    Anyone who has any different view of this is obviously a Chamber-lib Ter’ist luver.

  2. 2
    Paul Wartenberg says:

    If anyone has a credibility gap, it’s the Bush admin. Time and again we’ve witnessed reports of their politicizing offices, of their bully management style of nearly every branch of the executive office. We know how they operate: by fealty where they can get it, by intimidation when they don’t get fealty.

    I still think the fired attorneys should sue under the 14th Amendment, I don’t they they got due process when they were removed from their jobs.

  3. 3

    Suppose it did take place. There is a herd of people out there attacking the administration for doing this, a herd which apparently includes some of those who were dismissed. Seems to me that if they expect the administration to keep their mouths shut, as they have so far, they ought to do the same. Otherwise, what goes around comes around.

    Nick Kasoff
    The Thug Report

  4. 4
    Teak111 says:

    But why would the admin punish these prosecutors with only a year and a half to go? Whats the point? 2008 looks tough for the GOP too, so even more to the point. The conspiracy theorist in me says this is about CYA from congressional investigation. Take the heat on dumping some prosecutors now, to avoid the heat further down the road. We shall see.

  5. 5
    RSA says:

    “It is unfortunate that the press would choose to run an allegation from an anonymous source from a conversation that never took place,” he said.

    This, while Dick Cheney asks the press to refer to him as an anonymous senior administration official in a briefing, during which he refers to himself in the first person as carrying out the duties of the Vice President. Have they no shame? (That’s obviously a rhetorical question.)

  6. 6
    cleek says:

    It is unfortunate that the press would choose to run an allegation from an anonymous source from a conversation that never took place

    ineed. very unfortunate.

    where are the WMDs?

  7. 7
    Pb says:

    McClatchy bought Knight Ridder last year, and Knight Ridder did yeoman’s work in reporting on the rush to war with Iraq. The two reporters mentioned in that article appear to still be with McClatchy; guess what the White House reaction to their reporting was…

    “As the pressure built on the administration and their case got shakier and shakier, there was obviously a lot greater stress, and there was some shouting that was done at us over the telephone,” Hoyt says. Some of those calls came from well-known names in high places, Bureau Chief John Walcott adds, declining to drop any names.

    Around that time, the White House turned up the pressure, Strobel says, and “tried to freeze us out of briefings.”

    Landay adds: “I think this administration may have a fairly punitive policy when it comes to journalists who get in their face. And if you talk to some White House reporters, there is a fear of losing access.” He says that fear may have played into the relatively uncritical approach of news organizations like the Times.

  8. 8
    Paul L. says:

    A high-ranking Justice Department official told one of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration that if any of them continued to criticize the administration for their ousters, previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released

    Maybe it has to do with the following:
    1) Lack of investigations into the NSA wiretaps, Swift program, etc leaks to the NY Times.
    2) The light sentence that the Justice department recommended for Sandy Berg(l)er

    But let’s face it- these guys politicized NASA and the FDA

    Next they are going to send the IRS after their political enemies.
    Like the IRS audits of the NRA, Bill O’Reilly, etc under the Clinton Administration.
    Just wait until Keith Olbermann gets audited like Bill O’Reilly did.

  9. 9
    Dreggas says:

    I was wondering what you’d have to say about this John. TPM has been all over it and this is just one more straw on the back of the proverbial camel. I am looking forward to listening to the hearings on this case.

  10. 10

    […] John Cole considers who’s (really) to blame for the most recent installment in the saga of the fired US Attorneys. […]

  11. 11

    […] And psst, this is just for you own good. At some point may we wake up and realize there is very little patriotic about the Patriot Act. […]

  12. 12
    Pb says:

    Next they are going to send the IRS after their political enemies.
    Like the IRS audits of the NRA, Bill O’Reilly, etc under the Clinton Administration.

    Link? Has anyone (credible) ever substantiated this, or publicly released anything from the audit? You know, like…

    Seven Republican members of Congress filed complaints with the IRS in 2004, claiming the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) engaged in partisan electioneering, leading to an IRS probe, according to agency documents released to the NAACP under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The NAACP has asked the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to review the IRS’s failure to fully respond to its FOIA requests.

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) launched an examination of the NAACP on Oct. 8, 2004, claiming a speech Chairman Julian Bond made during the organization’s annual convention that criticized President George Bush’s education and foreign policies crossed the line from issue advocacy to partisan electioneering. On May 17, the NAACP publicly released over 500 pages of documents the IRS has gathered since it began the audit. The documents (all 85 megabytes worth) are available at the NAACP’s website.

    The documents include letters sent from members of Congress on behalf of their constituents, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Susan Collins (R-ME), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA), the late Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC), and former Reps. Larry Combest (R-TX), Joe Scarborough (R-FL) and Robert Ehrlich (R-MD).

  13. 13
    Zifnab says:

    Ah yes, it all comes down to Sandy Berger. Clearly, all 7 Federal Prosecutors were involved in a conspiracy that starts and ends down Mr. Berger’s pants. Duke Cunningham, what?

    Seriously, though, this is so classicly in-line with the administration’s MO – didn’t they just tell all the Walter Reed guys to shut up and quit talking to the press – that its laughable to assume they didn’t pull a stunt like this. After all, the threat is grounded in reality. If the 7 attorneys challenge their dismissals, the government will respond by reinforcing the reasons for the firings. Someone will get accused of donating to Moveon.org, someone will be accused of underzealously prosecuting Democrats, someone will have his first year files dug up and send people into a screaming fit because he didn’t successfully convict a child molestor with the death sentence, and so on. Bill O’Reily will have a field day.

  14. 14
    Tim F. says:

    Seems to me that if they expect the administration to keep their mouths shut, as they have so far, they ought to do the same.

    Right, and if you don’t talk about how I robbed your liquor store then I won’t either. That makes a lot of sense.

  15. 15
    AkaDad says:

    You all are gonna look pretty silly when you find out that Elston, Wilson, and Domenici innocently mis-dialed those U.S. Attorneys while they were actually trying to call Walter Reed with their sincere concern about the living conditions of our wounded vets.

  16. 16
    cd6 says:

    previously undisclosed details about the reasons they were fired might be released

    I didn’t want to have to do this, but:

    Carol Lam has three (THREE) overdue library books.
    John McKay from Seattle has an unpaid parking ticket.
    Daniel Bogden? He once looked at me funny.

    I think you’ll all agree that these sons of bitches deserved to be canned and replaced by loyal hacks.

    Dhimmocrats are just using this story to distract the media pressure away from the pro-terrorist messages of leading figures on the left like Bill Maher and that other guy with the blog.

  17. 17
    Paul L. says:

    PB,

    Link? Has anyone (credible) ever substantiated this

    How about the New York Times.

    I.R.S. Is Preparing to Audit N.R.A., Focusing on Deductions
    By FOX BUTTERFIELD

    The National Rifle Association is the target of a major audit by the Internal Revenue Service, which is expected to review whether the nonprofit organization has improperly deducted income from sales of health insurance and bank credit cards, according to current and former N.R.A. officials. The audit, at a time when the group has been aggressively criticizing Federal law-enforcement agents, will also examine reports that the N.R.A. used tax-deductible donations to a charitable affiliates to m…

    As for the NAACP,

    For example, the local NAACP – which never complained when Nifong gave 71 interviews to news outlets and regularly was making public statements calling the lacrosse players “rapists” – suddenly became advocates of limiting the rights of defendants when the players’ lawyers became vocal. After the defense began to lay out documentation questioning the charges, the NAACP demanded that lawyers be gagged from making further statements. (However, it turned out that the NAACP did not have the legal standing necessary to ask a judge for a gag order.) In other words, the local activists suddenly decided that a person’s right to mount a vigorous defense should be denied. Like the feminists on the Duke faculty, they are selective in their view of “rights.” Local activists also have maintained a website which “supports” the “victim” in this case; in other words, the facts be damned. The woman made allegations, and that is all that is needed. (Yes, I believe in free speech and they are free to say what they like, but this also is a case in which three young men face life in prison for crimes they did not commit. At some point, that should be taken into consideration.)

  18. 18
    Jake says:

    So what’s next? A congress-critter calls the dismissed attnys to testify under oath. If, during the course of their sworn testimony an Attny says things that some Power that Be regards as critical and this conversation did take place, the mystery man will either have to shut up or release the information in a manner that doesn’t look like retaliation or cannot be traced back to his/her desk.

    “An anonymous source claims…”

    Hmmm.

  19. 19
    srv says:

    Next they are going to send the IRS after their political enemies.
    Like the IRS audits of the NRA, Bill O’Reilly,

    Paul L. once again demonstrates his incredible brain power. Tell us, Einstein, during an average 8-year presidency, what do you think the audit odds are for active semi-political organizations with $200M in revenue and multi-millioaires like O’Reilly?

    What is it, exactly, that you think the IRS does?

  20. 20
    Zifnab says:

    At some point, that should be taken into consideration.

    I think it’s taken into consideration in what is traditionally refered to as a court of law.

  21. 21
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    Yeah, I’m not really shocked that the NRA might have gotten audited, (not that your link demonstrated that an audit ever took place, unlike with, say, The DLC) but I’m more interested in O’Reilly’s unsubstantiated audit claims.

  22. 22
    Keith says:

    You’ll really see the effects of this in 10 years, when all these new USA attorneys start getting nominated for Appeals Court/SCOTUS vacancies.

  23. 23
    Tsulagi says:

    If this was not the every day strategy of this administration

    Yep, not much surprise anymore from this administration of maggots.

    But I keep focusing on the positive. There is now less than two years remaining for these pieces of shit. Thank you, Jesus!

  24. 24
    Paul L. says:

    Paul L. once again demonstrates his incredible brain power. Tell us, Einstein, during an average 8-year presidency, what do you think the audit odds are for active semi-political organizations with $200M in revenue and multi-millioaires like O’Reilly?

    When is the last time a left organization (i.e. the Brady Center, The Center for American Progress or the Southern Poverty Law Center) were fully audited?

  25. 25
    dreggas says:

    O/T but there is a verdict in the libby trial…

    Listening to the hearings on the U.S. atty stuff, so far some really good stuff and I mean that in the “the admin is going to take a beating” sense.

  26. 26
    dreggas says:

    Paul L. Says:

    When is the last time a left organization (i.e. the Brady Center, The Center for American Progress or the Southern Poverty Law Center) were fully audited?

    They wouldn’t be if there was no reason to… this has been another edition of simple answers to right wing nutjob questions.

  27. 27
    Mr Furious says:

    Kevin Drum nails it:

    Well, they could have just said it was for policy reasons: they wanted people who were on board with administration policies a little more heartily, and these folks didn’t make the grade. So we replaced them.

    What would have happened then? A little bit of grumbling, probably. Some complaints that Bush was politicizing the office, perhaps, but since the offices are political appointments in the first place that wouldn’t have gone very far. And the fired official themselves, who are all Republican loyalists in the first place, would have packed their bags and gotten other jobs. They know how politics works.

    But no. This administration is so dedicated to spin and deceit that they just couldn’t leave it alone. They figured maybe they could avoid any criticism by claiming the firings were for performance-related reasons. That should shut everyone up! But of course it did just the opposite. The fired attorneys, who were originally willing to suck it up and accept their political fate, were unhappy over being called incompetent. Who wouldn’t be? And so the whole thing unraveled…

    It’s the Bush administration in a microcosm: a too-clever-by-half expansion of executive power, spin and deceit when it’s discovered, followed by a storm of backtracking and protestations of innocence that no one believes. It wouldn’t be so bad if this weren’t also the Bush administration in a macrocosm. But it is.

    Exactly. In their never-ending quest to point fingers elsewhere, the Bushies tried to portray these US Attys as boobs. In fact, they were highly-regarded ass-kickers, particularly the guy in Seattle.

    This new threat to reveal more “performance-related reasons?” Reasons that likely don’t exist? A bluff. And a pathetic one at that.

    Lie in the bed you made, motherfuckers.

  28. 28
    grandpa john says:

    Paul L. you suggested that the NRA audit was done at the request of certain people in power in the administration. It would help your argument if the source you pasted actually hinted that this was true. In real life somtimes organizations get audited without prejudice.

  29. 29
    dreggas says:

    Libby guilty:

    Count 1 guilty
    Count 2 guilty
    Count 3 not guilty
    Count 4 guilty
    Count 5 guilty

  30. 30
    Mr Furious says:

    In anticipation of Darrel or Richard23 showing up and claiming that these US Attys are protecting their new jobs or selling books…

    [link] “This is a huge loss,” said Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle’s chief of police. “I’ve worked with a lot of U.S. attorneys in my time and John is absolutely at the top of the ladder, not only on issues of terrorism but on law enforcement in general. I can tell you that if they’re saying John’s dismissal was performance related … I find that almost inconceivable.” Kerlikowske noted that McKay had crucial perspective, having served as a White House fellow at the FBI. “He knew how tough the barriers could be between law enforcement agencies, and he really helped break down those walls with information sharing.”

    “He was a champion with all the federal law enforcement agencies, but especially with ATF,” said Kelvin Crenshaw, a 19-year veteran of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the special agent in charge of the Seattle field office. “He’s one of the best U.S. attorneys I’ve ever worked with.”

    They all have similar testimonials… These excellent public servants were fired for ploitical reasons. NOT performance reasons. And the worst part is that Bush had the right to replace them whenever he wanted. They serve at his pleasure. But he tried to make it about THEM, not his policies. They are standing up for themselvesm, and should.

    Bush brought this rain of shit down on himself with the inept help of Gonzales. They have lost control of Congress and are flailing blindly in the areas where thhey can still attempt to protect themselves. Canning US Attys and replacing them with flacks is just part of circlng the wagons.

  31. 31
    Andrew says:

    Libby guilty:

    Count 1 guilty
    Count 2 guilty
    Count 3 not guilty
    Count 4 guilty
    Count 5 guilty

    Why does the jury hate America four-fifths of the time?

  32. 32
    RSA says:

    Moonbats always want to draw attention away from the good news, such as that Libby was not guilty 20% of the time.

  33. 33

    I can’t help but wonder if the firings were, at least in part, aimed at intimidating Patrick Fitzgerald. I mean, if things had gone reasonably, Libby would be remarking to Fitz that he wondered how Iglesias, McKay, et al. would be doing with their new jobs.

    Unfortunately for BushCo, Fitz would now respond by wondering how long Elston would hold his current job, and when he’ll be joining Libby in Joliet…oops.

  34. 34
    Tsulagi says:

    Libby guilty

    Just the evil result of a Clinton ordered IRS audit started years ago to tarnish Bush and Cheney. The jurors were plants. Known facts.

  35. 35
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    In the mid-90’s, the right-wing noise machine babbled on and on about the unfair audits of conservative groups, how it was all politically motivated, Bill Clinton was behind it, blah blah etc,. etc.–basically all you’ve claimed and more. Congress eventually had those claims extensively investigated (requesting one in March 1997) and issued a report (2000 CIS J. Print 86224 — REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE HANDLING OF TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION MATTERS) in March 2000 finding… nothing. Here’s the summary of it the media ran at the time: “A bipartisan congressional panel has concluded the IRS has not been conducting politically motivated investigations of taxpayers during the Clinton years.”. You got nothing–old, recycled, debunked lies that you credulously cling to rather than seeking the truth. Now quit wasting our time.

  36. 36
    Andrew says:

    It’s okay, Paul L. will soon accidentally knock himself out with a wild right while masturbating to Hillary/Ann Coulter lesbian fan fic and thinking about IRS abuses.

  37. 37
    jenniebee says:

    You do realize that the flap over the “was it political/was it performance based” is distracting anybody from asking the question: “what is it that this administration has planned that these guys had to be removed to make way for?”

    Surely, in normal circumstances, the benefits of replacing federal prosecuters en masse are extremely limited. And it’s too late in the administration for this to be a mere WH Travel Office kind of cronyistic purge (if it’s even valid in the first place to compare US Attorneys to something as functionally trivial as a travel agency for the Gaggle). This is the sort of housecleaning that typically takes place at the beginning of a term, not midway through it. And none of these attorneys were pursuing agendas that could be described as liberal, either, so it’s not a case of an emerging ideological contest or anything like that.

    It’s always possible that the WH only just now found the codicil in the Patriot Act that allows the President to do this and said “hey, why not?” But you gotta wonder if they have another fun-fun chapter of American History planned, and this time they decided to deal pre-emptively with their potential Shinsekis.

  38. 38
    dreggas says:

    Unfreaking believable.

    Jeff Sessions is trying to deflect the whole point of the hearings by claiming that because Lam didn’t prosecute enough gun cases she deserved to be removed and is of course pointing to Texas as an example.

  39. 39
    Paul L. says:

    issued a report (2000 CIS J. Print 86224—REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE HANDLING OF TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION MATTERS)

    Let me use your previous reply

    Link? Has anyone (credible) ever substantiated this

    I would like to point out that you went from the audits did not occur to now having a report that investigated the previously non-existent IRS audits.

    The IRS audits were also investigated in the Barrett Report. However that part was suppressed by the Democrats.

  40. 40

    But let’s face it- these guys politicized NASA and the FDA- does anyone think this sounds out of line?

    Apparently, Paul L thinks so.

  41. 41

    Jeff Sessions is trying to deflect the whole point of the hearings by claiming that because Lam didn’t prosecute enough gun cases she deserved to be removed and is of course pointing to Texas as an example.

    God damn Gun grabbers! Where’s the NRA when you need them?

  42. 42
    Otto Man says:

    Pb, don’t bother Paul with facts. They tend to get in the way of his predetermined worldview.

  43. 43
    dreggas says:

    Now Lindsey Graham is saying how he tries to Cycle people through the U.S. atty’s office all the time and played the Clinton Card.

    What a bunch of dumb asses.

  44. 44
    Mr Furious says:

    Those saps (Sessions and Graham) seem not to care that what’s just as bad as firing these guys is that Bush appoints their replacements without Congress or judicial oversight or confirmation.

    Power-stripped and too stupid to care…

  45. 45
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    I would like to point out that you went from the audits did not occur to now having a report that investigated the previously non-existent IRS audits.

    Well, you pointed wrong–the report didn’t cover whether or not any particular audit took place, but it did debunk the ‘politically motivated’ charge by looking at all the audits. And yes, when it comes to credible sources, I do consider the 72,865 words of the Joint Taxation Committee on the subject to be more credible than your ass.

  46. 46
    Tsulagi says:

    Pb, give it up. “Known facts” to the 28%tards are impenetrable by reality, logic, or any other process known to man. Actually, not even Jesus could crack them, and would be bitchslapped if He told them different. It’s air for them. That and perpetual victimhood being their water.

  47. 47
    John S. says:

    Pb-

    You do realize you are trying to reason with Paul L., the same person who proclaimed that Qana was a fraud despite evidence to the contrary, right?

  48. 48
    Richard 23 says:

    In anticipation of Darrel or Richard23 showing up and claiming that these US Attys are protecting their new jobs or selling books…

    Mr Furious (if that’s even your real name), don’t lump me in with that a-hole. But you have to do better than quoting “law enforcement” in Seattle, the most liberal city this side of the Columbia River.

    We had a police chief, Norm Stamper, who wanted to legalize dangerous illicit drugs rather than locking up the thugs. Not exactly the height of deep thinking here in Seattle.

    Replacing US Attys is not an unusual occurrence. And who wouldn’t want to protect their jobs? Certainly not the dead wood. Oh no. Heh.

  49. 49

    […] Venezuela: Problems included politicization of the judiciary, harassment of the media and harassment of the political opposition. […]

  50. 50
    chriskoz says:

    Not that it will make a difference…. but here you go Paul L.

    (It took all of 10 seconds to find it using The Google)

  51. 51
    Zifnab says:

    REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE HANDLING OF TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION MATTERS

    All hail the Google. For she is good.

    I would like to point out that you went from the audits did not occur to now having a report that investigated the previously non-existent IRS audits.

    I think the point is that not all audits are politically motivated. In fact, most audits revolve around the purely non-partisan failure to pay taxes. During the Clinton years, said alleged audits were in-fact entirely without political merit according to the above report. The conclusion? The NRA and Bill O’ aren’t paying their taxes. Way to support our troops.

  52. 52
    Darrell says:

    They all have similar testimonials… These excellent public servants were fired for ploitical reasons. NOT performance reasons.

    No surprise you ignorant lowlifes are too ignorant to realize that when Clinton took office in 2003, he fired every single US attorney except for one.. Were all of them fired over incompetence or dishonesty? Of course not. but that wasn’t “politics” right assholes?

    One of the hallmarks of a typical leftist is that they are ignorant as hell about history, and have little or no sense of perspective.

  53. 53
    Pb says:

    John S.,

    I’m not trying to reason with him, really–I’m just debunking his (incredibly lame and transparent) bullshit and then telling him to go away and quit wasting our time–he can come back when he has something substantive to contribute (heh).

  54. 54
    Darrell says:

    In anticipation of Darrel or Richard23 showing up and claiming that these US Attys are protecting their new jobs or selling books…

    Richard23 is a spoof, and bit of a deranged scumbag. He is an extreme leftist whose real view are cartoonish as hell, yet ironically he spoofs conservatives. He spoofs, because whenever he show his real view, you know he’s a freak.

  55. 55
    srv says:

    When is the last time a left organization (i.e. the Brady Center, The Center for American Progress or the Southern Poverty Law Center) were fully audited?

    Since you’re just making shit up, I’ll provide as much evidence as you do. For every $200M revenue leftie org, I’ll bet they’re statistically audited at the same rate, but depending on the number 501(c) violation/political affiliation complaints filed on them.

    I have no doubt the parts of the NRA that are 501(c) get lots of complaints filed on them by lefties. But me thinks Hitlarry has bigger fish to fry than engineering that.

  56. 56
    Pb says:

    No surprise you ignorant lowlifes are too ignorant to realize that

    How ignorant are we, Darrell?

    when Clinton took office in 2003

    Hilarious. No, we aren’t even that ignorant–try again!

  57. 57
    Mr Furious says:

    Mr Furious (if that’s even your real name)

    Yes, Richard, “Furious” is actually my name [rolls eyes]. I got teased a lot in school, but probably not as much as a guy named “23.”

    As far as lumping you in with Darrell, that was probably a bit much. My apologies. You and Paul L. have been fighting on he same side, but that doesn’t make you the same as Darrell…

    But I’ll stick with wha the Chief od Police and the ATF veteran say about McCoy over what the proven political liars drum up. Thanks very much.

  58. 58
    Darrell says:

    when Clinton took office in 2003

    Hilarious. No, we aren’t even that ignorant—try again!

    Ok, 1993, not 2003. There’s a difference between typos and those leftists posting here who are truly ignorant as hell.

  59. 59
    Tsulagi says:

    No surprise you ignorant lowlifes are too ignorant to realize that when Clinton took office in 2003

    See, the Iraq War, all the lying about WMD’s, brain-dead “we’ll be welcomed as liberators, etc… that was Clinton’s fault! The evildoer was impersonating Bush in 2003 seizing his rightful office. That’s the only thing that makes sense.

  60. 60
    Mr Furious says:

    No surprise you ignorant lowlifes are too ignorant to realize that when Clinton took office in 2003, he fired every single US attorney except for one.. Were all of them fired over incompetence or dishonesty? Of course not. but that wasn’t “politics” right assholes?

    Hey shit-for-brains, Clinton took office in 1993. I know that’s just a typo, but you’d pounce on it and use it as means of invalidating an entire post form one of us “moonbats”….

    So here’s how U.S. Attorneys work, douchebag. Every new President gets to appoint his own. That’s what Clinton did, and that’s what Bush did. That’s not a problem. (In theory, anyway).

    They are confirmed by the Senate, but they serve at the pleasure of the President. So Bush is within his rights to fire them for the color of their ties if he wants, it’s just that replacing USAs in mid-term is almost unheard of. “Until Bush administration took power, only three US attorneys have been forced out since 1981” [link]. They are supposed to be beyond the reach of political pressure.

    If I recall correctly, if a US Atty leaves their post, the Circuit Court picks a temporary replacement, until Congress confirms a permanent one. Because Bush had Specter sneak a provision into the Patriot Act, he can hand-pick a successor that can serve the remaining term without Congressional or Court approval. He has been tabbbing such qualified and dedicated law enforcement officers and public servants as Karl Rove’s assistatnt to take over these importatnt posts…

    Gee, why would anybody be concerned about that?

    Moron.

  61. 61
    Darrell says:

    Furious, that link is demonstrably false

    Nor is it unusual for changes in U.S. attorneys to give rise to conspiracy theories. In 1993 The New York Times published a story with this provocative lead:

    “Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States attorneys, leading the federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.”

    Typical of you hypocritical scumbags to gin up so much self righteous outrage over Bush firing some US attorneys when no one on the left said jack sh*t when Clinton fired more

  62. 62
    Darrell says:

    Furious, you feeling stupid yet? You know, getting all outraged over Bush, when Clinton did the same thing but worse.

  63. 63
    Zifnab says:

    Richard23 Darrell is a spoof, and bit of a deranged scumbag. He is an extreme leftist whose real view are cartoonish as hell, yet ironically he spoofs conservatives. He spoofs, because whenever he show his real view, you know he’s a freak.

    We know, D. We know.

  64. 64
    Pb says:

    Now, on to the next lie:

    he fired every single US attorney except for one

    False.

    Clinton fired more

    Still false.

    Clinton did the same thing but worse

    Incredibly trite, and not getting any truer, either.

    In actuality, Reno asked them to resign, and later modified that, allowing some US attorneys to stay on temporarily if they were in the midst of an important case–US attorneys like Michael Chertoff, for example. But you got that completely wrong, making this…

    Typical of you hypocritical scumbags to gin up so much self righteous outrage over Bush firing someReno asking for the resignation of US attorneys when no one on the leftright said jack sh*t when ClintonBush fired more

  65. 65
    Mr Furious says:

    Again, Darrell. These are political appointments. Are you trying to compare Clinton appointing his own crew of US Attorney’s at the start of his term with Bush firing 8 of his own appointments in mid-term.

    Let me spell it out for you, retard:

    Clinton takes office. He selects his own U.S. Attorneys like every other President. They undergo Congressional confirmation. They all serve out their terms (as far as I know).

    Bush takes office. He selects his own U.S. Attorneys like every other President. They undergo Congressional confirmation. Bush sneaks a provision into the PATRIOT Act allowing him to appoint replacements for US Attys without oversight or confirmation, bypassing two other co-equal branches of government. Right after losing control of Congress, he kicks off this bogus new power with an unprecedented firing of eight highly-regarded and effective US Attys in MIDTERM. He uses his power to appoint close political operatives into crucial law enforcement roles.

    Yeah, same fucking thing.

    No, I am not feeling stupid, and you are very unlikely to ever make that happen.

  66. 66
    Mr Furious says:

    Oh, the next paragraph of your link, Darrell?

    Rostenkowski was indicted in 1994 under the aegis of a Democratic U.S. attorney, and later pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

    Minor google research reveals that the US Attorney that took over the case still proceeded with indictments against rostenkowki, costing him his Chairmanship in an election year, and his seat in Congress. He was sentenced in 1995 and served 15 months in prison.

    Next bullshit, please, Darrell?

  67. 67
    Vancouver says:

    Richard 23:

    But you have to do better than quoting “law enforcement” in Seattle, the most liberal city this side of the Columbia River.

    I object to your US-centrist worldview! I kick Seattle ass on the libometer!!1!squarerootofonehundredtwentyone!!

  68. 68
    Darrell says:

    Next bullshit, please, Darrell?

    What “bullshit” Furious? You’re the extreme hypocrite here, going apeshit over Bush firing some US attorneys when Clinton did worse, firing more attorneys and doing so as payback during a time when Dems were being investigated for corruption.

    In actuality, Reno asked them to resign, and later modified that, allowing some US attorneys to stay on temporarily if they were in the midst of an important case—US attorneys like Michael Chertoff, for example

    Not “some” US attorneys to stay, only 1.. Chertoff. All but 1 were fired.

  69. 69
    jenniebee says:

    Darrell, if I told you that I was going to sneak up behind you and nip the tinfoil hat off your head, would you characterize that as a death threat?

    Just curious.

  70. 70
    dreggas says:

    what’s even more amusing is the fact that these attorney’s being let go were appointed by Bush unless I am mistaken. Sadly they had to either investigate republicans or not subordinate themselves to the rpublican half wits in congress and now are being pushed out for those who will.

  71. 71
    Jake says:

    Back on topic. The anonymous attorneys become less so.

    Mr. Roehrkasse will be pleased I have no doubt.

  72. 72
    Pb says:

    Mr Furious,

    Even better… to quote an old article from William Safire (who sounds just like Darrell, incidentally…)

    Early last year, the Clintons ordered Attorney General Janet Reno to take the unprecedented step of firing all U.S. attorneys across the country and replacing them immediately with deserving Democrats.

    False, and just as partisan and distorted as Darrell’s storyline, but go figure…

    We wondered then if the primary purpose of that partisan purge was pure patronage or to delay the indictment of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski by Republican Jay Stephens in D.C.

    Wrong again, so if it wasn’t that…

    Now we can logically surmise the reason was to provide cover for the quick installation of Bill Clinton’s campaign worker and law student, Paula Casey, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock to abort a potentially dangerous investigation into a fraudulent loan that benefited the Clintons.

    Brilliant! Of course, that didn’t pan out either, but… please ignore the man behind the curtain…

  73. 73
    Mr Furious says:

    You’re the extreme hypocrite here, going apeshit over Bush firing some US attorneys when Clinton did worse, firing more attorneys and doing so as payback during a time when Dems were being investigated for corruption.

    Wrong. I carefully spelled out for you why these situations are different. Get it through your thick fucking 28-percenter head. Clinton hired his own US Attorneys as soon as his AG was confirmed. Just like every other President. Including your beloved hero, Boy George.

    Bush is canning them now, since they had the audacity to do their jobs, and Bush and his lackeys are worried about covering their asses for two years without control of Congress.

    Firing them in mid-term is bad enough, and unprecedented—and that is a fucking indisputable fact, shithead. Replacing them for two years without confirmation is outrageous. When did Clinton do that?

    Also, as I outlined above, the investigation you are crowing about, went on unimpeded, with a new U.S. Attorney overseeing many of the same Republican staffers.

  74. 74
    Darrell says:

    Clinton hired his own US Attorneys as soon as his AG was confirmed. Just like every other President. Including your beloved hero, Boy George

    Can you cite where Chimpey McHalliburton fired all, or even 80%+ of the US attorneys in 2001? Did you just pull that out of your ass, or do you have citation that happened?

  75. 75
    Pooh says:

    No, I am not feeling stupid, and you are very unlikely to ever make that happen.

    How much time did you spend responding to the Senator? In a way he should make you feel stupid…

  76. 76
    jenniebee says:

    We wondered then if the primary purpose of that partisan purge was pure patronage or to delay the indictment of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski by Republican Jay Stephens in D.C.

    Wrong again, so if it wasn’t that…

    Pardon, Pb, but aren’t you pulverized by the pure power of Safire’s potent alliterative prowess?

    Please, prostrate yourself before the prognosticative power of the plosive!

  77. 77
    Pb says:

    jenniebee,

    Safire’s sliminess subdues the subtle stanzas stuffed in specious sentences.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Pardon, Pb, but aren’t you pulverized by the pure power of Safire’s potent alliterative prowess?

    Please, prostrate yourself before the prognosticative power of the plosive!

    Suffice it to say that simply starting sentences with a certain sibilance and seeing to it that said sibilance is successfully sustained from start to stop sonically symbolizes the serpentine sort that Safire stands for.

  80. 80
    Richard 23 says:

    Richard23 is a spoof, and bit of a deranged scumbag. He is an extreme leftist whose real view are cartoonish as hell, yet ironically he spoofs conservatives. He spoofs, because whenever he show his real view, you know he’s a freak.

    You are an obsessed weirdo.

  81. 81
    AaronWa says:

    Did anyone look at the website of the 3rd poster down? Seems like a pretty outright racist promoting his site in your threads.

  82. 82
    DougJ says:

    I think this prosecutor firing business is very, very serious.

    That’s all I really have to say about it.

  83. 83
    Jimmy Mack says:

    No surprise you ignorant lowlifes are too ignorant to realize that when Clinton took office in 2003, he fired every single US attorney except for one.

    And in many cases, his reasons were political. What’s happening here is pretty common — a few prosecutors being let go for reasons of incompetence. What Clinton did was essentially a Cristalnacht for prosecutors, possibly the most egregious abuse of power we’ve seen in our lifetimes. Yet the press said nothing, wonder why…

  84. 84
    Zifnab says:

    a few prosecutors being let go for reasons of incompetence.

    I agree. The incompetence was at the heart of the matter. Could Darrell, Jimmy Mack, Richard23, or any of the other spoofs on this board illuminate us as to what these reasons were?

  85. 85
    Pb says:

    Zifnab,

    Well, they generally had positive performance reviews and sterling records–I guess they just didn’t fit in with the rest of the administration, which is why they had to be replaced with incompetent partisan hacks.

  86. 86
    mrmobi says:

    Hey Gruppenfuhrer Darrell:

    It appears that all of the fired US Attorneys were Bush II appointees. This kind of begs the question, were they all horrible selections or is this Chimpy McHalliburtons’ Saturday Night Massacre? Either way, the Chimp comes out looking like… well, a monkey.

    If this coup is purely political, is it being done to put purely ideological hacks in place, and why?

    Do you ever wonder why you have no friends?

  87. 87
    mrmobi says:

    Thanks, AaronWa, for identifying the problem with the third poster in this thread.

    I just had the unfortunate experience of linking to somthing called “The Thug Report.” I now truly understand what “pornography” is.

    Can I ask John and Tim why this kind of shit should not be immediately deleted?

    If I wanted to go to a Nazi site, I’d rather that be my choice. Please ban this fucking retarded racist!

    Nick Kasoff
    , please take you mindless bullshit somewhere else. Also, please seek mental health help immediately, you vile cocksucker.

  88. 88

    Darrell,

    I realize you don’t care because you are a partisan hack, but I’ve been going through the list of US Attorney’s…

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/index.html

    And on many of the sites, they list past attorneys, and their dates of serving, and I find something amazing. It’s pretty damn common to change US Attorney’s at the start of a new Presidents term.

    for instance, this list at the Louisiana Western District is comprehensive going back to 1805.

    2001 – New Bush appointee
    1993 – New clinton appointee
    1981 – New Reagan appointee
    1977 – Carter
    1969 – Nixon
    1953 – Eisenhower
    1921 – Harding
    1913 – Wilson
    1893 – Cleveland
    1889 – Harrison
    1885 – Cleveland

    In the few cases where a new one wasn’t appointed in the year a President came into office, a new one was appointed 1-2 years later. Such as Roosevelt in 1935, or Kennedy in 1962.

    In all of the cases where a bio is listed of the US Attorney, not a single one was appointed prior to 2001. The vast majority of them were appointed in 2001, like over 50%.

    What does all of this tell us?

    Obviously, that you are unable to do your own research and instead parrot partisan lines handed to you through email as excuses.

  89. 89

    Well it appears there’s another Jeff Gannon in the wingnutosphere. some guy who is going around with coulter and hannity whining about how hard it is to be a military recruiter… turns out to actually be a gay porn star that does escorting on the side.

  90. 90
    Pb says:

    The Other Steve,

    And apparently, he’s got a blog! I don’t know that it’s fair to call him “another Jeff Gannon”, though–from what I’ve seen so far, Matt Sanchez seems like an ok guy. However, it should be entertaining watching the resulting wingnut meltdown from this one…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Venezuela: Problems included politicization of the judiciary, harassment of the media and harassment of the political opposition. […]

  2. […] And psst, this is just for you own good. At some point may we wake up and realize there is very little patriotic about the Patriot Act. […]

  3. […] John Cole considers who’s (really) to blame for the most recent installment in the saga of the fired US Attorneys. […]

Comments are closed.