Comments (41)

Ian wrote on March 7, 2007 5:57 PM:

What is Arlen Specter doing on this committee?!? Didn't his aide put language into the Patriot Act re-up that started all this mess? Isn't there a conflict of interest there?

Redshift wrote on March 7, 2007 6:01 PM:

Our congresspersons need to be reminded that impeachment isn't just for presidents. Gonzales must go; he is the *top law enforcement officer in the country*, and he's been using his office for political dirty tricks rather than to enforce the law. (He should have been impeached long ago for lying to Congress, but better late than never.)

rumpole wrote on March 7, 2007 6:01 PM:

Finally. This is just getting started, folks. Hang on to your hats.

oppositionradio wrote on March 7, 2007 6:06 PM:

Is anyone following the the Lam thread? and how it leads to Duncan Hunter? There is a story there - alot of this may all be small potatoes compared to what Lams office may have been looking into in terms of Duncan Hunters connection, Cunningham, Wade, MZM and the rest of the corruption in So Cal.

Dennis wrote on March 7, 2007 6:16 PM:

Specter's been nothing but a shill for the Bush administration.

While appearing in public to understand the need to reign in the Bush administrations warrantless spying, Specter wanted to give "blanket amnesty to anyone who authorized warrantless surveillance under presidential authority, a provision that seems to ensure that no one would be held criminally liable if the current program is found illegal under present law."

And let's not forget that the authorization in the first place to remove these attorneys was slipped into the reneweal of the Patriot Act(s) by Specter's office. (Of course, it was someone in Specter's office and he had no knowledge of it?).

Wonder who, if anyone, was fired for that?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

1Watt wrote on March 7, 2007 6:23 PM:

Interesting if true, org. link didn't work.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/7/81651/41812

EH wrote on March 7, 2007 6:23 PM:

I was under the impression that the authorization to remove the attorneys was always there, "at the pleasure of the President" and all that. What was slipped into the Patriot Act renewal was the removal of Senate confirmation for their replacements.

EH wrote on March 7, 2007 6:24 PM:

Ugh, Kos is quickly turning (already turned?) into a Left-oriented Drudge Report.

JDB wrote on March 7, 2007 6:32 PM:

Has anyone considered the possibility that Lam was the real target and that the others were cover so her firing would attract less attention? We know that this administration likes to target individuals and that other people frequently function as camouflage/secondary targets/collateral damage. Lam's case appeared to lead her closer to centers of executive power, like the CIA, whereas the other cases were focused on individual electoral outcomes.

Brooklynite wrote on March 7, 2007 6:54 PM:

JDB, that makes some sense.

EH, what are you talking about?

Ian, how do you think Specter's aide inserted that provision in the first place? He was head of the Committe before the Dems re-took the Senate. And no, that does not create a conflict of interest, though Specter himself is a cowardly turd.

grandpa john wrote on March 7, 2007 7:04 PM:

It would appear that the slowly developing theme is that those targeted , we going after criminals who were republican which of course is a no no

daCascadian wrote on March 7, 2007 7:05 PM:

JDB needs to keep thinking that way & just note that if an entity wanted to defeat a giant one of the easiest methods is to "blind"/distract it.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

LTO wrote on March 7, 2007 7:09 PM:

How about Harriet Myers?

bumblebums wrote on March 7, 2007 7:10 PM:

Can someone explain why Schumer is chairing this committee? What happened to Leahy?

Mary wrote on March 7, 2007 7:22 PM:

"At the pleasure of the President ..."

USAttys can be fired by the President for no reason and for bad reasons. Not, however, for illegal reasons. Like say, just as an example, obstruction of justice.

The right to remove is not unfettered by any consideration.

Then there is also the Patriot Act issue. It makes it more appealing to remove, bc they can fill without having to find someone who can get through advice and consent and without lots of nasty questions on what the new appointee will do about pending public corruption cases.

Slouch wrote on March 7, 2007 7:29 PM:

Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer told two of the fired prosecutors that they were being replaced in order to free up the spot for someone else.

This is on of the biggest ironies of the entire thing to me, because William Mercer is not only Acting Associate AG, he himself is currently the US Attorney for Montana. One of our Federal judges has been BEGGING the AG to "free up" Mercer's spot for years because Mercer spends all of his time in DC and his performance as a USA is suspect. If there's so much new blood and so little time, why hasn't the AG relieved Mercer (who has moved to DC and no longer lives in Montana) of HIS USA position?

(my secret password for this post if "fire." I LOVE it!)

mbbsdphil wrote on March 7, 2007 7:30 PM:

The president has authority to replace officers such as USA's at will. His staff's contradictory stories about this unprecedented mass firing, however, are troubling.

The administration could have made this simple had they consistently said, "It's time to make room for a few other equally talented fresh faces. Thanks very much for your outstanding service."

That would have made their ouster irritating but uncontestable for them and the Democrats. The three options I see for not doing that is because they couldn't resist exacting payback, they screwed up, or they felt they needed this controversy to distract from others. The options aren't exclusive.

The legal issue is that the stories behind these firings suggest that there may have illegal acts done to intimidate federal officers and interfere in the performance of their duties.

The political issue is that the administration seems to have repeatedly lied about its reasons and process, and this deserves to be outted. The political issue is also to develop support to repeal the authority secretively granted to the AG to replace these attorneys without the Senate's advice and consent.

slouch wrote on March 7, 2007 7:36 PM:

In a statement Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “Now that it’s clear that there was a concerted effort to purge an impressive crop of U.S. Attorneys, the next step is to identify and question those responsible for hatching this scheme to use U.S. Attorneys as pawns in a political chess game.”

Paul, was this an oral statement or a press release? If it's a PR, did you get a copy? can you post it?

Slouch wrote on March 7, 2007 7:41 PM:

ps, Whats become of Ackerman? I haven't seen his byline for a few days, and I really like his stuff. Is he still on the team?

nulla bona wrote on March 7, 2007 7:42 PM:

It's time to reexamine the insertion of the language in teh Patriot Act that made this whole thing possible. Did the executive deliberately subvert the legislative by a plant, a sleight of hand that no one elected in congress seemed to know of? Is there a crime here somewhere for Fitzgerald to look at? Can't Congress simply say we didn't pass that and amend nunc pro tunc as they say (a do over as of 12/1/06).

BG wrote on March 7, 2007 8:18 PM:

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611992.shtml

Anonymous wrote on March 7, 2007 8:33 PM:

was the Spector aide who inserted the US Attorney language in Patriot II ever identified by name? Dollars to donuts he was a Bush operative at some point past.

Jack wrote on March 7, 2007 9:12 PM:

Possible Neocon think tank replacement for Gonzales: http://www.i-mockery.com/generalzod/media/zod-vanity.jpg

An old quote from Apocalypse Now kind of resembles this Administration...."He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops."

I'm sure that Nixon's ghost is resting easier knowing that history won't record his Presidency as being the worst in American history.

elrapierwit wrote on March 7, 2007 9:14 PM:

bumblebums

Schumer chairs the Senate panel subcommittee that covers the court system
That is why Leahy is not chairing.

bumblebums wrote on March 7, 2007 9:27 PM:

elrapierwit

Thank you.

lee wrote on March 7, 2007 10:58 PM:

How many votes does the senate need in order to get these justice guys to come to the investigation.
If it is 60 I doubt we will get it and likely Lieberman will vote with the republicans.

KCinDC wrote on March 7, 2007 11:50 PM:

Bumblebums, from the story the vote is a vote by the committee, not the whole Senate, so neither Lieberman nor a filibuster is involved.

EH seems to be confused about the Daily Kos (Kos made a mistake by naming it after himself). It's nothing like Drudge. It's a community site, and the vast majority of the stuff on it isn't written by Kos or even read by him. Hell, there are a lot of obscure diary entries that aren't read by much of anyone.

cbr wrote on March 8, 2007 6:21 AM:

It is helpful for the committee that the mid-level people being called will see daily information about Libby. I think that the conviction of Libby will help "motivate" them to participate fully and acurrately in this process. Then once we have their information it will be time to call in AG.

CBR

jerri wrote on March 8, 2007 8:17 AM:

Question....did the doj in la set up Jefferson in order to keep their job??

Arkansan wrote on March 8, 2007 9:49 AM:

There are two issues. They absolutely should investigate the abuse of power, not that their going to do anything with the results of the investigation, mind you.

Second, and most importantly, they should NOW insert the requirement for confirmation in every bill that will require the President’s signature. It’s simple, if some Republican stonewalls, FIGHT BACK for Goodness sake. Let them filibuster, they’ll look like fools, this is important! What the administration proposes to do with the unaccountable AG’s is prosecute where there aren’t crimes. What is wrong with the congress?

bob wrote on March 8, 2007 10:17 AM:

is it me or have the Democrats forgotten that politics is a bloodsport? Fight back indeed. i don't think they remember how. For gods sake we need to SEE a filibuster. Don't just run and hide because they threaten one. Maybe one of those overweight bastards on the reps side will have a heart attack and you can pick up another seat. Think outside of the damn box Dems!

my word was 'canvas'

kate@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 1:42 AM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 1:01 AM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 1:01 AM:

hello

Dominik Blocker wrote on May 21, 2007 7:17 AM:

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Dominik Blocker wrote on May 21, 2007 7:17 AM:

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Josef Hutton wrote on May 22, 2007 2:41 PM:

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US.

Josef Hutton wrote on May 22, 2007 2:42 PM:

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US.

anime kunoichi wrote on December 21, 2007 11:53 AM:

dcvpfcfrpvx9i anime kunoichi anime kunoichi

anime kunoichi wrote on December 21, 2007 11:54 AM:

dcvpfcfrpvx9i anime kunoichi anime kunoichi

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:05 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye