Comments (37)

too little, too late wrote on March 8, 2007 5:59 PM:

Good. But a little late isn't it?

It's like saying Custer would in fact have liked to retreat, once already wounded in the proverbial last stand.

This can't be the end of this! They're on the run, a serious whooping is long overdue, and the broader public is fed up.

Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 6:03 PM:

btw, it;s especially loathsome specter is taking some credit for "fixing" what he broke, after the damage is done.

Hey, I want that deal on bank robbery! If caught I'll pledge to replace part of the stolen loot, call myself a hero, and give myself a finder's fee.

Really, where does Specter's hypocrisy end?

It stinks Specter's getting away with this and still sitting pompously and largely untarnished on committee.

Gimme a break. wrote on March 8, 2007 6:09 PM:

"First, the Attorney General told us the Administration would not oppose our legislation requiring Senate confirmation for all U.S. Attorneys."

Not openly anyways. Republicans will still vote against it with the WH blessing.

"Second, in one form or another, each of the five Department of Justice witnesses will be made available to us for questioning. The details and venue are still being worked out, but we are hopeful they will cooperate."

One form or another? Hopeful? What the hell is this?

This is a scandal investigation of serious proportions. Not a fucking social dance!

Why not just subpoena them? Who is dragging committee ass? Wouldn't be Specter by any chance?

Arkansan wrote on March 8, 2007 6:13 PM:

"It's like saying Custer would in fact have liked to retreat, once already wounded in the proverbial last stand."

Right. The new US Attorneys are there because they passed the abuse-of-power litmus test. No acceptable compromise should allow the hacks to remain on the job,they are de facto suspect. If the senate had any sense at all (yes, I know) they demand that those fired be offered their jobs back. Sigh.

biggerbox wrote on March 8, 2007 6:15 PM:

Golly, you mean that, maybe, if he isn't impeached for lying to Congress or staging a back-stage power-grab through sacking the US Attorneys, Mr. Gonzales will deign to allow Congress to put the law back the way it was before his underlings put one over on Specter's staffers? How magnanimous!

And not only that, he agree to allow the people Congress wants to even come talk to Congress? Wow.

He really rolled over on this, all right.

Feh.

rackNruin wrote on March 8, 2007 6:16 PM:

Reinstate the fired attorneys, shitcan Gonzales and bring him and his underlings up on conspiracy charges.

Oh, yeah.. all the above might take some balls. Sorry, I forgot...we're talking about the Democratic majority

Anonymous wrote on March 8, 2007 6:16 PM:

To Gimme --

"First, the Attorney General told us the Administration would not oppose our legislation requiring Senate confirmation for all U.S. Attorneys."

Not openly anyways. Republicans will still vote against it with the WH blessing.

EXACTLY THE POINT. You cannot trust them. They'll bring a gun to a knife fight.

Dreggas wrote on March 8, 2007 6:25 PM:

Oh give me a break. Look for the legislation to be accompanied by a signing statement saying Gonzales can do whatever he wants and the president flipping off Congress.

As for the staff being "made available in one form or another" that will probably mean not under oath and definitely not in public.

C'mon Schumer, as one NYer to another it's time for you to grow a pair

nofltwlt wrote on March 8, 2007 6:31 PM:

Will the competent prosecutors return to their positions, replacing the Bush political hacks.

Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 6:34 PM:

Totally agree about Gonzales, and that it's absurd Specter's staffers are stooges for the DoJ appointees fro the Exec.

Both Specter and Gonzalez deserve equal blame, and both were marching to the WH's drum. It's no coincidence one of Rove's flying monkeys, an inexperienced stooge who'd never pass review, was a quick appointee.

And what's the motive behind all this to begin with? Why the close proximity to corruption scandals in so many cases?

There are plenty of qualified and impartial candidates who would have passed review with flying colors, who could implement any legit DoJ goals set by Gonzalez. It's obvious this was extra insurance for political favors especially in corruption cases, and that the canned USA didn't deliver favors.

Dreggas wrote on March 8, 2007 6:42 PM:

"And what's the motive behind all this to begin with? Why the close proximity to corruption scandals in so many cases?"

I've been wondering the same thing, Lam was involved in the Cunningham case, Iglesias was obviously replaced for not going after dems enough but what about these other guys? I somehow doubt, since they were bush appointee's, that these guys were thrown under the bus just to provide cover (even if Libby was).

Gonzales got this inserted in the patriot act for a reason and the language itself was deliberate. What does the admin have to hide that it targeted specific atty's? Rove was talking today how this is all "normal" yeah at the beginning of a term and when it means sacking the lot of them but there is more to this than the "thrown under the bus" arguement.

Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 6:42 PM:

Specter is helping block action, you can count on that.

I think Schumer wants to run with it, but hasn't yet committed to all out war if Specter continues to stonewall with Republican support.

I think it's a mistake to let Specter get away with it wothout calling him out for it. The PATRIOT issue and Specter's involvement is just waiting to be revisited in the press. It'll be bloody but a winner.

Hopefully the House is getting into things now, and we'll see some action on that end. Dems need to get it in gear though and follow though. It's a good start...

All the blogs should be hammering Specter for PATRIOT. He needs to have his name all over this scandal and basically put his neck on the line if he wants to continue obstructing investigation.

justintime wrote on March 8, 2007 6:54 PM:

We demand the fired prosecutors be reinstated so they can continue their investigations.
If you can't make this happen, Arlen, just resign your Senate seat.

Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 8, 2007 6:58 PM:

"Gonzales got this inserted in the patriot act for a reason and the language itself was deliberate. What does the admin have to hide that it targeted specific atty's?"

Well it can be something specific, and was in certain cases, but more than that it's just "preventative prosecution insurance."

If you have a biased machine where you know the cops are all essentially bought off loyalists, well then you don't have to worry about any pesky corruption cases.

Let's not kid ourselves, everybody in the Republican party has been taking dirty money laundered from people like DeLay, Abramoff, Norquist, etc. and they all know it.

They also know they've been allowing lobbyists to basically run Washington.

There are any number of issues they're exposed to investigation on.

Everybody before November was saying that if Dems won there would be investigations and hearings held on the widespread malfeasance. That was part of the Dem mandate, even more important than Iraq with many voters!

Corruption passed the Brooks test with flying colors, i.e. David Brooks tried very hard to downplay the importance of corruption to the November elections, proving Republicans were worried.

They're not all exactly prosecutable crooks, but they all have something to be concerned about hiding and all want a USA who'll give them a large benefit of the doubt while giving Dems less than none. Any more exposure on corruption and pay for play politics, and Republicans are done for a while.

So, the motivation? Pretty obvious really.

Dennis wrote on March 8, 2007 7:04 PM:

Perhaps Specter has let the White House know that he can't hold it together for them any longer and therefore the caving-in.

This time, the public won't stand for it.

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

elrapierwit wrote on March 8, 2007 7:48 PM:

I want to know, why there are so many Western States involved. NM, WA, CA, NV...how many electoral votes would that be in the next Presidential election?

This seems to be about corruption cases and also election scams. Is it possible they want to have all the legal folks in place to steal the next Presidential election?

jeffgee wrote on March 8, 2007 8:32 PM:

It's the Surge and Purge Administration!

angryvietnamvet wrote on March 8, 2007 9:15 PM:

Subpoena. Ask hard questions. Put Specter on the spot and demand to know who on his staff put in the provision for the White House/DOJ. He should be fired (he can get a lobbying job the next morning). Pursue cospiracy charges against Gonzales and impeach him. Then cut off all their balls for good measure and send them to Guantanamo for rehab.

P J Evans wrote on March 8, 2007 10:19 PM:

CA is 55 electoral votes. That's 10 percent (well, a little over, but - !)

And either Arlen will cave and screw the bill again, or there'll be a signing statement that negates the bill somehow.

Duckman GR wrote on March 8, 2007 11:15 PM:

It's all politics, all the time, don't forget that. They're a corruption machine constantly churning, a gaping maw of putrefaction slavering for the next morsel, and they don't care where it comes from, or how.

Judith Lenn Soignet wrote on March 8, 2007 11:20 PM:

Can't we please have some honest government right now? This corruption is so tiring and oppressive.

sybelia wrote on March 9, 2007 12:46 AM:

Thank you Senators Schumer and Feingold. We really are being run by a criminal syndicate as Rep. McKinney said before the cheney regime election frauded her and us out of her seat in Congress.

This sounds troubling, IMO. Why should a Federal Attorney have to be so defensive in a conversation with the DOJ?....... I thought that excerpted testimony was very creepy.......Yep. "Archangels of Death", as Chris Matthews refers to Cheney's goons.

No wonder Congress has been a rubberstamp for these thugs...up til now. God bless them all for standing up to the threat of violence from the People's White House??!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x358459

Peter Kauffner wrote on March 9, 2007 1:52 AM:

The first thing Clinton did when he became president was to fire every single Reagan-Bush US attorney. There was hardly any fuss about it. In 1996, he fired the entire top layer of managment at the CIA. This awful a lot of fuss about just three U.S. attorney positions.

Specter and PATRIOT wrote on March 9, 2007 3:15 AM:

Big differenec between what Clinton did:

Clinton: Complete an indiscriminate firings, as he was entitled to do, with new appointments vetted by congressional hearings to insure their qualifications and professionalism.

Bush: Discriminating firings of USA who bucked refused to roll over for when political pressure was brought to bear on individual cases by Senators, who have no business leaning on prosecutors and are in fact barred by ethics rules for doing so. Sneaking a provision into PATRIOT in the dead of night, to allow replacement appointment's confirmation hearings to be delayed indefinitly, and using that provision to appoint puppets like Karl Rove's staffer, utterly unqualified to be a USA, without congressional oversight.

Totally different.

upnorthsox wrote on March 9, 2007 5:24 AM:

"In 1996, he fired the entire top layer of managment at the CIA."

He did??? O' do tell, I must've still been hung over from the reelection parties and missed this little tidbit.

Well googling brought up nada, not even in the Freerepublics clintonista files which woulda included more benign acts like "Clinton picks nose, flicks booger in Langley's direction".

"This awful a lot of fuss about just three U.S. attorney positions."

The diminishing has already begun aye, how it quickly goes from 8 to 3. By '08 it'll be "What attorneys?".

jello wrote on March 9, 2007 6:21 AM:

I've been wondering the same thing, Lam was involved in the Cunningham case,

lam brought the wilkes/ dusty foggo (former cia offical) case to indictment. how will that case be affected with carol lam absent?

Anonymous wrote on March 9, 2007 6:25 AM:

"In 1996, he fired the entire top layer of managment at the CIA. This awful a lot of fuss about just three U.S. attorney positions."

the cia chief preceding tenet lost (or had stolen) his laptop. rightwing pressure was applied to get him fired.

jello wrote on March 9, 2007 6:34 AM:

correction: cia cheif john deutch improperly stored classified material on his laptop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

there's been a rash of stolen laptops in other agencies.

Peter Kauffner wrote on March 9, 2007 8:35 AM:

Specter and PATRIOT: The CIA purge happened when Deutch was director. At that time, Tenet was already supervising the CIA from his post at NSA.

Arkansan wrote on March 9, 2007 9:51 AM:

“The first thing Clinton did when he became president was to fire every single Reagan-Bush US attorney. There was hardly any fuss about it. In 1996, he fired the entire top layer of managment at the CIA. This awful a lot of fuss about just three U.S. attorney positions.”

Karl Rove mentioned yesterday that Bush did basically the same thin when he assumed the office. They all do, and that is not the point. You really still don’t get it, it isn’t THAT complicated? No one disagrees that the firings themselves would have been legal if their purpose weren’t abuse of power of an unprecedented kind.

TWO ISSUES, please try to understand. The important issue is not the firings, but the illegal nature of the firings.

tonny@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 9:22 AM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

jenny@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 10:43 PM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

willy@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 1:42 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 3:14 AM:

hello

nilzuvmw wztf wrote on August 29, 2007 3:14 PM:

cguew dhqpw lkcp uprfl yuifhrclx gewplyi jbhtrne

nilzuvmw wztf wrote on August 29, 2007 3:15 PM:

cguew dhqpw lkcp uprfl yuifhrclx gewplyi jbhtrne

nilzuvmw wztf wrote on August 29, 2007 3:16 PM:

cguew dhqpw lkcp uprfl yuifhrclx gewplyi jbhtrne