Centerfield

Well, since I haven't gotten it all out of my system, let me just say...

Ah, just messing with ya, Brian! Couldn't let you get your wish with the enduring zero, ya know?

The story isn't that they were fired (or not rehired). It is that the White House previously denied that it had any involvement in that decision, and now we know that it did. Just another instance where the reaction to a "problem" creates a problem that is exponentially worse than the original "problem" itself.

Patronage jobs are one thing. All presidents choose new USA's.

Using USA's to further a political agenda, however, is beeeg no no.

Using USA's to further a political agenda, however, is beeeg no no

Enormously false in at least one VERY MAJOR sense, marcus. USA's are to [a] uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States, and [2] do so in accordance with the legitimate policy directives of the administration. The former goes directly to job performance.

Legitimate policy directives include such things as seeking the death penalty in appropriate cases, and prosecuting illegal immigration scams and vote fraud when it occurs. If that annoys the minority party, if it gores their particular ox for some reason, too bad. Don't like the policies, get elected and set your own. Keep them legitimate. Shouldn't be too tough as there's a LOT of leeway there.

ZERO evidence has been offered that any innocents were persecuted or any guilty ignored in response to any directives from the admin, much less peresecuted or ignored on a partisan basis. THOSE would be reprehensible and potentially illegal admin actions. The rest is all partisan BS.

And as Brian noted, we've already beaten this horse to death (and then flagellated the corpse for good measure) over at Stubborn Facts. Past what I just said, I'll give the re-hash a miss.

Policy directives aside, you're not supposed to target efforts based on political affiliation of the target which seems to be the case. That's what got Nixon in trouble - examples:

Carol Lam, who successfully prosecuted Randy "Duke" Cunningham for bribery, was actively investigating Republican House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis at the time of her dismissal
Paul Charlton was investigating Republican Congressman Rick Renzi for bribery and illegal land dealings.Now in terms of POLICY as you note, he did spar with the Bush Administration over the merits of the death penalty.
David Iglesias, a commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve waspressured by Domenici and other republicans to indict Democrats prior to the 2006 elections. Domenici should be censured
Washington state GOP Chairman Chris Vance admitted to pressuring fired U.S. Attorney John McKay to investigate Democrats at the urging of the "White House's political office."
McNulty said to Congress that the USA's were fired for poor performance. Their records say otherwise.
BTW, let's blow away your first point.
The oath:
I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
help me God."

No such allegiance is sworn to either the President or his policies. He can hire you, he can fire you, but it better not even appear to be interfering with the performance of the office.

scary huh?

Scary? Nope. Boring. VERY boring. Politics as usual.

Unless someone comes up with direct evidence (not accusations...which lead us right down the pointless he-said-she-said slope) that investigations or their lack were politically motivated, I could give a frig less.

Tully, are you aware of the study done by 2 U of Minn professors that shows a 7:1 ratio of investigations of democrats relative to republicans by US Attorneys?

Very funny, WHQ... have you SEEN StubbornFacts this week?

I have read Stubborn Facts (good posts) and presently, I must second Pat, Tully and Brian. How many were fired by Clinton? The only thing that irks me is the ratio WHQ mentions given the pathetic corruption on the part of Republicans for the last several years. I do not find this selectivity illegal, just partisan, as usual. Maybe the Democrats should blame themselves for losing through stupidity and allowing the balance of power to produce such results. While this situation looks sleazy, how many over-reaches can the Democrats endure on the way to 2008? They will lose this battle too as they are losing the "retreat from Iraq" one. Next they will try to dismantle the entire Patriot Act and lose that one as well. This must remind Jay of WW1.

Already Hillary has contradicted her stumping on Iraq position. Just read the front page of the NYT yesterday. Immigration may be the next stop with the Times falsely reporting Homeland Security ripping babies from their mothers. And then they need Bush's help to get it through...LOL Its like an endless fishing excursion while Democrats steer clear of chiming in on world events for fear of sounding either too much like our adversaries, or too much like Bush.

PLease forgive me ----Jay is a contraction of Jon plus Kay. Sorry Jon....

Marcus, I don't doubt some sleaze here. Both Attorney Generals are/were rather lame in my book. So was the former SEC of DEF. This is not the smoking gun you thnk it is. And how sleazy would it be to break into this story as a cover for getting your ass kicked over the last story (Iraq)? So far, what have the Democrats been doing for me lately? Just what we thought they would do? They might as well have called their philosophy, "a way backwards". No wonder 300 is selling well. This political game has become painfully boring and unproductive. It's worse than Wild Hogs and approaching V for Vendetta.

Pat,

I've been too busy reading Obsidian Wings to get over to SF. ;)

I knew that was you!

That's impossible. I wear a ski mask while I'm typing my comments on that site.

I opened my mail and:

"This could be George Bush's Watergate.

Eight U.S. Attorneys, fired because they wouldn't follow orders by the Bush Administration.

Fired because they refused to go on witch-hunts against Democrats, or ignored the Republicans' blatant disregard for the law. Fired so that they could be replaced by talking heads and loyalists of the Bush Administration" Howard Dean MD in a new letter from the DNC.

Howard, you don't think us "liberals" are just going to swallow this hook line and stinker, do you? Watergate comparisons? No evidence, just questions like when did Rove know? It is a bit childish. Bush firing someone because he wouldn't go after illegals? What the hell side is Dean on?

Last month, “let's stop the illegal war we have lost". Now this. Hey, what happened to the money found in a Democrat's freezer? What happened to the failed approach to NK? Yes, this is getting both too predictable and too boring.

Dean is deranged.

Marcus, Lam was targeted for dismissal long before the Cunningham investigation began as were several others on the list. You really do need to quit drinkin' the KoolAid, it's 99% fact free with zero context.

USA's, like any employee, are to follow the legitimate policy directives of the administration. Just as an employee in ANY organization is supposed to follow policy. As long as that policy does not conflict with the law, there is no conflict. It is not up to USA's to set policy any more than it's up to store clerks to do so. I'm subject to that same oath--it doesn't allow me to set government policy.

Centerfield - halfway between reasonable and deranged.

Why was sneaking in the no-confirmation 'Patriot' Act amendment not reprehensible? Especially when DOJ-released emails show the Rove-Jennings-Sampson plans for selective sackings of inadequately loyal USAs preceded the enactment of the means of doing it and consideraton of how they were going to blow off congressional objection in "good faith". (Sampson's quote marks).

Tully, No 'policy directive' makes non-crimes prosecutable or crimes unprosecutable.

And how did discussing this government business (DOJ personnel) using the RNC's gwb43.com email comply with laws for preservation of presidential records?

And how projectionly bogus was the 'policy directive' to target Dem electoral fraud? Remember the phone jamming convictions in NH? Dems? Uh-uh.

Lam went because Lewis and Hunter looked to be following Cunningham, Wilkes, Foggo etc down the gurgler.

McKay went because he would trump up a vote fraud case to distort an election result to save a GOP senator.

Iglesias went because he wouldn't prosecute a Dem in time for the 2006 mid-terms and said as much to the GOP senator and congresswoman who improperly urged him to.

The historical worst of Dem sleaze doesn't come close to the enormities of this administration, but I suppose that's unacknowledgable if your ideology insists on you tenet is that both sides deserve equal measures of praise and blame.

You know it's dodgy when Gonzales' best explanation is that he delegated the firing to Sampson - delegated it so fully that Sampson could do it without consulting him. Any rational look at the DOJ doco dump tells you that Gonzales actually could have known nothing - because he had delegated Sampson's direction to Rove.

What I next want to know is what 'policy directives' (in broad Tully sense of the term) did Sampson's "loyal bushies" follow. Bet there's some doozies there. After all, the Bush administration is not known to do things moderately.

Centerfield - halfway between reasonable and deranged.

Thank you for providing the "deranged" segment from the other side of the Globe, Alan. But honestly, we don't need to import deranged. There's a bountiful domestic surplus.

One of my favorite Jack Nicholson lines, from As Good as It Gets:

"Don't come selling crazy 'round here, we're all full up!"