Comments on Sixteen Day Gap And They Still Missed The Memo Where He Agreed

Go to EmpyreAdd a commentGo to Sixteen Day Gap And They Still Missed The Memo Where He Agreed

Ah, perchance to dream, eh, RaeS? I'm with you on checking that
runaway trainwreck they call executive privilege (especially in the hands of that inept engineer, Dubya).  But in this case, he's just a peripheral player, I believe.  We'll find out what's what (maybe) this week when Kyle Sampson testifies.  Maybe, like Brown at FEMA, Sampson got tire of being dumped on and pointed at and is ready to start pointing and dumping back...

posted by saul_relative on March 26, 2007 at 11:38 PM | link to this | reply

The problem here, Nautikos, is not as much about their firing, which, as

you say, is presidentially discretionary, but why.  Firing a prosecutor for political reasons is old hat and no one bats an eye.  But these prosecutors are talking about partisan reasons for their being fired and that is a problem.  And Gonzalez has lied about this thing from the start.  If it had been mere political maneuverings, nothing would have been said about it.  The mere fact that Gonzalez and his crew lied and dragged their feet about testifying shows that there is something amiss.  And I don't think that so many Republicans would be joining in on this if there wasn't something wrong in the A.G.'s office, Naut. 

And I still could be wrong.  But this administration may be the worst ever at normal CYA politics.

posted by saul_relative on March 26, 2007 at 11:35 PM | link to this | reply

Excellent post, Saul..and on it goes, in a most curious and revealing

fashion. The administration's supporters are tunnel visioning once again - reminds me in some ways of the early days of the Valerie Plame case, when they kept repeating: "No crime, legal or moral, because she wasn't a covert agent - not the nicest thing in the world to do, perhaps, but no big deal." Hmm, well she was covert, the Justice Department wouldn't have had a reason to open a case in the first place and perjury was definitely committed. Serving at the President's pleasure does not mean the executive has the authority to interfere with ongoing criminal prosecutions/investigations or to exercise influence in the justice system based on partisan/political will. Also, I think the legislative branch, both parties, are at their limit with this president acting like the head of a dictatorship; using a previously little noticed clause in the UnPatriot Act to grant him and his minions unchecked power in the appointment of new judges, eliminating the involvement of Congress in doing so. I heard just a while ago that the House and possibly Senate are working to restore that balance. Hoping and believing they will succeed.

Again, great post!

 

posted by Katray2 on March 26, 2007 at 6:40 PM | link to this | reply

Saul

as you know, I see eye-to-eye with you on many issues, but I strongly disagree that a non-existent cause (an 'ethical crime') should be used as a reason for firing the A.G.

I have not followed this Gonzales affair closely, but from what I understand, ultimately these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President! Which means that he doesn't have to show cause! At most, then, it's a matter between the President and Gonzales, period. Maybe these people weren't fired 'nicely', but it wouldn't be the first time that something wasn't done 'nicely' in Washington, nor will it be the last time. But there's no such thing as an 'ethical crime'. And the Dems should just butt out!

posted by Nautikos on March 26, 2007 at 6:09 PM | link to this | reply