One thing I have always hated about these Bush Administration scandals, is that before one is completely resolved, a new one comes along to divert attention away from attaining a resolution.

Kim asserts that three of the eight attorneys fired had performed poorly at their jobs by someone's criteria. Even if this is true, what about the other five, Kim??? Well??? If they weren't fired for poor job performance, is it unreasonable to assume that they were fired for political reasons? But didn't the Busheviks claim that no attorney was fired for political reasons?

But this isn't really the most crucial aspect of the scandal. We know that Kyle Sampson has resigned for his role in the scandal, a fact Kim conveniently omits. It goes beyond that. From Citizens for Ethics ( http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=211 ):

"In the past few months, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials have testified before Congress that the U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign for performance related reasons, that the White House was minimally involved in the firings and that the Department was in no way attempting to evade the confirmation process for new U.S. Attorneys."

"Documents provided by the DOJ to Congress suggest that at least one high-ranking official, D. Kyle Sampson, knew that the statements made to Congress were untrue. If, as it appears, a Department of Justice official allowed other officials to provide inaccurate information to Congress, federal crimes may have been committed. Because DOJ obviously cannot investigate and prosecute the misconduct of its own officials, CREW has called on the attorney general to appoint a Special Prosecutor to handle this matter."

These people serve at the pleasure of the President. They were hired due to politics, and they can be fired due to politics. They just can't be fired for an illegal reason. No one would argue that they could be fired on the basis of their race or gender. TRhe allegation floating around is that they were fired as a means of interfering with their "prosecutorial discretion."

This term can have varying meaning, and depending on the meaning, the firing could either be perfectly defensible or utterly indefensible.

Refusal of a U.S. Attorney to follow the (legitimate) policy direction of the Attorney General, for instance (i.e., "we place a high priority on public corruption, go after it"), no matter how competent the USA, would be grounds for removal.

On the other hand, "I don't care how guilty that man is, he's a big contributor and I want you to drop your investigation" would be a pretty outrageous order, and refusal to obey that would be utterly defensible.

I've not read sufficient facts in any of these cases to suggest that any of them have been fired for illigitimate reasons -- I'd be eager to review any links to demonstrate otherwise.
time.

these positions are political in nature and the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president Yes, but they expected to serve the people not strictly the President. Attorney-General Gonzalez said before the Judiciary Committee that he" would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons...And now we have a stream of e-mails from officials at the White House to the Attorney-General's office, that talk of little else, and very little if anything, about performance.

Yet another case of the Republican coverup being worse than the incident. wavemaker is right that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But rather than state that, Justice instead lied to Congress.

Cue the "perjury and lying are OK" crowd! With some spin like the DOJ was only "lying about the truth" or some nonsense.

I've not read sufficient facts in any of these cases to suggest that any of them have been fired for illigitimate reasons -- I'd be eager to review any links to demonstrate otherwise.

Your wish is my command (and the command of every major news organization for the past week, if one cared to look):

Justice officials have acknowledged that they did not fire Bud Cummins from his Little Rock post for cause but have said the others were ousted for "performance-related" reasons. Records show, however, that at least six of the prosecutors, including Iglesias and Cummins, received mostly positive job evaluations before they were forced out.

Although the Bush administration has said that six U.S. attorneys were fired recently in part because of "performance related" issues, at least five of them received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down.

ohhhssss noooooossss another scandal in the White House. Y'all are familiar with the boy that cried wolf right? Thanks for playing, here's a cookie. Good Lord God almighty, so transparent even a lefty at talk left could see. Snicker Snort Snort.

Snicker Snort Snort.

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, under Bill Clinton. Where was the scandal then?

It should be an easy matter to figure out the political reasons behind why these seven attorneys were singled out - and the good performance evaluations blows holes in the argument that the firings weren't politically motivated.

They would have been better off firing all of them. At least then they can't be charged with selectively ousting a few for political reasons.

Is there ANYTHING that Republicans can do right the first time??? Good grief, their incompetence is sickening....

Ahem, thank you, Brian, for the links -- the snark was not necessary.

Because a USA has positive job ratings does not mean his firing was illigitimate.

There is, however, this suggestion in the Post article:

"The charges by Iglesias added a new dimension to the ongoing controversy over the fired prosecutors, at least four of whom were presiding over major public-corruption probes. Although other fired prosecutors have publicly defended their records, they have never alleged that political pressure related to an ongoing criminal investigation played a role in their dismissals."

Sorry but that's an equivocal allegation floating out there, no facts yet -- I wonder how many of the 93 USA's don't have a major public corruption case (or at least one that the press could call such)alive in their offices at any given time.

But there is this:

Iglesias said the two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator....the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions" but said he did not receive similar contacts from anyone in the executive branch. He acknowledged he made a mistake by not reporting the calls to the Justice Department.

Now that would appear to provide some smoke, both the principal allegation and the failure to report the calls to DoJ.

The tortured logic is astounding.

Perhaps firing them all would have suggested that they had something to hide -- in addition to being unfair to the ones they wanted to keep.

Man the cyncism is blinding you.

Hey, my chief of staff just resigned, and I just admitted to mistakes, but we didn't do anything wrong.

The party that promised to bring honor and dignity back to the White House, sure likes to use Clinton to justify their actions.

"Perhaps firing them all would have suggested that they had something to hide -- in addition to being unfair to the ones they wanted to keep."

Its been established (for those who can read) that firing them all at the beginning of the term is standard operating procedure.

Firing them two years ago (which is when these seven were fired) would not have raised the specter of political motivations behind the selective firing of seven.

Now we get to parse and dissect the motives behind each individual firing.

What is it about these seven that got them fired?

What cases were they working on?

Which lobbyist-licking Republican congressman did they piss off?

Why was the President involved?

What evidence was turned up in the voter fraud investigations that might need to be suppressed by the White House?

Like I said - there no end to Republican incompetence. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves. The flushing of the D.C. toilet continues, watch the Republicans spin and go down the drain.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002420.php

A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration's Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who've faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found - only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.

"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.

Who said Bush is playing politics with the justice department?

Barney Barney Barney, A staffer. Snicker Snort Snort. From where I come from That's called Bait Fish. Thanks for playing, Would you like milk with those cookis.

So Hillary resurrected her "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" (TM) bullshit today complaining about voter fraud, and the leftists ran with it.

In the same breath they complain about the President canning attorneys for not investigating....wait for it.....voter fraud.

All because he had the temerity to wait a few years before making routine political appointments...as far as I can figure.

There's two explanations for that Barney. One being that the prosecutions are statistically fair and the percentage is a reflection of the population.

Actually, a third possibility is that Republicans aren't stupid enough to store cash in the refrigerators. But then that would be a reflection on the intelligence of crooked Democrats vs. crooked Republicans.

"as far as I can figure."

Lee the Pirate sez - Arrrrggh, there's the rub, matey. It's your figuring that's the problem...

I keep reading snippets about Gonzalez lying under oath - something in his confirmation hearing about Senate approval over the new appointments? This after the administration snuck a provision into the Patriot Act that let them appoint without Senate approval - which was their plan all along?

Oh what a tangled web you weave -- you lying sacks of elephant dung.

And I don't remember seeing any stories on Wizbang about the FBI admission this last weekend concerning Patriot Act privacy abuses...

but lots of right-wing chatter about Pelosi and the "scattered boos" she received instead - lol!

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic... And we have generals who are idolized because they are more interested in gay-bashing then they are in winning the damn war.

Flush it!

Slick Willie fired them all. That was ok. The Bush administration fires those that aren't worth their paycheck and the sh** hits the fan.

All I can see is a bunch of dhimmi's still in diapers screaming mommy they're mean to me. Without a doubt the crop of democrats in congress are the worst think that has or will ever happen to America. The country will be lucky to survive their stupidity for two years, much less any longer than that. At least the stock market is paying attention. Keep it up dhimmi's and the stongest market in the world in Nov 06 will become the weakest market in the world before the end of 07. When people lose confidence in the government, (and I do not know one person that will honestly say they trust the current crop of dhimmi's) they lose confidence in everything and there will be hell to pay. They were bought and paid for by the enemies of a free country and you elected them so it's fun to watch the comedy of errors as they destroy the country.

So.. firing 6 is bad.. but "93" is good?.. Jesus, your logic is amazing! And, if by chance, you are saying there's another cover up, for God's sake!.. Tell us what it is! Talk about paranoid!.. Scandal "this" you idiots!.. Bush had a shoelace untied, will you "LIBS" look into that for me!.. I think he's covering something up!

A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration's Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans.

...and a close look at the prosecutions (the link is available on the site) shows that the big problem is that Democrats tend to get caught in larger groups. Nineteen Democrats in one case, for example. So the issue isn't so much prosecutors going after Democrats, but Democrats ratting each other out more readily, or Democrats having more of a tendency to get involved in conspiracies that end up getting busted.

I tend to think it's the latter - Democrats seem to have no capability at all of keeping secrets, even secrets that would put them in jail if anyone knew about them.

There's also more of a tendency for local officials in larger cities (like New York or Baltimore) to have Democratic affiliation. Since more crime (and more Federal prosecutors) are also found in large cities, that mean it's much more likely to end up with prosecutable corruption...

Gee Lee leeee.. I'm sure Whizbang is sooooo sorry for missing that "IMPORTANT" stuff.. but I'm sure you read about it on Kossssssss..Oh..does the "Party of compassion" allow repubs over there?..LOL..

Cirby: get ready for all the "Repubs are much worse!" bullshit.

...except the evidence seems to point the other way.

One other really suspicious thing about the study is that it cuts off right as Bush took office - so we can't tell if prosecutions of Democrats picked up before or after 2001. You'd think that they would have looked back a few years, to show how much change there had been - unless there wasn't any.

A more direct source for the original article:
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

Take a long look at Appendix A.

It also (I just turned up another link) that the authors of the study didn't actually list all of the Republicans who were investigated or prosecuted, and made a bunch of other errors (or dishonest omissions).

http://stubbornfacts.us/

...has the story.

"'Political Profiling' study is fatally flawed"

Lefties, et al; what part of "U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President" is it you do not comprehend? I know it is a difficult concept, unless that President is a Democrat, then you have no problem understanding it. You are nothing but a bunch of subversives whos candidate lost the last Presidential election and you cannot get over it. You do not care about the nation, all you care about is demeaning this man and his Presidency. During Lincolns time, you would have been imprisonsed and rightfully so. I think you should all be hung.

To all you Bush Toadies out there:

While the firings midway through Bush's final term for political reasons is in itself tragic, it is, arguably, not the primary concern in this latest political scandal. I know this might be quite hard for you toadies to understand, but generally speaking, PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO BE LIED TO. Yes, you've proven repeatedly over the past several years that you don't give a damn about Bush Administration dishonesty, but other people are not like you. A Democratic Congress in particular doesn't like it when the executive branch lies. So members of Congress (at least the Democratic ones) can't be pleased by this [expletive deleted] pointed out above by Steve Crickmore:

"Attorney-General Gonzalez said before the Judiciary Committee that he" would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons"

Posted by: Lee the Pirate at March 13, 2007 08:16 PM

Hey look... it's another pseudo-wizbang editor-at-large whining about what is or isn't written here.

Lift your pseudo-eye patch, post something ON TOPIC then go start your own blog.

To all you Bush Toadies out there: While the firings midway through Bush's final term for political reasons is in itself tragic,

Yes it is terribly "tragic," to first leave a job you're asked to leave and then resume your life in a private law practice that pays far, far more than your previous gov position. Oh... the HUMANITY!

Cry me a river!

A staffer. Snicker Snort Snort.

Gonzales's Chief of Staff. Snicker Snort Snort. Where I come from, that's called "big" fish. Thanks for playing. Would you like earplugs with that blindfold?

I'm not arguing that the President has the right to fire them. But why did the present administration have to have a midnight policy slipped into the Patriot Act so Congress doesn't approve the new ones?

Something smells real rotten with that. But what is going to happen when a Demo (maybe 08) becomes President and does the same thing that this President is doing? Will there be a big stink raised then, or will Clinton still be blamed.

Why can't you idiots get over Clinton. He has been out of office since 2000. Christ, give it a rest. Start thinking if your able to.

So.. firing 6 is bad.. but "93" is good?.. Jesus, your logic is amazing!

Well, yeah, if the firing 93 is untargeted SOP, then sure.

And, if by chance, you are saying there's another cover up, for God's sake!.. Tell us what it is!

Umm, that would be politically targeting attorneys after publicly stating that you would never politically target attorneys, and then lying to Congress about it. You know, the thing he apologized for and his Chief of Staff resigned over? Yeah, that's the one.

I think your meds are interfering with your reading abilities.

It is funny watching libs trying to create a scandal where none exists.

They are fired whenever the President wants to fire them. Simple as that. Congress has, precisely, NO right to even ask why it was done.
-=Mike

TY Mike.. But I fear the Trolls will NOT understand that one. Just makes too much sense. Can't blame Bush if your agreed to.... Herman..What are your standards for lying.. are they the same for BOTH parties?