So it has bacame the comedy we all knew it was. The dhimmi's got caught in voter fraud, and don't want the Attorney General to investigate so the dhimmi's serving as attorney generals around the country just didn't do their job. They should have been fired years ago.
Investigate any rumor of republican voter fraud but don't investigate actual open fraud by the dhimmi's. That's the new 'fair' honest congress. What a joke.

That is the only reason I thing Gonzales should be fired. He has failed at every turn to go after the known traitors that have assisted the enemy. because they are 100% dhimmi's. The world knows it but he don't have to guts to indict them. Then there are the little things like 'Cold Cash Jefferson' walking around with a hundred thousand dollar bribe taken on film but still serving in congress.
Yep, we now have a clean congress, that is if you are blind, deaf and 'dum'.

Rather, Republicans under Mr. Bush have used such allegations as an excuse to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups...

Yeah.

Suppress voting by the dead.

Suppress voting multiple times.

Suppress keeping voting venues open for days.

Suppress voting by felons.

Suppress voting by illegals.

It's crime, I tell ya.

Scraoiron,

It's not about "dhimmis" not pursuing voter fraud, it's about Republicans, appointed by Republicans, saying there wasn't the evidence to make a case in court.

Whether there was fraud, or not, there wasn't evidence make a case, so they didn't pursue it.

Gonzales problems seems to be not the firings, but denying to congress that he knew anything about them.

The US Attorneys fired were:

Carol Lam (Southern District of California)
David Iglesias (District of New Mexico)
H. E. Cummins III (Eastern District of Arkansas)
Paul K. Charlton (District of Arizona)
John McKay (Western District of Washington)
Kevin V. Ryan (Northern District of California)
Daniel Bogden (District of Nevada)
Margaret Chiara (Western District of Michigan)

I don't think that any of them were ever tasked with investigating allegations of voter fraud in Wisconsin. I also don't think that anyone has ever said that no voter fraud ever existed anywhere at any time. So, how does it make sense to base a defense of these firings on what's happening in Wisconsin? Wouldn't it be easier and better to show how there was clear evidence of voter fraud in the districts of the attorneys that were fired?

Are you recommending further firings of Steven Biskupic (Eastern District of Wisconsin) or Erik Peterson (Western District of Wisconsin)?

Plain and simple.....

These US attorneys have been singled out for removal at the direction of Karl Rove et all because they aren't minding the fuhrer's business in the manner in which he demands fealty. It wouldn't matter the reason.

You folks still don't understand the gravity of the state of affairs in this nation yet do you. I really wonder what it will take.

CB:

Yeah, we understand. From your comment, the left half of the US has gone completely insane.

That's a problem, "fuhrer"-boy.

civil behavior

It's utterly pathetic how these (wing)nuts refuse to look at truth and reality. Their defense is to just outright deny it (as does Bush & Co.) or to smear the messenger(s).

I read the a.m. that there is an allegation that there are e-mails showing that US Atty Lam was fired after she had notified Washington about search warrants in a Republican corruption case last year. Soon thereafter, a top Justice Department official in Washington wrote to the White House about a "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam."

Coincidence? Yeah right. The intellectual dishonesty of some of these (wing) nuts never ceases to amaze me. But, on the other hand their head in the sand/denial/smear mode helps those who want to clean up this completely corrupt presidency.

Guys, you gotta start banning people. Who is this 'civil behavior' person with his lunatic reference to fuhrer. My father and mother grew up under the real fuhrer and it nearly killed them and now some pussy like him calls a pussy like Bush a fuhrer? Asshole.

"There is no evidence of rampant voter fraud in this country."

Hah! That's probably the funniest thing that I've read in months. And from the NYT, no less.

I'll bet the KOSsacks, DUmmies, MoveON.ORGanizers, Code PINKos, and other assorted moonbats are frothing at the mouth and peeing rings around themselves this morning.

I'll remember the NYT's assesment the next time some tinfoil hat-wearing kook starts blathering about "Ohio" and "Florida"

The AG and the White House can't keep their lies consistent. That is why Gonzo is a dead-man walking. Even conservatives don't think Gonzo will last the month. If that is the case, Bush would be forced to nominate a Democrat to the post.

Cumnings was fired so Rove's pal (mini-me) could get a job. The funny thing though, there are some 20 open Fed. attorney positions available, so why Little Rock? Maybe it has something to do with Hillary's candidacy?

How is that not political?

Barney,

Do you not expect politics from politicians?

Can it get any more comical?

Former Republican congressman Rick White, one of three candidates the Republicans have submitted to replace John McKay as U.S. attorney for Western Washington, cannot practice law in the state.

White's license was suspended by the state Supreme Court in August 2003 for failure to pay his bar dues.

Interesting post by Fred Z. The whole "banning" thing has a decidedly Third Reich-like ring to it. I think civil behavior's point is that the 8 USAs were singled out and replaced for failure to goose step.

The New Mexico elections last time were downright embarassing. *Someone* needed to *agressively* investigate in order to determine that there wasn't fraud.

Saying there wasn't enough evidence for an *investigation* is laughable because the whole thing was sooooo messed up that citizens need the the reassurance that something was done, not just that someone didn't see any reason to bother with it.

Oh, and there were no upsets, the Republican Congresswoman won (or at least she went back to work, I don't know if they *ever* located all the ballots) and by far most people elected were Democrats. But the election itself was a fiasco and it *should* have been investigated. The election officials, though, are ALL Democrats as far as I know. I can see how their utter incompetence (apparent to anyone who lives here of any party) would be something they didn't want examined.

Most likely the result of an investigation would be "Incompetence not Fraud" but then at least we'd KNOW.

But of course the Left Loons here know everything there is to know about my state and it's internal politics.

Maybe they can tell me where the precious paper ballots were when volunteers sat for hours waiting to recount them and NO ONE COULD FIND THEM.

Idiots.

cb, "plain and simple.....
These US attorneys have been singled out for removal at the direction of Karl Rove"

It is so damned funny to me that everything that happens is the fault of Karl Rove. How are we to take anybody seriously who immediately attributes everything to Rove?! So frigging funny, its like the liberal boogy man, idiots. Next we will learn that "global warming" was brought about at the behest of Rove!

White's license was suspended by the state Supreme Court in August 2003 for failure to pay his bar dues.

Fred Z:
Guys, you gotta start banning people. Who is this 'civil behavior' person with his lunatic reference to fuhrer. My father and mother grew up under the real fuhrer and it nearly killed them and now some pussy like him calls a pussy like Bush a fuhrer? Asshole.

groucho:
Interesting post by Fred Z. The whole "banning" thing has a decidedly Third Reich-like ring to it. I think civil behavior's point is that the 8 USAs were singled out and replaced for failure to goose step.

Anyone who uses language such as 'civil behavior' and 'groucho' in this context simply shows how truly ignorant they are. Further, they show that they're incapable of holding a rational discussion.

Once someone has proven that they're incapable of holding a rational debate, personally I'd block them from commenting for a month so that perhaps they'd better spend their time educating themselves and learning how to hold a rational debate. It's not a matter of 'censorship', as they would likely whine, but rather deciding what tone of discourse is acceptable in the forum provided. But it's obviously not my call...

Hah, hah. Fred Z. has the best answer for the Godwin argument I've heard in awhile. cb, as usual, starts in Godwinning himself, uncivilly. groucho, you are too funny; I get banned at right wing sites about one tenth as often or as quickly as at left wing sites. Your side is the one with a problem about censorship and cocooning and echo chambers, and TownHall talking points. Don't you ever wonder why you can't ever sustain a debate?
===============================

Wow, now my arm hurts. That mighty swing, and Mike had 'em flattened already.
=================================

Your politics are centrally planned, your poor schmucks. Go watch the Hillary video, again.
==================================

Answer me this, left-wing Mouseketeers!

Can a sitting President replace USA's for political reasons if he so wishes?

Yes or no?

He's got to be able to replace them for policy reasons. To carry out his duty to enforce the laws the executive must have policy control over prosecution. This is a liberal argument.

Just more proof how illiberal much of progressivism is.
===================================

In person voter fraud is so rare that it is not worth addressing. That is why photo-id only rules are seen as a means to disenfranchise voters instead of addressing voter fraud.

It depends on what the meaning of in in.
========================

Oh, I get it. What about those buses in Wisconsin?
==============================

No politics here:

Feinstein said that on May 10, Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants sent in the case of Dusty Foggo and a defense contractor. The next day, an e-mail went from the Justice Department to the White House."

The May 11 e-mail was from D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, to White House Deputy Counsel William Kelley. "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires," it said.

Just obstruction of justice!

Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, just the mere mention of these guys makes the lefties mess their drawers. I bet no a one of the lefties would know what to do in a person to person confrontation. It is so easy to be tough behind a keyboard. If my employees did not support what my goals and priorities are, they are out. I cannot succeed or profit with people holding me back. Simple business. The lefties don't understand business because most are on the government dole or in acadamia. Pathetic. ww

If my employees did not support what my goals and priorities are, they are out.

Fine and well for a private business - or even a publicly held corporation as long as the shareholders agree (and, even if they don't), but this is not the way the federal government works. This is a company built to server us, not George W. Bush - and the Justice department, for good reason, needs to be an independent body. If it is not, or parts of it are put under pressure to do the administration's bidding - we are on very dangerous ground.

Know what your government should be and shouldn't be. Personally, if ANY politician decides to twist independent arms of our government for his own political purposes, he should be ousted, democrat or republican. Don't you agree? And if you don't, would you rather go back in time and live in Nazi Germany?

There is no excuse for this kind of manipulation anywhere and when you apologize for these people you only show how weak willed you are.

Barney I just want to be clear.

Are you saying that Carol Lam was FIRST TARGETED on May 11 because she announced that she was going to investigate Dusty Foggo on May 10?

...and, secondly Willie, I run my own business as well and employ 12 people. And the best work I get out of them is when I include them in the decision-making process and allow them to think independently.

THAT's how to run a company.

Eric:

Yes I am. These quotes were from the LA Times. Though I first read this account at Talking Points Memo.

D.F. was on the CBS Sunday show.

hansel2, the Justice Department is part of the Executive branch. You want the Judicial branch independent from the Executive, but not the Justice Department. Think, man, think.
=================================

You're entitled to your own facts, but not your own Constitution.
=============================

Barney, the e-mail YOU cite from Kyle Sampson is dated May 11, 2006, it doesn't specifically state what the problem is with Carol Lam, it doesn't say anything about Dusty Foggo, or Duke Cunningham. So the only reason people are making the connection is the timing between Carol Lam's announcement on May 10, and Kyle Sampson's e-mail on May 11. And based on that alone, it sure looks suspect.

But what if Kyle Sampson had been looking to dismiss Carol Lam before May 10? This memo has the same Kyle Sampson recommending Carol Lam's dismissal on March 2, 2005, 14 months earlier. That is well before Dusty Foggo, and it is months before the investigation began of Duke Cunningham.

So isn't it possible that there is no connection between the May 10 announcement and the May 11 e-mail? Isn't it possible that the timing is merely a coincidence?

What does the March 2, 2005 memo do to your theory?

By George, kim, you're right.

Excuse my mixup.

I understand, h2, it is a common error.

There must be policy direction to the Department of Justice. Else why hold elections?
=============================

Executive control of the Department of Justice is where the people get input into the enforcement of the laws. The people have input, through the legislature, only into the creation of the laws. We, hoi polloi, must be able to effect the process afterward, too, to balance the powers, and to give more power to the people.

It's a liberal, and ancient, argument.
=================================

drjohn:

"Can a sitting President replace USA's for political reasons if he so wishes?"

Yes, I guess he can.

Is that the way to run the country?
Your call.

Can the AG testify under oath that it didn't happen if it did?
I don't think so.

Lam was targetted for dismissal on March 2, if not sooner.

Patterico's site

Patterico does a good job of debunking the Lam timeline outlined by LA Times.

You go on and on about eight people fired by the Bush administration, but how come you never mention that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys after taking office? The omission shows (or reaffirms) your bias and ignorance.

The Chronicle's legal affairs writer, Bob Egelko, has been made well aware of this point of view in the wake of the story he wrote on the affair earlier this week ('Firings raise concern over Justice Dept. and politics')

Egelko's response:

The two situations aren't really comparable, as the Washington Post, for example, pointed out in an editorial earlier this month.

Clinton, like other presidents before him -- and Bush after him -- installed a new set of U.S. attorneys after taking over from a president of another party. The recent firings are different, and apparently unprecedented: They happened in mid-term, targeting prosecutors who had originally been appointed by Bush and who hadn't been viewed as either corrupt or incompetent.

JPM100 you made the same error that the LA Times did. You forgot the year. It's not just that she was target on March 2, she was targeted on March 2, 2005. The difference is not 2 months but 14 months.

Eric, you've raised some questions that Barney can't answer. As soon as he gets the talking points fax he'll get back to you.

Bwahahahahahahahahah ....liberals are morons.

Yeah Rance right! Gonzalez is just as guilty as Scooter Fibby!

How could He not know about the 86ings? Its all over the orgasmic MSM. They are titillating theirselves into convulsions!

Eric and Jo, I don't need talking points, but we both need Talking Points Memo.

Yes, the process started before the May 11th email, but the language in the email is very damaging. If it is just a coincidence, why the urgency? What happened around that time to warrant this:
"The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam ... leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires,"

Since I can not find the original, I am assuming the "..." is redacted text. I sure would like to see what "..." is.

Dr John,

Yes a sitting president can replace a US attorney if he wishes and the reasoning BEHIND such dismissal shows the context and content of policy of said president. In this case it shows that there is ample proof emerging that the "justice" dept under the direction of Rove substituting for Bush's brain is no longer interested much in justice and more in implementing a one party Christian militarist policy. This is what one would call an authoritarian style of leadership. This is what you are espousing with your disregard of the intent of the firings.

Mike,
As for calling a spade a spade had more people been cognizant of the extent of Hitler's provocative stand on keeping the race pure and implementing measures that made sure those orders were executed we might not be speaking of such a similar approach to governing in the US today. That you don't realize the same is happening is exactly why we had a war in the 1940's.

If I am banned it is too bad as the right needs people like myself to temper their nationlistic fervor so it does not get out of control. Banning me is like banning the little old lady at church who happens to be Rosa Parks. You need people like me. ( and Lee, and Hugh and Barney and the others who would be the first and last to defend your right to say what you might but not your own facts on which to base your imperial hegemony over others.) That's where we draw a line and that's where many other countries are also doing the same.

It's probably context you weren't meant to see, B.
=============================

Hey, cb, WalMart's gonna gitcha, gitcha, gitcha.
=============================

Some of these fools here think the next Democratic administration isn't going to change some attorneys for political reasons. One wonders why these same fools bestir themselves to go to the polls.

Ooh, maybe I'm on to something there. Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
===============

It just show how antidemocratic they fundamentally are that it has to be pointed out so blatantly.
=================================

Barney,
What ...? According to the Washington Post Article I read about the memo there is no ...

Also, last week you got all bent out of shape because I quoted from a partial e-mail. Now you are doing the same. Everybody is quoting from a partial e-mail, where is the complete e-mail?

Anyway that you look at it, your original contention is squashed. She was originally target for dismissal long before the Dusty Foggo and Duke Cunningham investigations.

You can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.

The real question about the May 11 e-mail is what is the "real problem"?

Take out the ...,
"The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires."

What if the "problem" is the need to act on getting her replcement? May 11 is about 6 months away from November 18. That may seem like a long time, but the clock would be ticking to find, recruit and vet a candidate.

Could it be read that way? That sentence is so out of context to be able to tell what exactly he is talking about.

'civil behavior':
Mike,
As for calling a spade a spade had more people been cognizant of the extent of Hitler's provocative stand on keeping the race pure and implementing measures that made sure those orders were executed we might not be speaking of such a similar approach to governing in the US today. That you don't realize the same is happening is exactly why we had a war in the 1940's.
If I am banned it is too bad as the right needs people like myself to temper their nationlistic fervor so it does not get out of control. Banning me is like banning the little old lady at church who happens to be Rosa Parks. You need people like me. ( and Lee, and Hugh and Barney and the others who would be the first and last to defend your right to say what you might but not your own facts on which to base your imperial hegemony over others.) That's where we draw a line and that's where many other countries are also doing the same.

That you would equate the U.S. today to Nazi Germany shows either the depth of your ignorance or the depth of your delusions.

Comparing yourself to Rosa Parks ?? Banning you would be more like banning the unkempt, bearded guy wearing a overcoat and shorts in mid-July who stands at the red light holding a sign and yelling 'The world ends tomorrow!'. Neither of you add anything useful to a rational conversation and neither of you believe that you're delusional. My point was that the owners of a private property, which this is, have every right to decide what tone is acceptable.

Personally, I find your comments comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany beyond ignorant. Further, I don't think you add anything more insightful that the chap at the red light.. but that's just my opinion.

Getting input from employees is fine and I support that very much. After the input, a decision has to be made from that input. Once the decision is made, all have to get in behind it and support, if not, you are not a team player. That is business. ww

civil

"You need people like Me."

So you can point your fucking fingers and say "look at Him! thats the bad guy!"

Good one Montana!

Eric, attorney M. Chiara termed ended on 11/2/05. Where was the urgency to find her replacement?

Personally, I find your comments comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany beyond ignorant.

His comments are hardly "ignorant." Because you fail to see even the slightest comparison between the actions of this administration in terms of manipulating the public through fear, dividing the electorate (in this case, in a McCarthy-esque way by claiming all voices critical of the administration are "aiding the enemy") and grabbing more governmental power, once again, by playing on people's fears (seizing power through elements of the patriot act in the guise of protecting the American people). If you can't grasp this - and you're too "appalled" by the comparison - well, that's your failing.

No one is saying Bush and his people have been blaming the Jews for all that is wrong in the world, and no one would suggest he's capable of the kind of horror that monster was - but he's sure used his own religion as a talking point - and a dividing line - when discussing our actions overseas.

As far as most people are concerned, this is a war against radical islamists - much like we have homegrown wars against other radical religious sects that promote violence.

But in the simplest terms, you can NEVER stand behind your government lock stock and barrel without at least a moderate amount of skepticism. These people are corruptible - doesn't matter what party they are with - and reminding others of what happened in the past is the best way to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Believing it could never happen here is naive.

"Eric, attorney M. Chiara termed ended on 11/2/05. Where was the urgency to find her replacement?"

How do you know there wasn't one? We don't know what discussions took place in the months leading up to her dismissal. We still don't know when the final decision was made to dismiss her. Was it made before November 2005 or after November 2005?

My point was that there are other possible explanations for the May 11 e-mail. Without more information people are merely speculating about the context of the e-mail. I admit, that I am speculating as well.

Look how poorly you speculated on it. You mistakenly concluded that the May 11 e-mail was the first discussion about Carol Lam's dismissal. Therefore you assumed that there was a direct connection between the May 10 announcement and the May 11 e-mail.

You still don't have any evidence to support it other than the fact that May 11 follows May 10.

"This is a company built to server us, not George W. Bush -"

What ? Only Democrats get Lewinskiy's

If I am banned it is too bad as the right needs people like myself to temper their nationlistic fervor so it does not get out of control. Banning me is like banning the little old lady at church who happens to be Rosa Parks. You need people like me. ( and Lee, and Hugh and Barney and the others who would be the first and last to defend your right to say what you might but not your own facts on which to base your imperial hegemony over others.)

Want a hand carrying your cross? Easily the most self-serving pile of pablum I've read in a while.

Yes, you and Lee et al are just these great, decent people. Heck, we should be GRATEFUL that you're here.

Eric and Jo, I don't need talking points, but we both need Talking Points Memo.

I'll stick with facts. Thanks just the same.

Because you fail to see even the slightest comparison between the actions of this administration in terms of manipulating the public through fear, dividing the electorate (in this case, in a McCarthy-esque way by claiming all voices critical of the administration are "aiding the enemy") and grabbing more governmental power, once again, by playing on people's fears (seizing power through elements of the patriot act in the guise of protecting the American people). If you can't grasp this - and you're too "appalled"

Whoa. Let's go back a little bit.

A recent administration directly blamed talk radio FOR CAUSING A DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK. He singled out Rush Limbaugh specifically.

Bush has not criticized a single Democrat SPECIFICALLY.

Apparently, the Dems constant argument that Bush is putting the country at greater risk ISN'T governing via fear, but Republicans identical arguments about Dems IS governing via fear.

How many times have morons such as yourself commented on how Bush has killed so many people, left us totally alone in the world, and has made the world hate us. What the heck is that if NOT an attempt to scare people into voting for "your" guy?
-=Mike

Well, he certainly names his desperate need, TPM. I came to the Plame case from Josh Marshall's blog after the SSCI exposed Joe Wilson's 'literary flair'. I was reading with bated breath Josh's certainty that he was about to figure out the source of the Yellow Cake forgeries, and I saw how he handled the news of Joe's slipperiness. So, no, you can't convince me that TPM is anything but an extremely fine propaganda organ for the left. He's not interested in the truth.
=====================================

h2, I much prefer 'ever again' to 'never again'. It has the correct perspective.
=============================