The fired US attorneys
Bookworm on Mar 16 2007 at 9:27 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
The American public, rightly, is refusing to get excited about the eight US attorneys that got fired. It’s apparent that Bush simply passed on complaints without making any recommendations or demands, and equally apparent that Gonzales did not go overboard in firing people (unlike the Clintons’ housecleaning in 1993). I don’t care that tradition demands that US attorneys stay in their jobs until their terms expire. If you’ve got someone who is not doing a good job on the public payroll, damn tradition — serve the public and fire the person.
And that gets me to the “not doing a good job.” I have it on first hand authority that one of the attorneys fired was running an unhappy office that was glad to see him go. Sure, they’re all a bit nervous there about their own job security, but basically they’re pleased that a bad boss walked.
In other words, Gonzales is being pilloried for doing a smart managerial thing — getting rid of people who were not earning their pay.
Email This Post To A Friend
54 Responses to “The fired US attorneys”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m soooo glad you’re an unemployed attorney, and thus, your contempt for the rule-of-law has little or no judicial consequence.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I’m unemployed, Greg? To the contrary — I turn work away, because I can’t handle everything my clients would like me to do.
Your outrage is selective, Greg. Clinton set a precedent when he simply axed 93 US attorneys, and the amnesia displayed both by the Democrats and their press lackeys is why no one outside the press and Washington gives a rat’s ass about this story.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I’m unemployed, Greg?
Cause he thinks you work for the government. Which he would like to have as a job. Working for the government that is.
The Democrats always have convenient episodes of amnesia. But that has a certain health risk. If you have too many self-induced episodes of amnesia, eventually you start believing in everything people say.
bookworm’s obviously not paying attention again.
book, all of the attorney’s received STELLAR reviews so performance was not the issue.
plus, communications have been leaking all week that gonzalez was using the US attorney’s office to play plitics and intimidate or punish rivals. the attorney’s purged were the ones who wouldn’t play ball with this. gonzalez’s chief aid has already been ousted over this and it’s likely that gonzalez will be next.
hardly “much ado about nothing”. greg’s comment is well taken though. you’re the sloppiest thinking “smart” person i’ve ever encountered with a very troublesome sliding ethical scale.
and jauhara, there’s a lot of ink on this situation. i suggest reading it. this is NOTHING like what clinton and reno did.
peace
They would be sure to have stellar reviews. Best way to stay in a job is to make sure the boss knows that you are doing good. Even if you are embezzling funds.
Although the latter isn’t such a good idea if you want to stay on the job for long.
Bolton was also accused of using his position to intimidate and punish rivals. There’s only one reality here, one truth. Due to the binary situation where the good guys are one thing and the bad guys are another. They being mutually exclusive, therefore create a binary reality. Either good is good and bad bad, or good is bad and bad is good. But it doesn’t mean you can’t stack the deck with genjutsu. I’ll give people examples of what I mean.
Remember when MoveOn and their allies talked about Halliburton taking over the reins of power and Bush being the manipulator/manipulated on the quest for oil and greed? That’s the construct people attempt to create out of the real reality. See, the real reality is that Soros who funds MoveOn, owns 2 million shares of stocks (either shares or total value) in Halliburton. If it is anyone pulling anyone’s strings, it is Soros. But, you see, the constructed reality is that Halliburton and Bush is pulling the strings of people, accused by the string pullers.
A clearer example is Al Gore. See you have one reality, the good guys being good and the bad guys being bad. But a constructed reality allows you to square the binary and get a base 4. So it isn’t about whether Gore is environmental and Bush trashes the environment, or the vice a versa, Bush is an environmentalist while Gore trashes the environment. What we get is people who say that their enemies are trashing the environment… when they themselves are the real ones trashing the environment. They say Halliburton and Bush’s business friends are making money via exploitation… when in reality the accusers are the ones expoiting things for business gain. How many realities can we get here anyways. Because so far, Gore is both environmental and not environmental, both against the environment and for the environment.
A simple question to sort of conclude things on. Why isn’t it surprising that people against Gonzales finds natural allies amongst people like greg, and people like dagon find natural allies amongst people like greg?
and jauhara, there’s a lot of ink on this situation. i suggest reading it. this is NOTHING like what clinton and reno did.
And another final precept. Which is, people disagree with the Bush admin primarily because people prefer more ruthlessness, exaggeration, and over-reaction. If they complain about too much killing, what they really mean is too little killing of those they want to see killed. It is the schism between the mind and the heart. People know things that their hearts are ignorant of and act independent of.
So based upon that, we have this conclusion. Taking the moderate stance and firing some people, makes you seem weaker and therefore people will criticize you more for stomping on less as an attempt to do mercy, than if you stomped on them more, to show ruthlessness.
this is NOTHING like what clinton and reno did.
One death is a tragedy, Mr. President, a million however is just a statistic. Don’t be afraid to go wild on your enemies. Backlash increases inversely proportionate with the amount of people you get rid of.
Lawyers are like soldiers. They don’t make laws or wars… but they are all the more important for fighting in them.
Speaking of sliding ethical scales, how many times have you heard Democrats call for the resignation or firing of those who weren’t pursuing corrupt Republicans hard enough? But, oh, if someone is fired for not pursuing corrupt Democrats hard enough, the world is coming to an end. Spare me the self-righteousness.
Performance was the issue, Dagon. While six of them may generally have been good lawyers, they were being called to task for failing to take on specific investigations that they were assigned. In the real (i.e., non-governmental employment) world, that kind of thing can get you fired. As for the other two, they seem to have been after thoughts, people who were fired, not because of their legal skills, but because they lacked managerial skills — something that is also part of their resume.
it’s a little bigger problem than that book.
otherwise, i don’t think sampson would have been ousted or tony snow would be falling over himself retracting earlier statements or rove would be ducking for cover or bush himself wouldn’t be publicly throwing gonzalez under the bus if things were an innocent as you suggest.
peace
The problem, dagon, is that this administration reflexively goes on the defensive, and instantly assumes a “show the belly” response when attacked. That’s a really big problem, but not the one at issue here.
Speaking of sliding ethical scales, how many times have you heard Democrats call for the resignation or firing of those who weren’t pursuing corrupt Republicans hard enough? But, oh, if someone is fired for not pursuing corrupt Democrats hard enough, the world is coming to an end- Don Q
And others don’t base their view of right or wrong based on “Ds” or “Rs,” but on the bigger picture.
“I and a number of others were critical of president Clinton when he first came into office and almost immediately removed all U.S. Attorneys. But that’s not the same thing as what’s happening now.
We’re seeing a president in his second term go after U.S. attorneys of his own party for reasons that are clearly political: not moving fast enough against targets on the other side of the aisle, succumbing to pressure from Senators for example. That is very, very corrosive, both to morale for U.S. Attorneys as well as in terms of reducing the confidence that the public has that the system is fair and impartial and non-partisan,” - former U.S. attorney, Bob Barr, a Reagan appointee who was a Republican congressman from 1995 to 2003.
Firstly, understand that US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He has every right to fire them as he sees fit. Even the idiot Leahy, when asked the other day, was compelled to admit that what happened was perfectly legal. (Which could lead you to ask: “so what’s the political theater and upcoming show trial about?” Got me… Maybe, just possibly… politics?)
The eight that have been fired have been so coming at the end of two-year performance reviews, and they did not in fact receive “stellar” reviews, or even mediocre ones.
Appointing US attorneys is generally a political decision - witness the other idiot Schumer’s lobbying to get a pal of his into the job in New York, which letters I hope will be read into the record by whoever Leahy calls as a witness. If I were called you bet I’d do it; I’d read from Schumer until Leahy’s head exploded, just as an example of “succumbing to pressure from Senators.”
And Bill Clinton. His summary firing of 93 of them two months after he got into office, thereby terminating the one based in Little Rock who was at the time engaged in an investigation of Clinton himself - which of course came to a halt when he fired the guy - not at all political! Nah - not at all! (Probably wasn’t, either; it was reflexively self-protective.) He, the US attorney in Little Rock, was Clinton’s real target, but firing him alone would have been a trifle obvious even by Clinton standards, so he solved it by simply clearing the deck. You’re right, T.S.: nothing political about removing someone who’s engaged in an investigation of YOU.
And if firing eight of them six years into his presidency is somehow “corrosive,” then what the hell was firing 93 of them in 1993? How come that didn’t bother the media? Or the Republicans, who seem to understand how the system works a lot better than democrats do, and knew that Clinton, foul as he was/is, had every right to do so. (Oh, I forgot, only Republicans can be “corrosive.”)
Agreed, dagon - this isn’t anything remotely like what Clinton did. You’re absolutely right.
The lines of argument in this thread are quite predictable.
One thing neither Bush, nor Gonzalez did was try to smear or criminalize the people they wanted to dump.
Billy Dale called into a DC talk show this morning. Remember him? White House travel office. Worked in that office for thirty years under both Democrat and Republican Presidents.
This summarizes what he had to say. Like the U. S. Attorneys, he served at the pleasure of the President. If the Clintons wanted to give the job to the girl from Arkansas all they had to do was say “GO” and he was gone. But, instead they tried to ruin him.
After he was finally vindicated in court, the Congress voted to have his, and the other victim’s” enormous legal fees reimbursed. Not a single Democrat voted for that measure.
Fortunately the measure passed and he was not financially ruined just because he got in the Clinton’s way.
So, there are political firings, then there are Clinton/Democrat lynchings.
Comment Greg or TS?
Support appreciated, Dagon. It’s a fascinating exercise to watch how Bookworm scorns the countermanding facts that challenge her partisan preferences. That she thinks badly is less of an issue than the Herculean effort she expends to *be* ignorant and to foist that ignorance upon others. Her MO is to contract knowledge.
I can only speak about the U.S. Attorney fired in NM. As far as I can see, he deserved to go. There were articles in the newspapers for almost two years about corruption indictments that were expected “soon” involving prominent Hispanic Democratic politicians. Rep. Heather Wilson called and asked if anything was going to happen. He said no and she said thank you. From that he is weeping about how “pressured” he felt and how it didn’t make him “feel” good. He blew a major corruption case involving the state treasurer, delegated everything to subordinates, and it is looking like did not follow through on another major corruption scandal. For that he got fired - and rightly so. The Democrats seem so short sighted to me - is the new standard that U.S. Attorneys are untouchable - nobody can ask them a question - no matter what they do they cannot be fired?
Interesting to follow Dagon’s and Greg’s comments back and forth. Apparently they speak and write in a form of English in their alternate universe, as well. Now I get it: Dagon’s trademark sign-off must be a shortened version of “we come in “peace”, Earthlings”. Now, about those pesky facts they seem to keep missing…it it as if we are trying to communicate the meaning of colors to the color blind?
It’s always fun to see when greg is beaten in discussions here. He completely abandons facts and concentrates on his meaningless insults. The more strident the insults, the more thoroughly beaten he is. Man, he lost this one bad!
The Left has always been better at genjutsu than Bush or his allies on the right, Book. You see it demonstrated here, grass roots style, in how distorted their attempts are to render reality to their palate.
Unlike classical liberals, the priority for the individuals on the Left has never been about individuals. Well, not every individual. Certainly they are interested in benefits to themselves, one way or another, but primarily the lack of a focus on individual action, causes a distortion of their ethical system. So things aren’t as clearly right and wrong as it may be to someone else who isn’t saddled with the juxtapositioning required by the illusion the Left have crafted and accepted.
You can go read shrinkwrapped to get some insights on why psychologically this occurs. But suffice it to say that it does occur, and it can be quantified mostly as people believing in their own propaganda. It is one thing to say that Bush is enriching Haliburton, but it is another thing to see that those who accuse Bush of enriching Haliburton are themselves being enriched by Haliburton… if not in control of haliburton.
It is one thing to know that Bush and Cheney lied and outed Valerie Plame to punish her husband, but it is another thing to realize that Wilson and Plame in order to attack Bush and Cheney (Wilson was Cheney’s man, if even Cheney’s guy said it was false…) had to resort to machinations and fabrications such as (his wife got him the job to Niger) and (Wilson outed Plame). In order to attack Bush as attacking Wilson, Wilson outed not only his own lies by publishing them but also outed his wife in public, numerous times, to draw attention to him and her.
At a certain point, it becomes disharmonious.
Contempt for the rule-of-law? What law?
Greg’s law, obviously.
U.S. attorneys are hired because of their political connections and lose their jobs because of politics, or for more lucrative job offers (Paul Perez in Tampa just resigned to take a job in the corporate world). This scandal of the month involving the U.S. attorneys is just another tactic by the Democrats to attack the administration via investigation and subpoena rather than offer substantive policy alternatives or legislation. Greg is incoherent, as usual. Not to mention malicious. The guy has issues, issues being the polite way of painting over any number of pathologies. Dagon resides in a liberal media bubble and MSM cant is primary intellectual work product.
One thing neither Bush, nor Gonzalez did was try to smear or criminalize the people they wanted to dump.- Oldflyer
I saw interviews with two of the attorneys, and both said that they “served at the pleasure of the president” and had no problem with being fired. What they took issue with, was the “poor performance” excuse given to Congress — even though their performance evaluations had always been very high.
They felt that that was a “smear.” I suppose most people would, particularly those with the written evaluations to prove it.
And as for this?
“So, there are political firings, then there are Clinton/Democrat lynchings.” — Old Flyer
I think Clinton was a slimeball, just as I think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are slimeballs. I dont care if a politician or polticial operative has a “D” or an “R,” nine times out of ten, he places expediency over truth and “winning” above all.
The same goes for Regular Joes who act as cheerleaders for either political party - and rant againt the sins of one, while making excuses for the other.
TS said:
“I think Clinton was a slimeball, just as I think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are slimeballs. I dont care if a politician or polticial operative has a “D” or an “R,” nine times out of ten, he places expediency over truth and “winning” above all.”
Now I understand you a lot better TS. Just do away with all of these “slime ball” politicians and return to “Rule by Divine Right”.
You know there are still places in the world where that is the norm. Not to mention places where “Divine Right” comes from the barrel of a gun. Maybe you could find happiness in one of them.
As to your statement about the Attorneys being smeared. La Te Da! That doesn’t even warrant discussion. But, if you want to see smeared, look at what G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been exposed to for the past 6.5 years. That is what I call a smear campagin.
“But, if you want to see smeared, look at what G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been exposed to for the past 6.5 years. That is what I call a smear campagin. — Oldflyer
All politicians and political operatives get “smeared.” It’s the nature of the beast.
You seem to believe that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and George W. Bush are honorable men. There are those who believe that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are honorable man. They think they are as “correct” as you do.
It’s my belief that such beliefs aren’t based on fact, but in emotion. And that fairness and truth dont matter as much as wanting to alleviate one’s own vulnerability and/or desiring to see one’s own side win.
People who bash Jimmy Carter while embracing George W Bush are entertaining, as are those who embrace Bill Clinton while disparaging Karl Rove.
You know, TS, I can appreciate what you say — hardball politics is hardball politics regardless of who’s throwing the hardballs — but a plague on both your houses attitude results in an excess of plague and dearth of inhabitable houses.
but a plague on both your houses attitude results in an excess of plague and dearth of inhabitable houses.- Zhombre
I’m not saying “a plague on both your houses.” I am pointing out that one man’s villian is another man’s hero, and that, as a rule, politicians are not all that interested in “Truth, Justice and the American Way.”
Sadly, however, Americans who point out one party’s warts while glossing over another’s are not that interested in
“Truth, Justice and the American Way” either. They just want their “team” to win.
That isn’t precisely fair, though, T.S.
You see some things happening right now that showcase at least one large, genuine difference pretty clearly: the Republicans don’t go in for these Stalinesque show trials that are so beloved of the democrats.
Right now, you have the spectacle of Waxman holding an inquisition, and he himself could not coherently explain why. Right up until the time Libby was convicted, the judge in the trial was saying he had no idea whether Plame was covert or not; Libby was in fact not on trial for blowing her cover (though that is, at least according to two of his jurors, what he was convicted for. Which is interesting: he wasn’t charged with that, how the hell can you find him guilty of things for which he was not charged and was not on trial?), but that’s the thrust of Waxman’s little inquisitorial process. Well, that’s nice, Henry, but it’s not the point, it was never even asked, let alone answered - and other than getting face time (Oy!) on TV, and pissing away the taxpayers’ money on idiocy when there really are actual serious issues, what are you doing? A show trial.
(Though the best moment of it was when Victoria Tensing was testifying, and shoved the whole thing right back up his nose. “Excuse me, Congressman, I’M the one who WROTE the f**king law, Why don’t you let ME tell YOU what the intent was, okay?” Ol’ Noseface didn’t deal well with that! That was all by itself worth the price of admission.)
And as another example, the idiot Leahy was compelled to admit that no law had even been dented or scratched, let alone broken, by the recent firing of the US attorneys. BUT - he’s gonna hold hearings ANYWAY, and if they don’t want to come up there, he’s gonna SUBPOENA ‘em!!! (snort, snort!) and get to the BOTTOM of… of… of… well, we’re not sure. If no law was broken, what bottom would there be to find? Why the hell would we be holding hearings?
Doesn’t matter. They’ll do it anyway, they always do. And that is a difference which perfectly exemplifies a huge divide between the parties: the democrats are a lot more about show as opposed to substance. They are performance artists, and they will stop the country, wasting everyone’s time and money, to have a show trial. They love this crap.
Republicans mostly don’t. They tend to be more honorable, which is one large reason why they are so lousy at defending themselves. They are happy to simply win a debate, whereas the democrats don’t wish to simply win: they seem to wish to destroy their opponents.
TS doesn’t even know the names of the lawyes he is talking about. So it is not only hearsay, but hearsay that can’t even be verified.
I saw interviews with two of the attorneys, and both said
That’s a little nitpicky there, Y. Unless TS has a perfect memory or took notes, I’m not going to fault him for forgetting details. (Just as I don’t fault Libby for doing the same.)
It’s always a useful exercise, provided that you don’t have a photographic memory, to try to remember the small details of your life exactly a week ago. Unless something really stands out as a memory hook, you’ll discover that much of what you “recover” is guess work, based upon your own knowledge about the general outlines of your daily life.
Yes, it is nitpicky, Book, even for someone who is able to provide quotations on demand for seemingly anyone who has ever said anything that might possibly be construed as agreeing with TS, down to the last t in the name even.
While I agree that memory is a fallible thing, my point still stands. Without the names, it cannot be verified, even with it, it might be more than moderately hard.
Your non-partisan position here, of course, is admirable.
Be honest. Fair-mindedness, truth and virtue dont really matter, do they, as long as “your side” wins?
Comment by T.S. | March 7, 2007
Book, per usual, you are wrong about just about everything that you’ve written. this time however, your screeds are “provably” wrong.
[..]
but drip, drip drip book, more is starting to come out. and i’ll be back to remind you once again just how much damage your partisanship is doing to your thinking and your credibility.
peace
Comment by dagon | March 7, 2007
Admirable by some, even if it isn’t by everyone.
http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/03/06/poor-scooter/#comments
Yes, it is nitpicky, Book, even for someone who is able to provide quotations on demand for seemingly anyone who has ever said anything that might possibly be construed as agreeing with TS, down to the last t in the name even.– Ymar.
I don’t remember their names. But they had copies of their positive evaluations that were flashed across the TV screen.
The only way I could tell you which fired attorneys were interviewed would be if I saw photos of them. But when I googled, “fired U.S attorneys” and “positive job evaluations,” I came across this:
Fired U.S. Attorneys Received Positive Job Evaluations From Justice Department
Last week, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty claimed that six U.S. attorneys were fired for “performance-related” issues. But according to the former prosecutors and Justice Department officials, five of the six attorneys received positive evaluations from the DOJ shortly before they were told to resign.
John McKay, former U.S. Attorney in Washington:
“McKay said he was called Dec. 7 by Michael A. Battle, head of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, who only months before had sent him a congratulatory letter for the laudatory report issued by the Justice Department audit team.”
Daniel G. Bogden, former U.S. Attorney in Nevada:
Bogden “was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a ‘capable’ leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators. ‘He didn’t get any dings,’ said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. ‘The overall evaluation was very positive.’”
Carol Lam, former U.S. attorney in California:
“Lam was described in her 2005 evaluation as ‘well respected’ by law enforcement officials, judges and her staff. Overall the review was positive. ‘We’re not aware of any significant issues,’ said another Justice Department official.”
Paul Charlton, former U.S. attorney in Arizona:
“Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Arizona said Charlton received his last review in December 2005. He was described as being respected by his staff, federal investigators, judges and Native American leaders for “his integrity, professionalism and competence.’“
David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney in New Mexico:
Iglesias “received a positive evaluation last year, according to another Justice Department official.”
Bogden, McKay, and Charlton have all confirmed that the Justice Department did not cite any performance-related issues when it told them to resign.
Knight-Ridder notes that “Justice Department officials are now completing the evaluation of Kevin Ryan, who’s being forced to step down as San Francisco U.S. attorney.” McNulty has admitted that a seventh U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins, was pushed out to make way for a “37-year-old protege” of Karl Rove.
You see some things happening right now that showcase at least one large, genuine difference pretty clearly: the Republicans don’t go in for these Stalinesque show trials that are so beloved of the democrats.- Ymar
Well, to tell you the truth, I think you have to be a wee bit partisan not to see that Whitewater, Travelgate, and the Monica Lewinski scandal were politically motivated “show trials.”
Your mileage obviously varies, though, Ymar.
God bless ya.
TS, speaking as one with many years experience in the federal work force, those evaluations don’t mean squat. If you are a political appointee at that level, you are there until they don’t want you there, and the interim evaluations are window dressing.
HOW DID I KNOW YOU WERE GOING TO SAY THAT!!!!
You have to be a wee bit stupid to think that lyuing to a federal gramd jury
Whoops, little power outage there.
Okay, back to the res. T.S. Firstly, there was no Whitewater show trial or congressional hearing, babe, so I don’t know what it might be you think you’re talking about.
Secondly, there was no Travelgate show trial, or congresional hearing, so ditto.
Third, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice (that would have been count #1 against Nixon had he not resigned); lying to the everybody in sight but mostly to the American people (that was count #2 against Nixon); perjuring himself to a federal grand jury (no such allegation against Nixon), and suborning perjury (also no such allegation against Nixon)
Which, by the way, those of you who can count will have noted there were four causes of action against Clinton, only two against Nixon - but democrats will tell you forever that Nixon was the worst monster to ever occupy the White House, the worst Presidenty ever, and blahblahblah.
So yeah, T.S., the republicans don’t go in for show trials.
Third, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice (that would have been count #1 against Nixon had he not resigned); lying to the everybody in sight but mostly to the American people (that was count #2 against Nixon); perjuring himself to a federal grand jury (no such allegation against Nixon),– JJ
Purjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes to be sure. Unless, of course, we’re talking about Scooter Libby.
“Which, by the way, those of you who can count will have noted there were four causes of action against Clinton, only two against Nixon - but democrats will tell you forever that Nixon was the worst monster to ever occupy the White House, the worst Presidenty ever, and blahblahblah.” — JJ
In some people’s worlds, Republicans are the big bad boogieman, while in others, Democrats are. Once again, it’s a “my team” mentality, like arguing whether the Red Sox are better than the Yankees. It’s never objective and is based on a subjective and selective review of the “facts.” Democrats think this, Republicans think that, the Left does this, the Right does that. Such generalizations seem downright lazy, and often ring false.
Then there’s the rest of the country, who dont really pay much attention and prefer to vote for the next American Idol.
TS, speaking as one with many years experience in the federal work force, those evaluations don’t mean squat. If you are a political appointee at that level, you are there until they don’t want you there, and the interim evaluations are window dressing. –Zhombre
What’s your opinion, then? Were they fired for poor performance or for political reasons?
TS, you can’t even attribute a quote correctly to me, how do you think you can remember which lawyers were in which scandals and which context? Let alone trials, shows or not?
That isn’t precisely fair, though, T.S.
You see some things happening right now that showcase at least one large, genuine difference pretty clearly: the Republicans don’t go in for these Stalinesque show trials that are so beloved of the democrats.
Let me spell it out for you.
Comment by JJ | March 17, 2007
27
#
You see some things happening right now that showcase at least one large, genuine difference pretty clearly: the Republicans don’t go in for these Stalinesque show trials that are so beloved of the democrats.- Ymar-TS not knowing what the hell he is talking about
What’s your opinion, then? Were they fired for poor performance or for political reasons?
They are there to take up cases for the government, which presumably is made up out of political representatives. The people who are elected, are held to account for fed lawyers not doing the job they were there to do. Therefore they are fired, both because of politics (voters have the power, not judges or lawyers) and because of bad performance (leading to pissing too many patrons off). But, I suppose you cannot hold two different thoughts such as those at once in your head and figure out a way to make them consistent, correct?
Purjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes to be sure. Unless, of course, we’re talking about Scooter Libby.
We aren’t against giving Libby what Clinton and Sandy got. Unless, of course, we’re talking about people who seek to benefit personally via a double standard by destroying their political opponents.
“But, I suppose you cannot hold two different thoughts such as those at once in your head and figure out a way to make them consistent, correct?” –Ymar
Why do you feel the need to be snotty?
I asked Zhombre his opinion since he’s lived it and said the job evaluations don’t really matter. If job evaluations dont matter, I concluded, then most of these appointments and firings must be political.
Of course, TS, it is a performance related issue if you don’t do what your boss tells you to do — especially if what he is telling you to do is legal. No matter how good you are at what you do, you won’t last if your boss finds you turn a deaf ear to his instructions. And the President, whichever President is serving at the time, is your boss.
But it is true though.
If job evaluations dont matter, I concluded, then most of these appointments and firings must be political.
Since you obviously can’t make them consistent with the other, you fall into the bad habit of limiting your options to wrong and wrong. Obviously politics does not exclude performance.
You would be better served by getting your quotations right, assuming you got any of your quotations right in the past.
Of course, TS, it is a performance related issue if you don’t do what your boss tells you to do — especially if what he is telling you to do is legal. No matter how good you are at what you do, you won’t last if your boss finds you turn a deaf ear to his instructions. And the President, whichever President is serving at the time, is your boss. - Bookworm
Well, for every account I’ve read on why they were fired, I’ve read another refuting such claims. How can anyone know for sure?
The e-mails fill in the blank a bit, but I certainly can’t be certain what transpired. But in my heart of hearts, I suspect that “good faith” was not always involved.
(I felt much the same way when Bush stood before that “Mission Accomplished” banner on that aircraft carrier and Chris Matthews and G Gordon Liddy and columnists and bloggers went on and on about his victorious moment.
“How can they be so sure?,” I wondered, having read countless informed warnings regarding the insurgency that would likely follow).
People believe what they want to believe, however. And are often 100% certain, even when they are 100% wrong.
To answer your question, TS, I don’t know. I suspect both political calculation and performance factors figured into the firings. I think both BW & Y above are right. If you get a job because you have highly placed pols in your state recommending you, and you subsequently lose the confidence of those patrons for failure to pursue what they view as substantive cases, is that performance based or political?
“If you get a job because you have highly placed pols in your state recommending you, and you subsequently lose the confidence of those patrons for failure to pursue what they view as substantive cases, is that performance based or political?” - Zhombre
The more I read about this case, the more I am convinced that having a conscience and a strong sense of ethics is a drawback in many circles. These “highly placed pols” sound more like thugs than statesmen.
I’m reminded of that wonderful scene between Michael and Kay in the Godfather:
MC: “My father is no different than any other powerful man — any man who’s responsible for other people, like a senator or president.”
KAY: “You know how naive you sound…senators and presidents don’t have men killed.”
MC: “Oh, who’s being naive, Kay?”
I get the sense that people have more than one “strong sense of ethics” than TS has implied. It just isn’t all about him and his always correct values, after all.
I’m reminded of that wonderful scene between Michael and Kay
You are reminded of things that you wish to remember, which are only the things that reinforce your position, instead of things that could undermine them, such as naming things that you don’t wish to be named. Like all people, you only remember things that you deem important, and what you deem important is based upon your assumption that you have things right. But you don’t have things right, now do you.
When the world is not the way you wish it to be, you must either bend it to your will, or you must admit your desires are not an accurate portrayal of the world.
Well, TS, I’m very sorry if the world isn’t as perfect and peoples’ motives as pure as you would like them to be. If you think every one of these fired U.S. attorneys were sterling examples of conscience, ethics and professional competence, and devoid of any political motivations of their own, well, that’s a bet on long odds, my friend.
Hi Z-Ray, This must be your busy season, yet you have time to post here. Have you been writing any lately? I sincerely hope you have.
Did you notice how this scandal bubbled to the surface right after the Libby conviction and Fitzgerald’s declaration that there was nothing more to investigate. Awfully convenient that Rove’s name comes up?
In Baltimore we had a US attorney who accomplished some good but was very divisive. He was resigned 2 years ago. As soon as the firing story hit the fan, he went to the NY Times to claim that he was pressured to resign because he was pursuing a case that would hurt then-Gov. Ehrlich.
Was there anything to his claim? I have no idea. But the NY Times was happy to add his complaint to that of the others.
Well, TS, I’m very sorry if the world isn’t as perfect and peoples’ motives as pure as you would like them to be. - Zhombre
I became attuned to the importance of ethics during the Clinton years, Zhombre. The Bush years have taught me about double standards.
God only knows what you’ll learn during a Clinton II or a Giuliani or McCain or Obama administration. I’m sure there are surprises yet to come.
God only knows what you’ll learn during a Clinton II or a Giuliani or McCain or Obama administration. I’m sure there are surprises yet to come.- Zhombre
I’m sure, too.