What's the big deal about the U.S. Attorney firings?

[Zenlitened]

Josh Marshall 'splains it all... in terms even a Bushbot should be able* to understand:

... The firings were not the offense. They were the clue that suggested the offense.

... there is now abundant evidence of a pattern of using the president's power to hire and fire US Attorneys to stymie public corruption investigations of Republicans... (Emphasis mine. -- Z)

Link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

*Now, whether a Bushbot will admit they understand... that's a separate question entirely. Many of them are quite busy visually inspecting their own colons, unfortunately.

But there it is: White House political operatives were trying to shut down corruption investigations.

And anyone with a shred of integrity about them has to agree that this whole caper seems suspicious, at the very least, and needs to be investigated. With testimony given under oath.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Bush said the adults are in charge...that Integrity was coming back to the WH..instead, he brought

Corruption....

Bush is not fooling anyone anymore...his credibility is Kaput, Nil, Zero, Nai, Puka, empty, lost, etc

[fooj]

2. All hell is about to break loose, imo.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=408673

[Iwasthere]

3. H*ly Shit !!!!!

How did I miss that earlier! thank you!

[Zenlitened]

4. Let me second that "Holy Sh*t!!!"

That is mind-boggling stuff, isn't it? :wow:

[fooj]

5. It sure as hell is.

:grr:

[NI4NI]

6. IMO, the big deal is

about the DOJ possibly obstructing justice in current and future cases against republicans.
My question is why was Karl Rove's assistant appointed as fed prosecutor in Arkansas of all places? Maybe to open up some bogus investigation about Hillary Clinton?

[EVDebs]

17. Think Mena without the Clinton's connection

...along with San Diego the Watergate FBI investigation re Wilkes/Foggo brings up the extra-constitutional funding mechanism of the intelligence agencies 'black ops', which don't involve Congress or Congressional oversight. In other words, illegal funding.

Doperunning, CIA, military operations, the entire thing with the mafia and what Cuba was supposed to be (moneylaundry) if Castro hadn't taken power, the Nixon buyoff of the Turkish heroin crop in order for the Golden Triangle to 'explode' in the '70s, and now just look at Afganistan's role in funding ... funding what you might rightly ask...

And Congress just might too.

[Flabbergasted]

7. Except that theory doesn't make any sense when considering the

94 - 2 vote to revoke the power given to Bush to appoint without oversight

[Zenlitened]

8. Huh?

:shrug:

[Flabbergasted]

10. If the prosecutors were fired because they were merely prosecuting Republicans,

why would conservatives vote en-mass against the bill de-authorizing Bush's newly allowed powers to hire without Congressional oversight?

[Zenlitened]

11. Um, because by now it has blown up into an outright SCANDAL...

... and none of them wanted to be on the record as voting in favor of the bit of mischief that helped make the scandal possible?

That's one possibility.

Maybe they're jumping off the doomed Ship of Bush's Fools as fast as they possibly can.

Maybe one or two of them actually were voting to restore, if only only a little bit, our government's system of checks and balances.

Other possible reasons? I dunno.

But the vote happened well after the fact of the apparent crimes, so I really don't think it has any bearing at all on Marshall's summation of why the attorney firings were wrong.

[Flabbergasted]

12. So you don't know actually?

No offence but why the hell are you on my case? I believe the actually reason is: Republicans don't trust Bush to put in lawyers who will benefit the Republican politicians.

[Zenlitened]

14. Well, if I appear to be on your case...

... then you can credit the blithe "it doesn't make any sense" response to a perfectly sensible statement by Josh Marshall.

It doesn't appear to me that you clicked on the link to sound him out further, so to speak. Nor does it seem you read my post very carefully, if from it you conclude -- in an "aha!" sort of way -- that I don't "know" what the reasons for the 94-2 vote to revoke might be.

A careful reader would have noted that I acknowledged there may be a number of reasons to explain the 94-2 vote, but that none of them would seem to have any bearing on what motived political operatives in the White House months and months before the vote was taken, or the legislation even suggested.

There's just no reason to insist there is a connection, unless perhaps you're suggesting some sort of quantum reverse-causality at work here. Which would be an "aha!" moment, indeed.

[Flabbergasted]

15. I didn't want to get in an argument. I was just stating something that wasn't

making sence with the theory. I never intended to make you feel attacked.

Take Care.

[Czolgosz]

9. Apparently Bill Richardson thinks the attorney firings are no big deal and says Gonzales should stay

I am so completely in disagreement with Richardson on this:

Question: Alberto Gonzalez happens to be a member of your community. Is this guy gonna survive? He's the first Hispanic to have that job.

Richardson: Yeah, I know. I'm rooting for him, I like the guy, I know him. I hope he survives....

Question: It occurs to me now, listening to you talk about your friend who you know, Mr. Gonzalez, it draws a stark contrast between—I haven't checked where all the other candidates are, but I know Obama is on record very clearly saying Gonzalez should step down. I suspect other Democrats running for president are maybe saying the same thing. That's a contrast between you and others on whether or not this guy should step down.

Richardson: That's right. I do believe that it's up to a president to make those decisions about Cabinet members. Obviously, Alberto's very damaged, and he's gotta be frank and testify and do what has to happen. But I think that's up to the president.

Question: So you would not call for his stepping down right now.

Richardson: No, no. And you know what? Part of it maybe is because he's the highest-ranking Hispanic ever.

Question: But wrongdoing is wrongdoing, though. If he did wrong.

Richardson: Well, I think it's more a lack of attention, lack of a plan, lack of being thorough. He's too much the president's lawyer. He's too much of a political person. And I recognize that. ... I've had conversations with him on immigration. I thought he was very competent. ... But I just think, Tavis, that this is a presidential decision. You can pick your Cabinet. And if somebody's not performing, let him go.

Source and more context: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200703/20070321_richardson.html

[IsItJustMe]

13. Reading that, Richardson is to easy going. The Repukes would eat him for lunch.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. Bill Richardson had been coming up hard on the outside and he just crashed into the racetrack

with that one as far as I am concerned. I had been holding him in reserve as a possible contender that I would go with. Not anymore after reading that. I want Gore. If I am denied Gore, I will go with Edwards. (so far)

This is also what I find so infuriating - when supposed leaders and the media don't appear to "get it". We get it, and it's not all that hard to get.

[EVDebs]

16. GOP, the Obstruction of Justice party !

Enjoy our donuts and prostitutes...

"FBI agents are investigating what happened in the hotel's posh suites, which defense contractor Brent Wilkes turned into party suites for politicians and CIA officers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

And I thought all funding by our government originated in the house of representatives !

Tim Weiner's book Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget and

Alfred McCoy's book The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the global drug trade

make my case. The 'Octopus' that Danny Casolaro and Gary Webb were investigating sealed their fates. Maybe DU can pick up the ball.

[Clarkie1]

18. Nice Boxer pic. I like my senator. nt

[glitch]

19. Even simpler:

This is about using US Attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, using the Department of Justice as a partisan cudgel in the war for national political dominance. All the secrecy and lies, the blundering and covering-up stems from this one central fact.
-- Josh Marshall