CBS News reporting just now that the president is going to fire Alberto Gonzales in an attempt to stanch the bleeding from the US Attorney firing scandal.
The NYT the other day pointed out that at least three federal statutes could have been broken in this mess. We don't know for sure that they were, but it's simply not the case that this is merely a political firestorm.
Starrs
March 21, 2007 11:27 AM
HASH(0x926072c)
When a paper other than the NYT reports that federal laws have been broken I'll reconsider. For now, there's not a whit evidence behind any such assertion. Typical NYT stuff.
Rod Dreher
March 21, 2007 12:13 PM
HASH(0x9262bf8)
You don't know that, Starrs. You haven't even seen what the Times wrote. You're making an ideological judgment without even seeing the evidence. The Times didn't say that laws had been broken; it said that they might have been, and here's why. Take a look at the actual essay. If you find fault with their facts or logic, it would be helpful if you'd point it out.
Simon
March 21, 2007 6:28 PM
HASH(0x9262a84)
Rod, In this as in many other matters we can't state with certainty that no laws could possibly have been broken. That said, the Adam Cohen piece you link to illustrates precisely what an overblown pack of nonsense this whole affair has been: IF a number of events took place for which we have no evidence, THEN several Federal laws MAY have been broken. When you cut through Cohen's hypotheticals, you get exactly two avenues for investigation: 1. The allegation that the firings may have been specifically intended to obstruct pending USA criminal investigations. 2. The allegation that Domenici's phone call was obstruction of justice. As of now, the evidence for #1 is scant, bordering on nil. As for #2, it would be far more significant if Domenici had urged the USA to stay away from certain matters, instead of pushing for more aggressive action by the USA. This is very much a classic political scandal, and no doubt we'll eventually see Gonzalez and other DOJ officials resign in "disgrace." That's how DC works: When the political waves are too high, you throw guys overboard. But that doesn't mean there's any underlying impropriety, much less illegal behavior. If G.W. Bush hadn't blundered around idiotically in Iraq for 4 years and permanently deflated his Administration's public approval ratings, who honestly would be interested in this "scandal"? .
Starrs
March 21, 2007 7:32 PM
HASH(0x9263304)
The essay was published on 3/19/07, and I stand behind my original post. " For now, there's not a whit evidence behind any such assertion." The NYT has offered no evidence at all. The whole thing is one of those "if the WH did this, then..." I don't defend this practice, I don't like Gonzales, I think GWB hires too many cronies, and I think GWB has mismanaged this situation as he has so many other things. But I have seen nothing that suggests this is anything more than pot-stirring. If it comes out, I'll be the first to climb down.
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Sign Up: Receive Crunchy Con in your in-box every day
The NYT the other day pointed out that at least three federal statutes could have been broken in this mess. We don't know for sure that they were, but it's simply not the case that this is merely a political firestorm.
When a paper other than the NYT reports that federal laws have been broken I'll reconsider. For now, there's not a whit evidence behind any such assertion. Typical NYT stuff.
You don't know that, Starrs. You haven't even seen what the Times wrote. You're making an ideological judgment without even seeing the evidence. The Times didn't say that laws had been broken; it said that they might have been, and here's why. Take a look at the actual essay. If you find fault with their facts or logic, it would be helpful if you'd point it out.
Rod, In this as in many other matters we can't state with certainty that no laws could possibly have been broken. That said, the Adam Cohen piece you link to illustrates precisely what an overblown pack of nonsense this whole affair has been: IF a number of events took place for which we have no evidence, THEN several Federal laws MAY have been broken. When you cut through Cohen's hypotheticals, you get exactly two avenues for investigation: 1. The allegation that the firings may have been specifically intended to obstruct pending USA criminal investigations. 2. The allegation that Domenici's phone call was obstruction of justice. As of now, the evidence for #1 is scant, bordering on nil. As for #2, it would be far more significant if Domenici had urged the USA to stay away from certain matters, instead of pushing for more aggressive action by the USA.
This is very much a classic political scandal, and no doubt we'll eventually see Gonzalez and other DOJ officials resign in "disgrace." That's how DC works: When the political waves are too high, you throw guys overboard. But that doesn't mean there's any underlying impropriety, much less illegal behavior. If G.W. Bush hadn't blundered around idiotically in Iraq for 4 years and permanently deflated his Administration's public approval ratings, who honestly would be interested in this "scandal"?
.
The essay was published on 3/19/07, and I stand behind my original post. " For now, there's not a whit evidence behind any such assertion."
The NYT has offered no evidence at all. The whole thing is one of those "if the WH did this, then..." I don't defend this practice, I don't like Gonzales, I think GWB hires too many cronies, and I think GWB has mismanaged this situation as he has so many other things. But I have seen nothing that suggests this is anything more than pot-stirring. If it comes out, I'll be the first to climb down.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.