Sampson agonistes

I'll be surprised if it's really all that interesting. What we'll probably find is the same sleazy, unethical but still, technically, legal things the Bush Administration's been doing for some time now.

Corruption requires unlawful activity, in my view. And I haven't seen anything unlawful yet, so I can't get too excited about it. I don't see why they don't go after the abuse of national security letters instead...

Things that I'm wondering: Do you think that Ashcroft was removed by Bush because he wouldn't take part in unethical activity related to this? When Congress and Bush were waging war over Rove testifying under oath, didn't Congress say that's it's against the law to lie to Congress, so the formal taking of an oath doesn't matter? It seems to me that it's clear that Gonzalez lied to Congress.

I think Rod is reading too much into the administration's incompetence in dealing with this issue. The fact of the matter is that the President has the power to dismiss his appointees for any reason or no reason. Period. Whether it's ethical or not (e.g., dismissing him because the appointee wouldn't put the President's kid on the little league team he coaches, to take a silly example), whether it's politically wise or not. Politics may stop at the prosecutor's office door, but only in the sense that it's ethically dubious to try to influence the outcome of a particular case. But, my gosh, the entire appointment process is political: the President selects folks who are loyal to him; the Senate confirms folks based largely on politics. The President could nominate people based exclusively on the fact that they are as obsessed about voting fraud (which he believes is committed disproportionally by the opposing party) as he is; hell, he could nominate people because they demonstrated their loyalty by working phonebanks sixteen hours a day during the campaign. Prosecuting crimes--like prosecuting wars--is the role of the executive. Government resources are limited; priorities must be determined. It is the presidents responsibility and prerogative to determine those priorities. And it is prerogative to have people in place who will implement those priorities, and to fire those who do not. Period. None of this addresses the ethical character of the dismissals, but all this political posturing is nothing more than precisely that.
(Oh--I would be saying the exact same thing if a Democratic president had done the very same thing.) And if you disagree, please explain why the Attorney General shouldn't be entirely independent of the president. And if that's your position, please explain (per John Yoo's recent piece in the WSJ), why the Secretaries of Defense and State should not be able to formulate their own policies and priorities independent of the president.

"I'll give them a break once the investigation is complete, and it's found that the firings were legitimate." That would be the converse of a certain English juridical principle... How true. Not to mention permitting the legislative branch serve as prosecution, judge, and jury.

I find myself in the exceeding ironic position of wanting to give the Bush people a break on this one. And I find myself in the exceedingly ironic position of agreeing 100% with Franklin Evans here. Despite the fact that he's a Republican, I can't stand Bush and I never have been able to. In fact the only time briefly I deregistered from the GOP was when the party nominated the obviously incompetent Geo. W. Bush to lead its standard. I'd like nothing better than to see him impeached. But for this? Sorry, I can't stop yawning.

I'm not getting ahead of myself. I don't know if these guys did anything wrong or not. I'm just saying that Congress is right to investigate, and I'm not willing to give them a break by saying that Congress should just ignore the whole thing because Bush is the decider. They should investigate. If they complete their investigation and find that there's nothing that needs to go any farther, then I'm happy.
Innocent until proven guilty? Yes, of course. Giving breaks by sweeping accusations of wrongdoing under the rug? Forget it. I'm, also, not suggesting that Congress be the judge and jury. However, if they find evidence that would point towards special prosecutors or whatever comes next, then they should do that.

What law did Gonzales break? So far I've not heard one citation to any statute or law that he violated. Those of us who work in "at will" positions (including myself) understand that you can be fired "AT WILL." What part of those six letters doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee understand. We have nearly $3/gal. gas, no energy policy, our health care costs are sky rocketing, social security is headed for bankruptcy, not to mention the threat of another terrorist attack that hangs over our heads and a homeland security policy that is seriously flawed.
Does anyone else think this is nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing?

It's truly sad to hear "Christians" reflexively defending the man who blithely wrote the pro-torture memoes at the bidding of his president/patron. ("What did he do that was technically illegal?") Why do you defend him, and thus defend torture of your fellow human beings? ("Because he's a Republican, you idiot left-wing America hater!") It's a bumper sticker, but it's also a profoundly religious question:
Who(m) would Jesus torture?
Whose side are most of you guys who post here really on? If he were here with us tonight with a laptop, do you honestly imagine Jesus would be defending Alberto Gonzales?

A more accurate definition of "at will" employment is that you can be fired for any reason or no reason, except ones that have been made illegal (like ... um ... religion or age). Sampson is right ... the whole distinction between politics and performance is artificial in a political appointment. The president (and AG) set priorities and goals and not meeting those priorities is both a performance and a political matter. Now if there's some memo saying "fire all the colored folk" ... well, Katie bar the door. But there is not a shred of evidence of such illegal reasons. Even the "prosecuting Republicans but not Democrats" supposition is merely inferred from timing. Further, it's not surprising that a Republican administration should want more prosecutions of crimes that Democrats commit (like voter fraud) and vice versa (insider trading). Resources are finite and politics determines the priorities.

It's not arrogance, mere incompetence.I don't think they're sharp enough to carry out a conspiracy.Heck, I'm not sure Bush's team can go grocery shopping or get dressed each day without mommy's help.
That Sampson advanced as far as he did up the food chain in Justice without any prosecutorial experience is frankly stunning, and speaks volumes how DoJ has been run under Bush; I'd love to know who Sampson's hook is.
A president who had some onions and a tongue that worked would have defused this nonsense in about a sentence or two. USAs are political appointees. The President, even as doltish a one as this, can fire them for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all, excepting a disciminatory reason as above. And if the likes of Chuck Schumer want to employ this standard for the hiring and firing of political appointees, he should be ready to have it thrown in his face on the day a Dem takes the White House. And I don't think the country would be well-served by such silliness.
I guess we've secured the border and won the war; otherwise it's hard to understand why this is an issue. This is a complete political waste of time, energy and money.

Without specifics, I worked for a prosecutor's office for almost 6 years.i also lost a job opportunity in a state's AG office due to somenone losing an election.Them's the breaks. You do have ethical obligations, but you also have a boss, and a political one at that. This is not a democracy; DoJ is no different. Problem with attorneys is that too many of them, after a life of being told you're the best and the brightest,and especially in a pampered hallowed halls enviroment like DoJ, tend to forget this. They think every day is another chance to stab a windmill of your choosing. In fact you are nothing more than an input in the government and executive's employ-amaker of sausage msot days, like everyone else. You do what the boss tells you to do.If it's prosecute drug dealers(or give them treatment programs in lieu of jail time, as is now more often the case), you carry out those priorities. Which is all this seems to have been; follow through on the priorities as so designated by the employer. And if it violates your ethics, you leave.Sampson(again, shock to me someone this Boy Scout naive got that far) or Lam or anyone else so employed knows that. If the Bush/Gonzalez gang made voter fraud a priority and these USAs ingored that or didn't follow up to their bosses' satisfaction, they have only themselves to blame. Yes, it's political, may be sleazy-and perfectly legal. And this is going to be a precedent,
Be careful waht you wish for, Senator Schumer. I look forward to the opening days of the Hillary!/Obamarama! Administration, when all Republican holdovers now will point to this to stay so employed in appointed psots rather than knowing they'll be looking for work.

Mr. Newtic, I'm not sure of the answer to your question. It's possible that the US Attorneys are waiting for Congress to talk to all of the people involved to see if there's a case. Police do the same type of thing. They gather evidence, and then they press charges. They don't press charges and then see if the evidence fits the charge. Bush and Gonzalez will be vindicated if they did nothing wrong.

Actually, Herman, the Clinton housecleaning occured at the very beginning of his administration. Performance questions or conflicts of interest problems could not have entered into it. He was doing what many have done before him in his place: installing his chosen staff. Those questions become important when the event is mid-term. I don't want to assume sinister intent, but it surely does stink; where there's smoke, there's some kind of fire.

Herman, my intent was to comment on the fact that the timing makes the president vulnerable to the accusations, not that the accusations should necessarily seem more reasonable in any given situation. That is the distinction here: the Clinton firings could not possibly be based on (non-)compliance with his policies, because the attorneys in question never served under him. I regret not making that clear above.

Herman, There's no need for a witch hunt to discredit this President. He did that, long ago, all by himself. As for Gonzales, he is a self-confessed lawbreaker. He was complicit with Bush in breaking the FISA laws requiring a court to review any proposed wiretaps of American citizens. Recently, Gonzales announced that the Bush administation would start obeying the law. He did that only because he fears the reinstatement of the rule of law in this country due to Democratic control of Congress. Gonzales called the Geneva Convention "quaint." Torture is fine with him. Perhaps it is with you, too.

There's no need for a witch hunt to discredit this President. He did that, long ago, all by himself. True.