If my look at the e-mails didn’t convince you that there is a problem in the AG’s office, then I would note Ed Morrissey’s excellent post on the USA story wherein he notes the following key elements:
- Gonzalez has a Congress and/or a Management Problem
Gonzales testified to Congress that the White House had no involvement in the firings of eight US Attorneys, but a series of memos and e-mails show that his aide planned the terminations with senior White House staff.
[...]
When an AG makes statements to Congress, by testimony or official correspondence, as affirmative as his statements on the involvement of the White House were, Congress has a right to expect that the AG has explicitly determined the truth of those statements. Otherwise, the proper form would be to state that he has no knowledge of whatever is at issue.
One of two things must be true: either Gonzales knew of the coordination between Harriet Miers and and his aide Kyle Sampson, or he knew nothing. If the former is true, then he deliberately misled Congress. If the latter is true, then Gonzales has serious issues in management skills, and the White House must know it — because Miers then deliberately bypassed Gonzales.
Quite right.
- The “Clinton Fired all 93″ Argument isn’t Analogous. Not only is there the whole Patriot Act business that I have noted, but, as Ed notes:
Yes, Clinton fired all 93 federal prosecutors at the start of his term. Yes, it interfered with investigations in process. Most of them, if not all of them, were approaching the expirations of their terms of office, however, and Clinton’s unprecedented act was mainly that he “fired” them without having nominated most of their replacements. US Attorneys serve four-year terms coincidental to the presidency, and are retained or dismissed at the end of their terms at the pleasure of whomever occupies the Oval Office.
- Mid-Term Firings of USAs is Rare and Usually the Result of Serious Problems. Writes Ed:
The Congressional Research Service can only find eight examples of mid-term dismissals for US attorneys over the last 25 years — during which time hundreds of prosecutors served as USAs.
Further Ed notes that there were reasons listed for 5 of the 8–all of which were for cause, and for serious malfeasance.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I got to say that I really admire what you’re doing here. But I do think that you’re blowing into the wind. It seems like most of the right has already settled into the “nothing to see here” spiced with disgust over the cover up (unneeded as there is no underlying crime, don’t ya know).
Still, I gotta say that I’m really digging your site over the past months. You’re calling them as you see ‘em, and even though I don’t agree with all your calls I can’t dismiss them out of hand because the arguments are actual real arguments. Refreshing.
Of course, this kind of praise from a progressive is a death kiss. Sorry. Should have emailed it.
Still, keep up the good work - regardless of who’s in office
March 15th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Thanks for the comment–I appreciate it.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Two words Webb Hubbel.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
CMV:
First off, the notion that because Clinton did or did not do something/was involved something really has nothing to do with what Bush has or has not done.
Second, I have no idea why Hubbell/Whitewater would have anything to do with this situation.
Third, the presentation of two words are if they are some fait accompli does not an argument make.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:40 am
[...] This re-iterates a point that Ed Morrissey made, and that I noted, last night. [...]