shouldn’t the argument be over whether or not removing attorney’s from their posts due to political affiliation is of benefit or detriment to the republic?

an actual debate on an issue is something that doesn’t really happen. those who do take time to stay somewhat informed demonstrate their reliance on news received from mainstream media when their banter is copious with bias commensurate with their outlet of choice.

the matter is this: if we tolerate the removal of these attorneys, by republican or democrat alike, we acknowledge that this customary and partisan influence on our justice system is not a threat to the the union. if it was ok for clinton to do it, then it’s ok for bush to do it. if it’s ok for bush, then it’s ok for clinton. we did it, so you can do it or you did it so we can do it; lest we both be hypocrites.

again, if we tolerate the appointment and dismissal of these attorneys in a way that reflects the whimsical and fleeting power of a majority party’s reign, then that’s fine. but the real questions we should be asking, since republicans and democrats alike are both propense to this practice, is whether or not these members of our judiciary ought to come and go in such a manner. if we believe this is fine, then our party allegiance does not matter. if we believe this practice is detrimental to the union, again, your party does not matter.

if after debate we come to believe the practice is alright, then we demonstrate our belief and hold our representatives responsible for actuating it. furthermore, if after debate we come to believe the practice is of detriment, then we hold those who have carried out an act detrimental to the republic accountable.

this, i believe, was our intended role; to hold those who represent us accountable after we have decided on our own that which adheres to the public good. unfortunately, we seem like preschoolers who constantly invoke the “he did it first” in defense of any alleged wrong doing. in reality and in all applications, this “defense” tacitly admits guilt.

“I do think the point about the new provision in the Patriot Act is a move in the wrong direction because it removes a layer of oversight. But I’d want to go farther than reversing that and actually say that presidents should only be able to fire these judges (sic: attorneys) for cause, not on a whim.”

I’d say this is the issue that should be dominating the discussion, but it’s instead a witch hunt / Clinton-did-it-too discussion. The issue that this event demonstrates is that justice needs to be carried without regards to partisan affiliation. A first step would be removing the Patriot Act provision, which would address this particular problem, but it would also be good if debate addressed the core of the problem, namely that those given jobs within the government should be given those jobs based on performance and qualification, rather than ideology or contacts. Clinton is irrelevant in such a discussion, as are the witch hunts being called for by the left.

Reagan also fired all or most of the US Attorneys, once their terms expired. Its not that unusual to do so at the start of a president’s term. What was unusual about Clinton, was that he waited until Reno was confirmed and then fired them all in one day. BTW, I do think he took some political heat for it, but that’s entirely different than ranking the 93 attys in order of loyalty and then firing certain ones that refuse to play ball. Clinton had his problems in the WH, I’m not denying it, but he’s paid the price, which is more than I can say for Bush/Cheney/Rove. I think character is important, but it also has to be balanced against competence. Your guy has neither, so why are you so hell bent on defending his corrupt practices?

The FBI had several days to protest his account if it’s wrong in any way, they didn’t. So it’s safe to assume its correct.

I don’t think it’s safe to assume that at all. There could be any number of reasons for no one to have come forward yet and you are jumping to conclusions.

Interesting too, in that Seattle Times article which was linked from your mediamatters link, apparently no one denies that felons voted illegally in the razor thin win in the gubernatorial election. The reason the case was dismissed was because the state had mailed the ballots to the felons, so they knew that it would be too hard to prove that the voters had reason to know that they were voting illegally.

But you know, voter fraud is just a myth propogated by the vast right wing conspiracy.

Just a moment, it’s ok for you to assume that there something to the unbased accusations that Dems are involved in widespread voter fraught, but not for me to assume that irregularies did happen at the WH and the DoJ, even though there is ecidence, testimony and emails, at least supporting this view? Some double standard here?

Gray, come on now. Where did I assume that there IS something to the accusations of voter fraud? I specifically said that I have no idea if the accusations had merit or not (however, I note that you used the adjective “unbased”: so you are the one who has already decided the case without seeing all the evidence, apparently).

Do you really not understand the difference between me saying that there COULD be something to the allegations and that I’d like to know if the US atty involved investigated the complaints properly, and the other situation that you allege where I would be assuming that there WAS something to the allegations? Sheesh, come on now, you are brighter than this.

Just a moment, it’s ok for you to assume that there something to the unbased accusations that Dems are involved in widespread voter fraught, but not for me to assume that irregularies did happen at the WH and the DoJ, even though there is ecidence, testimony and emails, at least supporting this view? Some double standard here?

As for the story on the accuracy of the Shields/Cragan story, rthx for pointing this out, I’ll look into it (but not now, have some things to do in RL).

“What sources are you using for details of this information anyway?”
McKay’s own statement at the House, and several statemens in the press. For a good round up, check here:.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140007
The FBI had several days to protest his account if it’s wrong in any way, they didn’t. So it’s safe to assume its correct.

Btw, I confused McKay and Iglesisas: McKay was called by Hastings’ staffer, Iglesias got called by Domnici personally. Sry for the mixup.

However, Krugman cited a study some days ago that showed that for every federal case opened on a Republican, seven (7!) Dems are invetigated. Do you think this is a proper mage of the political realities, or does this maybe show that political considerations play a role in the decisions of US attorneys?

Ah, now we’re getting to the source of your bias, Gray. Pat over at Stubborn Facts has shown how flimsy that Krugman piece is; there are so many points on which Pat showed him to be selective in his reporting of ‘fact’ that I’ll just refer you over there to check it out.

Now, if you “have no idea�, why assume “that there is at least SOME potential for the claims�? Guilty until proven innocent?

Gray, you’ve got this backward. I’m the one saying that the Senator is innocent until proven guilty (and by extension, Gonzales and Bush are too). And I’m not saying that I know or even believe that they aren’t guilty, but until I see more evidence of what actually happened, I assume that I can’t determine the guilt. You, on the other hand, have taken small bits of information that support your position and assumed them to be true without hearing the rest of the story if there is a rest of the story. What if the claim that you mentioned about McKay isn’t true, that he didn’t actually check with the FBI about the accusations or that he didn’t take other measures that would have been appropriate? What sources are you using for details of this information anyway? I’ve had difficulty finding anything that goes into the individual cases.

Nothing in the news suggests that there is any evidence that McKay for instance did anything remotely like ‘bidding’ for Dems. He checked with the FBI if there was something to the accusations, they had nothing, so he didn’t open up a case. That’s what he told the Senator. What Domenici wanted was illegally starting a prosecution for political purposes. He wanted McKay to do his bidding. That’s illegal. And this sure isn’t a proper reason to complain at the DoJ.

Sure. In an official, transparent way. I would recommend writing a formal letter. And if it turns out that the attorney checked back with the FBI, and they have nothing to base a case on, the complaining candidate should apologize to his adversary, and to the US attorney and the DOJ as well.

“And if there was a sitting Democratic president who heard about these complaints, should he not ask the AG to look into it?”

No. Not his job. He has to put trust in his officials to do theirs. Everything else is unprofessional micromanaging. And if the complaint is already at the DoJ, the AG should have knowledge of it. How does the pres come into play anyhow?

“I’m presenting this as the reverse party affiliation of the current situation of course and assuming that there is at least SOME potential for the claims that were made of possible voting fraud plots by Dems against Republicans to be true. I have no idea of whether or not these claims had any merit, and I don’t think that you have any way of knowing that at this point either.”

Now, if you “have no idea”, why assume “that there is at least SOME potential for the claims”? Guilty until proven innocent? However, Krugman cited a study some days ago that showed that for every federal case opened on a Republican, seven (7!) Dems are invetigated. Do you think this is a proper mage of the political realities, or does this maybe show that political considerations play a role in the decisions of US attorneys?

I’m presenting this as the reverse party affiliation of the current situation of course and assuming that there is at least SOME potential for the claims that were made of possible voting fraud plots by Dems against Republicans to be true. I have no idea of whether or not these claims had any merit, and I don’t think that you have any way of knowing that at this point either. If you’ve examined evidence in the case, then please provide links and references. If you are unable to do so, then I hope by looking at the situation without partisan lenses might help you to see that there could be more here than meets the eye in at least some of these firings.

But none of that changes my opinion that these appointments really shouldn’t be political at all. In fact if the change that I suggested were to be made, then the president would ONLY have the ability to fire US attorneys if there were proof of just cause; and in the hypothetical that I mentioned, he’d have to be able to show that the attorneys were not investigating something that should have been investigated.

Not really, but only important info makes it into my memory…
Sry, you’re right. Forgot about your correction above. I apologize.

“I don’t know enough yet to make that judgment.”

Well, again, my memory is bad, but I can’t remember you ever abstained from critizising Dems with that argument. And don’t we not know a lot right now about Republican Senators inquiring about investigations on their political adversairies, then complaining at the WH, and how this info was relayed to the DoJ? Or maybe let’s just assume that a US attorney was fired esentially because he annoyed a Senator with his refusal to start a case without proper evidence. Would that be ok with you? Just normal political procedure?

And on the legality/illegality of the current situation? I don’t know enough yet to make that judgment. The politicization of these appointments is what I object to at this point, and when I learn more about what was actually taking place in each instance then I may come to a more specific opinion about the ethics and legality.

Btw, were speaking about US attorneys, they’re prosecutors, not judges. Judges can’t simply be fired (yet).

Gray:Well, it sure looks like excusing Bush, CS, cause that analyzing you mentioned is totally missing from the discussion!

Well Gray, how about if you read my whole comment first before responding? Here’s your analysis (AGAIN):

I’m personally disturbed by the political nature of these appointments by Clinton AND Bush, and I want the process altered so that this cannot happen. I do think the point about the new provision in the Patriot Act is a move in the wrong direction because it removes a layer of oversight. But I’d want to go farther than reversing that and actually say that presidents should only be able to fire these judges for cause, not on a whim.

Do you think that the DoJ’s firing of the attorneys, allegedly because of bad job performance, but really because they didn’t comply with illegal requests to go ahead with cases against Dems, in spite of missing evidence, is proper adminisrative action?

Well, it sure looks like excusing Bush, CS, cause that analyzing you mentioned is totally missing from the discussion!