There were suspicious circumstances, so holding hearings is legitimately just oversight.
If the Dems take advantage of it in speeches, that’s politics.

It only becomes a witchhunt if they overdo it and start demanding irrevelant information.
That hasn’t happened yet, so the protests here are too premature by far.

Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.

This quote from David Schraub’s piece, taken with Sampson’s 122 “I don’t remembers” (in one day!) taken with the loyalty lists, taken with a DOJ staffer who remembers Monica Goodling weeding out career officials at DOJ and replacing them with younger GOP loyalists, taken with the demoralization nationwide of the DOJ’s, taken with the statement of an FBI official in San Diego saying that Lam’s cases will now suffer immeasurably, taken with Sampsons admission that Fitzgerald’s name was considered for the list , taken with use of RNC email for correspondence about this matter, taken with Goodling’s disappearance from the scene—really tell the tale.

Gonzales has to all appearances, lied to Congress, which is a crime, and the 4 or 5 different explanations helped to bring this on the WH and DOJ. If its a witchhunt, it is one they brought upon themselves with their usual flair for candor and competence! this is an administration with a lot to hide.

Also, it is embarrassing to note that the top prosecution rates of some of those fired was not even a consideration, nor was their ongoing investigations. In the case of Carol Lam, her investigations have been set back- according to the FBI in San Diego. Maybe that was the whole point, and also why the GOP did not want the hearings held in the first place.

Suspicion arose because of the odd timing and the selectivity of those fired.

Suspicion rose higher because of contradictory and false statements made.

Could we, once in a while, talk about the situation at hand without reliiving Clinton’s presidency? If a position is valid, it should be valid regardless of president or party. I voluntarily concede all of Clinton’s sins, but the guy in the WH now is Bush.

The way this happened, there was certainly grounds for suspicion, and the subsequent investigation.

And besides, we’re still losing site of the fact that there WAS a law broken then. So even though I feel that the GOP Congress overreached with Clinton, we’re still comparing apples and oranges because what Mikkel is saying is that Congress ought to be able to launch investigations and issue subpeoneas even without any illegality, where the purpose would be to expose the political machinations of the other branch (party).

Hmmm. Virtually no Republican felt that way during the Clinton administration, CS. And I only give the qualification of virtually to be nice. I actually can’t remember any Republicans who didn’t revel in what was done to Clinton.

And it’s wrong, besides. Mikkel is completely correct in his explanation of why it’s wrong to lie to congress.

Basically if something like this prosecutor thing happens it doesn’t necessarily have to be illegal for congress to investigate it and make a political judgement. The reason why it’s illegal to lie to Congress (who after all can’t officially prosecute or charge people with crimes) is because it prevents them from carrying out this function.

I’m no Constitutional scholar but this sounds way too much like overreaching to me. I don’t think you have to be a believer in the Unitary Executive theory to feel that the Chief Executive shouldn’t be able to be tied up in political knots by Congress in the way you’re suggesting, Mikkel.

1) I do my best to have my political decisions, mostly meaning my votes, reflect what I independently think is right and wrong, not the other way around. I don’t think something is right because it matches my politics, and, if I do, that is a flaw in me. Right and wrong is not a matter of politics, despite the theorists on the left and right who explicitly argue otherwise.

2) I think that because people are often fired when they do illegal things, that people assume the only reason someone should be fired is if they do illegal things. This conflates what can be legally prosecuted with what can be morally condemned. If someone says something really stupid and offensive, I agree that they have the legal right to say it and should not be prosecuted. This does not mean I cannot simultaneously shout to the heavens about how stupid and wrong their comments were. If the person’s job is to represent the people of the United States and instead they are offending everyone, then they should probably be fired for doing their job poorly. Losing a job that was a great honor to have is not criminal prosecution for speech. Similarly, an Attorney General being fired for possibly getting rid of people for improper reasons is also not a violation of his legal rights.

This is all a long way to say that there are plenty of steps in between doing nothing and criminal prosecution. We should feel free to use them.

It’s a long jump to say “Republicans did nothing wrong”. I’m not even sure they did nothing illegal.

Again, there’s the question of the Attorney General lying to Congress.

I also think Mikkel is reasonable to bring up the question of obstruction of justice, though I doubt that’s going to satisfy anyone who thinks this is unfair.

I was alive and paying attention during the Clinton impeachment. What I noticed in the aftermath of the Libby verdict was this: it was as if each side had taken up the other side’s argument, word for word–with no acknowledgement that everyone had gone through the looking-glass.

There’s your human nature, I suppose.

Is this really a serious question?

Yes, yes it is.

Whether or not something is “right� in a political context largely depends on your politics, no?

No, not at all.

If the situations were reversed, I would feel the exact same way I do now.

I find this to be wrong.

Human nature. Their firings were not fair, but unfortunately they are not illegal and there is not much that can be done about it other then for the Democrats to hollar which is actually quite funny given the fact that Democrats are standing up for fired “Republican” Attorneys.

I think this story more then any other story serves to show at what lengths the Democrats are going to drive the nail into the Republicans coffin. The Republicans did nothing wrong and yet they are being persecuted as if we just found out George Bush had Jimmy Hoffa Murdered.

The minute the spotlight hits them they scurry in all directions pointing fingers at everyone and anyone and making up stories as if “Oh my Gawd what did we do wrong this time?” The Republicans are so shell shocked that they think anytime someone questions anything they do now they must have done something wrong. This political meltdown is going to go down in history as the greatest to ever take place in the history of the United States of America.

What I find even more sad is that the president shows no willingness to conceede that long after he is gone the party must continue on. This administration reminds me very much of Jimmy Carters which at every turn, at every juncture was met with more “disasterous and overwhelmingly bad news.” Nothing they could do could stem the bleeding. Pretty soon if little Susies cat was stuck in a tree and died. Somehow it became Jimmy Carters fault.

Is this really a serious question? Whether or not something is “right” in a political context largely depends on your politics, no? So how does this kind of argument answer anything? Everyone has a different opinion on what is “right” and what is “wrong.” That’s why we have laws in the first place so “right” and “wrong” are codified.

The firings were obviously stupid politically, but they were legal. Don’t like it? Change the law. If anyone perjured themselves, bust them, but ultimately these are political appointments and therefore it’s a political issue.

How do the People most directly participate? Through their representatives of course. Congress is not just a legal body it is also a political one. Sometimes they focus on policy and law but they have an equally important function to represent the will of the People as a political force as well. The attack that something Congress is doing is “political” is stupid because part of their job is to assess how well the government is working so they can report it back to their constituents. Of course Congress can be too political but then the incumbents will lose their elections.

Basically if something like this prosecutor thing happens it doesn’t necessarily have to be illegal for congress to investigate it and make a political judgement. The reason why it’s illegal to lie to Congress (who after all can’t officially prosecute or charge people with crimes) is because it prevents them from carrying out this function.

What will probably happen is what normally happens. There is an investigation to see if a law was broken, people lied during the investigation for political reasons and then they get caught. Of course the faux outrage of “that person is going to jail for lying about something that might not even have been a crime” is sickening because it suggests that our elected officials should be perfectly free to lie about things to avoid any (legal or political) accountability.

How is the populace suppossed to hold the elected (and by extension appointed) officials responsible if they lie every time there might have been misdeeds?

I don’t think it’s legal to lie to Congress. Attorney General Gonzales may have done so.

Also, the title of this post is “Maybe It Is ‘Legal’, But Is It ‘Right’?” I think most everyone concedes it was legal to fire the US Attorneys. The question being asked is, Was it right? Our elected officials are subject to greater scrutiny that managers of private companies. I think that’s a good idea. Because, really, don’t you sometimes think the real offenses involve what’s legal for politicians?

Lastly, I’m sorry to hear about your wife. Led out in handcuffs! I hope she didn’t end up with any kind of criminal record. And, more importantly, I hope she got a job outside of retail!!

“Then the law is a ass”

She worked for them for 14 years. She received Glowing employee evaluations. She was a model employee. She missed like 5 day of work in 14 years. She recieved numerous employee comendations. She learned her job inside out and even the store manager would ask her questions and ask her how to do things.

She was told by the store manager to do something that turned out to be against company policy. It was reinforced by the assistant manager and condoned by her section manager as well as the present security officer in the store. Everyone said, yeah thats okay you can do that.

Well a new security chief is Hired. In his zeal he says hey wait a minute thats against company policy. Instead of confronting the situation he calls the Police and has my wife arrested in the store for shop lifting. Marched out in handcuffs while everyone who told her to do what she was doing ran for cover and denied knowing anything about it.

Her crime. Broken items that could not be returned to vendors for credit were marked down drastically and put in a bin in the back room for employees to purchase if they chose. After one day of being in the bin they were put on the floor as clearance and sold to customers. Her crime. She purchased a roll of damaged paper towels for 19 cents.

Fair? NO. Were they within their rights to fire her. Yes. it quite plainly said in the employee handbook that you cannot mark down products and then purchase them yourself.

She was embarrassed, harrassed and led away in handcuffs for buying a 19 cent roll of damaged paper towels and a 4 dollar mirror that was broken.

So while I understand the Attorneys indignation and the Democrats uproar. Alberto Gonzalez can fire them for whatever reason he sees fit and there is not a damn thing anyone can do about it.

Fair? No. But it is the Law.