« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
It took little more than 12 hours after Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced that he will resign for Alberto "I accept responsibility" Gonzales to lay the U.S. attorney firings at his feet. As many have pointed out, Gonzales barely gave McNulty any time to turn around before he stabbed him in the back.
Actually, it was a clever double stab by Gonzales -- his resigned chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who's been stabbed before) collected the recommendations and it was McNulty's job to vet those recommendations. What's left for an attorney general to do?
But there is an important point to be made here. Everything that Gonzales said about the duties of the deputy attorney general is true. For instance:
The Deputy Attorney General has a unique position at the DOJ. Most of the operational authority and decisions are made by the Deputy Attorney General. He is the chief operating officer — that’s the way I’ve structured the Department. And so he occupies a very central place in the work of the Department....Mr. Sampson provided the recommendations. The one person I would care about would be the views of the Deputy Attorney General because the Deputy Attorney General as a direct supervisor of the United States Attorneys...
Gonzales' appalling dereliction of duty has tended to obscure McNulty's appalling dereliction of duty. It shouldn't. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Here, for instance, is how McNulty's predecessor, James Comey, described the duties of the deputy attorney general:
"I was the direct supervisor of all the U.S. attorneys, and so dealt with them quite frequently on a variety of matters: resolving disputes, talking with them about resources, trying to support them in any way that I could."
"Trying to support them in any way that I could."
By contrast, we have a deputy attorney general who allowed himself to be steamrolled by his inferiors to fire eight U.S. attorneys for, in most cases, no apparent reason. And then after that was done, he helped smear their reputations in order to cover for the Department and the administration.
You need look no further than the case of U.S. Attorney for Nevada Daniel Bogden as a vivid example of this.
Here's McNulty meekly writing to Sampson two days before the firings that he was "a little skittish about [firing] Bogden... I'll admit I haven't looked at his district's performance." Later, he would tell congressional investigators that "he had hoped for some explanation for Bogden's inclusion on the list because he saw no apparent reason to fire him." Nevertheless, he testified to Congress that Bogden had been fired for "performance" reasons. He now says that he regrets the firing.
Maybe this was Gonzales' strategy -- to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff?
Comments (60)
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 9:48 AM:Other than collecting paychecks, what is the "senior" leadership of the Department of Justice actually doing?
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:00 AM:Someone please help me understand how this can possibly be resolved.
I’m serious. We now know that this administration is the most corrupt in history. What will be done with that information? Is the strategy just run out the clock and hope the Democrats don’t insure another four Republican years with the nomination of Hillary?
From this perspective, there doesn’t appear to be a plan in place beyond the exposure of even more incompetence and malfeasance.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:02 AM:I'm not trying to Defend McNulty in any way, but lets not forget about the 'secret order' that Gonzo issued.
The secret order that circumvented the 'structure' of the department by giving Sampson and Goodling much of the DAG's authority and responsibility, unbeknownst to the DAG.
TheraP wrote on May 16, 2007 10:03 AM:"to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff"
As DoJ goes, so goes the rest of the govt.
As the criminal cabal marches on.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 10:04 AM:If crimes and official misconduct aren't fully prosectured as warranted, there will be no disincentive for others to do this in the future.
Where's the Special Prosecutor?
Leta wrote on May 16, 2007 10:04 AM:The obvious smirk on Gonzo's face when he thew McNulty under the bus...was a clear indication to me that McNulty knew what was coming and at some point there will be a nice hiring bonus at some Republican shop for McNulty. It was a gotcha smirk by Gonzo. McNulty will take one for the team, fane that Sampson was the bad guy and that he was caught in the middle. McNulty is gonna come out of this with few scratches...lots of scratch and dead silent...I see no hope that he'll turn on the Department and Gonzo...see Chiaria and Lam.
Jan wrote on May 16, 2007 10:10 AM:re: "Maybe this was Gonzales' strategy -- to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff?"
I think this is the strategy of the entire Texas Cabal.
George Tenet is the first "eminently blameworthy staff" member who comes to my mind.
And, in that same vein, it might be worth noting who they DIDN'T keep around.
Perhaps the parts of the staff who wouldn't be quite so willing to just bend over and accept a medal for complete incompetence?
First staff member fired by Bush/Cheney:
Notrol wrote on May 16, 2007 10:11 AM:Richard Clarke, the nation's expert on Al Quada.
Oh sure. "Mistakes were made", "corrective action in place going forward", "won't happen in the future".
Think they're talking about screw-ups at DOJ? Think again. They're talking about anybody FINDING OUT about what they're going to continue to do.
This "incompetance" meme continues to be the front story for little "Pepino", but look at the actions. He has devised a system where damn near anything can happen, conspirators in the DOJ can get together to devise their false testimony, give that testimony to Congress, while covering up the true nature of the use of the DOJ for malicious prosecution of Karl Rove's enemies (read: Democrats). All while apparently breaking no laws!
If any group of citizens met with the intention of creating a false cover story to tell to a grand jury, how fast do you think they would be charged with conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury????
codeword: regret (as in only that someone found out the truth! Keep kicking the door in, Paul!)
Notrol
Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 10:11 AM:Their thoughtfully clever machinations will come falling apart once the emails come raining down upon them. Which will happen in due course.
Patience.
Rita wrote on May 16, 2007 10:16 AM:On the other hand, if McNulty hadn't decided to be forthcoming with Congress, we'd still be hearing the mantra that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Admittedly his moment of courage isn't equal to Mr. Comey's or even Mr. Ashcroft's.
It does appear that the senior officers at DOJ had all bought in to the politicization of the office. That's why it was ok to allow political operatives with little or no prosecutorial experience to make personnel decisions.
asdf wrote on May 16, 2007 10:16 AM:Leta-But who is Gonzo’s audience?
Maybe it gives Tony Snow and some House Republicans another talking point, but even they don’t believe it. It just looked slimy to everyone else with even a passing knowledge of the circumstances.
Maybe he was sending a message to Goodling that she’ll be Swift Boated next? But surly Goodling knows that already.
It seemed pointless, even desperate, trash McNutly at this late date, but judging from the smirk, Gonzo thinks he really pulled this one off. Who knows.
darclay wrote on May 16, 2007 10:22 AM:Do you really think they will willingly turn over those e-mail, at most they will send zip to do with any of this, And the dems wil roll over and play dead.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 10:22 AM:OT, but interesting. A Ray McGovern story about George Tenet.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/051407a.html
Highlights:
"Tenet should not be behind a microphone, but behind bars."
"Tenet and McLaughlin took a personal hand in writing a follow-up report aimed at salvaging what Curveball had said. Ford spared no words: The report 'wasn’t just wrong, they lied...they should have been shot.'"
Spencer's Mom wrote on May 16, 2007 10:23 AM:Okay, it's betting time!
Who will be the first to stab, and who will be the "stabbee?"
Rove/Bush/Cheney
My money's on Bush stabbing Cheney first, Rove as a last resort.
And Pappa Bush's money will be buying the knife, and the press coverage.
PEACE
Leta wrote on May 16, 2007 10:24 AM:asdf - my point was that if a guy is leaving, a guy who had that much information, a guy who could possibly dispute whatever Gonzo was serving - the last thing I think you would do would be to throw him under the bus.
You'd play nicey, nicey and hope he'd keep his trap shut..there's a deal on the table and that's why I think it was so hard for Gonzo to suppress the Smirk.
Xman wrote on May 16, 2007 10:25 AM:These guys are like suicide bombers. They will do anything for the cause...including taking a bullet (probably literally) to protect the King. Where would you recruit for blind obedience? Religious institutions like BYU and Regent.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:25 AM:I wonder if the new terrorism law can be applied to these guys? It would be nice to do a controlled test case on the value enhanced interrogation techniques...in public.
"Maybe this was Gonzales' strategy -- to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff?"
Umm, Paul, with all due respect, isn't that THE essence and THE underlying tenent of being a "CEO President" or a "CEO AG" or a "CEO Anything?"
Pissed Off American wrote on May 16, 2007 10:26 AM:Buck.......
Your optimism makes me jealous. It is similiar to the optimism I felt when the Downing Street Memo surfaced. That was some time ago, and all such optimism has long since deserted me. Too much water has gone under the bridge...exposed corruption unpunished....investigations dead-ended....promises broken....the carnage in Iraq....
This administration, and its legions of corrupt supplicants, is evil incarnate. It is not going away, and it will stop at nothing to remain in power. Do not underestimate the lengths they will go to. Every fresh revelation of criminality and corruption brings us that much closer to their next "trifecta".
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:26 AM:maybe McNulty was bought...AG is not 'stabbing him in the back' (if this were true, where is his response? he's still a goodfella, keeping his mouth shut)....whitehouse found McNulty some private sector winfall job, as they did the female prosecutor in LA....McNulty even tacitly admits to this in his resignation letter, confessing that he needed more money (kids to college)....hours later, suddenly he is the explicit fall guy, as if his role has suddenly changed, the deal was finally struck (who could pass up a 1.5mil bonus)....and as for it being too obvious? how much more obvious could the corruption of these guys be, the conflicts of interest, etc etc....nobody seems to care, they are getting away red handed, caught on tape, caught in emails, and no consequences....so why not just keep behaving with a kind of flip swagger...
bubba wrote on May 16, 2007 10:26 AM:"Maybe this was Gonzales' strategy -- to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff?"
Umm, Paul, with all due respect, isn't that THE essence and THE underlying tenent of being a "CEO President" or a "CEO AG" or a "CEO Anything?"
Raven Vieux-Jeanton wrote on May 16, 2007 10:26 AM:It's a strategy alright.
But not Gonzo's strategy. He doesn't decide strategy. He just lies his way out of it.
No, the strategy's pure Karl.
And Gonzo knows that as well as anyone. How many hours do you think he'll be out the door himself before the backstabbing begins?
tomg wrote on May 16, 2007 10:28 AM:and the clock on administration continues to wind down to 2008. Seems best to pull the repub's into the fray here by hi-liting their total lack of oversight of the administration actions. And of course their willingness to install Gonzo into the top spot in spite IN SPITE of the close relationship he had to W
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:29 AM:Gonzo's testimony to Congress in early 2006 after the NYT revealed the warrantless wiretap program should be re-examined for possible lies.
I seem to recall his testimony claimed that the program was legal, yet we learned from Comey's testimony that there was a period of time where it was not authorized/reviewed by DOJ but proceeded ahead anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?ei=5090&en=e32072d786623ac1&ex=1292389200&pagewanted=print
Gonzales' claims of legality need to be re-examined.
jimBOB wrote on May 16, 2007 10:31 AM:"Maybe this was Gonzales' strategy -- to surround himself with such an eminently blameworthy staff?"
The cossacks work for the czar. McNulty reports to Gonzales, who reports to Bush. The rot comes from the top. Bush, in not firing Gonzales, has assumed responsibility for anything done by Gonzales, or with Gonzales' authority. (This is part of why ministers/subordinates who screw up are generally expected to resign - when they stay on, responsibility for their mistakes gets passed up the line to their ultimate boss.)
As Brad DeLong says:
Impeach George Bush. Impeach Richard Cheney. Do it now.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:32 AM:It was a weird move by Gonzo as he seems to have been going to great lengths to keep everyone who could spill the beans happy. Why risk pissing off McNulty unless McNulty doesn't know much to begin with. I think McNulty was largely kept out of the loop. perhaps with an eye towards what is now being done. Gonzo is able to put the blame at his feet and call him ineffective and clueless. I don't see anyway it will work but they're obviously desperate to try and shift the blame. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO KEEP THE CRUMBS FROM BEING TRACED BACK TO ROVE AND THE WHITE HOUSE.
Buck wrote on May 16, 2007 10:32 AM:Every fresh revelation of criminality and corruption brings us that much closer to their next "trifecta".
Posted by: Pissed Off American
Date: May 16, 2007 10:26 AM
Don't underestimate the faceless, nameless nobody's who have always been in the background waiting for the right opportunity.
We have two full summers yet to go.
Be patient my friend.
Beth wrote on May 16, 2007 10:33 AM:I used to think what Clinton did to Lani Guinier was low, jerking her nomination to head the Civil Rights Division. But this crew is the dirtiest bunch in government since the Harding Administration. Makes you long for the days of John Mitchell running DOJ, doesn't it?
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:34 AM:no backstabbing here.....likely a $1.5 million signing bonus at some Bushie law firm, and a promise to keep silent as they have at him in public ....
mayan wrote on May 16, 2007 10:35 AM:I see it differently than some of the scenarios presented here.
McNulty has already talked with investigators behind closed doors. A portion of his testimony leaked out - that Rove was involved in "coaching" Moschella. Even that little story was damning.
While we don't know what else, if anything, McNulty has said, I think it likely that abu Gonzo's shoving McNulty into the chipper machine was a preemptive strike that ensures that there will be plenty of slime and murk in place when more of McNulty's testimony becomes available.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:36 AM:Karl personally controls the slush fund for payoffs to departing officials who 'know too much.' Just have a closer look at the trust account maintained in his son Andrew's name.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:40 AM:You'd play nicey, nicey and hope he'd keep his trap shut..there's a deal on the table and that's why I think it was so hard for Gonzo to suppress the Smirk.
Posted by: Leta
Perhaps they know McNulty is a lost cause, that he has somehow found a conscience and has decided to cooperate with the committee. Maybe they've found out who has been providing some of the emails to the committee/press- and it's McNulty. Instead of shifting the blame all Gonzo has done with this bizarre attack is add fuel to the fire. Everyone's left speculating- why this change of tactic? What's Gonzo's game? I don't buy that McNulty has been promised a job to take the fall. Not at all.
bobh wrote on May 16, 2007 10:41 AM:http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/05/16/0137205.shtml
lookie here - some fo the missing emails arent missing
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/14/1426254
mbbsdphil wrote on May 16, 2007 10:44 AM:Gonzales wouldn't know how to operate with any other staff, or be comfortable with anyone but the Goodlings, Sampsons, McNultys and Elstons. People smart enough to know the law, except for Goodling, but too weak, inexperienced and ambitious-above-their-talent to enforce it. Can you imagine Gonzales working with Comey, much less top talent with whose politics he disagreed? The mind reels. Except that this isn't about "politics". It's about raw power.
This administration wants to know what the law is primarily to get around it, or use it - more precisely, the appearance of it - against its enemies. It certainly doesn't want its own actions bound by it. Because apart from disabling your enemies, the law is primarily useful in making you rich via contracts, subsidies, exemptions and immunities. The things effective audits and regulations and impartial application of them are meant to impose. Hence, we have Bush Govt.
Ambition, inexperience, limited talent, fealty owing to over-promotion. A dangerous recipe for usurpation of power. And the Justice Dept is not alone; it's just the one in today's spotlight.
JM wrote on May 16, 2007 10:46 AM:Substitute "execute" for "fire" and you have some really creepy talk, and not so much of a stretch, either.
"he had hoped for some explanation for Bogden's inclusion on the list because he saw no apparent reason to execute him." Nevertheless, he testified to Congress that Bogden had been executed for "performance" reasons. He now says that he regrets the execution."
Sholom wrote on May 16, 2007 10:49 AM:"maybe McNulty was bought...AG is not 'stabbing him in the back' (if this were true, where is his response? he's still a goodfella, keeping his mouth shut)..."
I doubt it. McNulty was kept mostly out of the loop. Remember, he was surprised to find out the WH was most than marginally involved. And, remember, that the AG gave a ton of authority to Sampson and Goodling.
As for whether he has a promised $1.5m job? Naah, he doesn't need a promise. Any law firm will pay mucho-dinero to anyone who's been a US Attorney.
Ron Byers wrote on May 16, 2007 10:55 AM:Comby's story about Card and Gonzales bullying Ashcroft in intensive care is very telling. Even half conscious the lawyer in Ashcroft demanded he say NO to Gonzales, and by implication the President. Ashcroft, for all his faults, is above all else a life long lawyer. He instinctively loves the Constitution, liberty and the rule of law.
When John Ashcroft left control of the AG's office was secretly handed over to Karl Rove's shop. There was no way in hell the President was going to let those pesky lawyers erect road blocks in his quest to "protect America" from its enemies be they Democrats or Al Qaeda.
Judging from the way Bush instinctively treats Demcorats I am not sure he knows the difference.
After Rove took over, there was nothing for either Gonzales or McNulty to do except serve Rove, protect him from exposure and collect their pay checks. We haven't had a real attorney general since John Ashcroft.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 10:58 AM:Gonzales' "secret memo" could not have been that secret from aides like McNulty. If they weren't told, they smelled it, like a dead cat. Sampson and Goodling were doing all sorts of things that would have been extraordinary for staffers who were not substantive lawyers in the chain of command. Whatever power they had was theirs because it was delegated to them, either expressly or by the power vacuum left in their boss' wake.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 10:59 AM:"Karl personally controls the slush fund for payoffs to departing officials who 'know too much.' Just have a closer look at the trust account maintained in his son Andrew's name."
Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 10:36 AM
Could someone provide more information about the trust account alluded to here?
larry birnbaum wrote on May 16, 2007 11:01 AM:Gonzalez: "Most of the operational authority and decisions are made by the Deputy Attorney General. He is the chief operating officer — that’s the way I’ve structured the Department."
Perhaps this has been pointed out already above, but this claim by Gonzalez is directly contradicted by the secret memo he signed delegating hiring and firing authority to Sampson and Goodling. So some of the most critical operational authority and decisions were NOT made by the DAG. What Gonzalez describes as the way he structured the Department was quite explicitly NOT the way he structured the Department.
JEP wrote on May 16, 2007 11:01 AM:Anyone got any idea why, of all the papers reporting the Comey high-speed chase to Ashcroft's bedside story, the LATimes never once mentions the name of Andrew Card in their first page of coverage? They reference Gonzales, but never Card, and the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. all mention both Card and Gonzales, but the LA version ommits Card's name completely, referring to him only as a "white house aide" and you must go to the second page to even see the name "Card" in print.
92 wrote on May 16, 2007 11:07 AM:Just wondered...
Border:
I don't know anything about Karl's trust fund, other than it appears on his annual disclosures which can be viewed through opensecrets.org -- [http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/]
What I would call your attention to is the fact that Karl used to run/own a million dollar company (which is making even more now) but he sold it to join the Bush campaign. Karl can't be content with an $161,000 salary. And he's engaged in some pretty suspicious deals. Have a look at this diary and see what you think:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/2/10177/11404
mwk wrote on May 16, 2007 11:28 AM:Shouldn't Comey have told Congress (or someone) about this sooner? I know everyone thinks he's a straight shooter, and I agree he's better than the folks in place now, but he let this sit a long time.
Also, I understand that he said when he described the scene that he expected to have to testify about it someday (I didn't see the testimony -- I think I read this in the liveblog at Firedoglake).
If he expected that it was something that was a problem, and that it would come to light eventually, shouldn't he have talked sooner?
jzap wrote on May 16, 2007 11:28 AM:Uh... I thought McNulty was NOT in charge of USA firings -- because of the secret Gonzales memo giving that authority to Sampson and Goodling. Was McNulty aware of that secret memo? Hmmm.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 11:33 AM:JZAP:
Regarding the secret memo delegating hiring/firing authority to Goodling and Sampson, Gonzales' signature is clearly autopenned. Why they just didn't forge or autopen Ashcroft's signature is beyond me.
cowboyx wrote on May 16, 2007 11:33 AM:It's like the GOP says about the terrorists...how do you fight against true believers that will commit career suicide for the greater Glory of the "Movement?"
Off topic...Leta...only met one woman with that name, had a fascinating overnight stay at the Atlanta airport and lost contact with her...might that be you?
lysias wrote on May 16, 2007 11:36 AM:If there was a new OLC opinion out there authored by Goldsmith that called the NSA program(s) into question, any forged Ashcroft signature would have drawn immediate attention within DOJ.
bordersmuggler wrote on May 16, 2007 11:37 AM:92
There is plenty of meat there for a hungry investigator looking into Rove's personal finances. The point raised above though is about whether Rove controls a separate slush fund for controlling departing officials who "know too much." Debra Yang receiving a $1.5 million sign on bonus might be just one of others that will follow. If such a fund exists, its size is surely finite, and a run of departing Bushies could test its solvency.
lysias wrote on May 16, 2007 11:41 AM:I wonder if they planned to pre- or postdate Ashcroft's signature, to avoid the problem that Ashcroft was temporarily no longer AG, and therefore without authority to sign.
Such a fraud would, I presume, have been clearly illegal.
92 wrote on May 16, 2007 11:43 AM:border:
Given Karl's ongoing ties to his former firm and its partners (both of which are raking in the RNC dough) as well as his maintenance of Karl Rove & Co as a shell company (reported on the pfdf's) I'd guess the slush fund lies somewhere between the two...
Of course the pfdf's also list a whole lot of blind trusts that are in various Rove names.
Anonymous wrote on May 16, 2007 11:53 AM:As I predicted over a month ago (really not happy to be correct), the Israeli firsters were after McNulty. The AG scandal was a way to try to take him out or "cast clouds" over the upcoming AIPAC/ROSEN/WEISSMAN ESPIONAGE TRIAL coming up in early June. Paul McNulty is/was the prosecutor for this trial.
Wonder how this will effect this upcoming trial. Can not be good for truth or justice.
Bill Kristol (who was so excited by this AG scandal) must be tickled yellow! Oh I forgot he is all ready yellow.
litigatormom wrote on May 16, 2007 12:05 PM:The appalling story of Abu G and Card's storming Ashcroft's hospital room seems to have been overtaken by stories about Rudy Giuliani's faux outrage at Ron Paul's statement about 9/11, and Mike Huckabee's quip about John Edwards' hair.
Abu G and Card not only knew that Ashcroft was sick, they knew that the Acting AG had already turned them down. Not only Comey, but Mueller and Ashcroft were prepared to resign over this.
But let's not lose sight of the real question: what were the mysterious changes to the NSA program that were made to mollify Comey, Mueller and Ashcroft? And why were they enough to let the program, as "amended," continue?
Code word: small, as in the size of Abu G's brain.
paul lukasiak wrote on May 16, 2007 12:10 PM:a couple of points... the "secret hiring memo" did not cover the US Attorneys themselves.
More to the point, McNulty's "skittishness" about Bogden strongly suggests that the list was presented to him as a "fait accompli".... and I'd suggest that (like Carol Lam) McNulty had been told by Sampson (or Monica) that the decision was coming from "the highest levels of government."
This would help explain why it was necessary for McNulty to go to the White House to discuss his testimony explaining the firings -- he knew that the decision to fire had been made there, and had to be led to believe that the decisions were based on "performance reasons" by the White House.
sailmaker wrote on May 16, 2007 12:15 PM:Litigatormom,
those are the questions I would like answered as well. I want to see those 'amendments'. I'll bet Goldberry has a few ideas about the whole thing.
I would also like to note that McNulty's resigination letter does not have a date on it - so there will not be a recess apointment (I think). McNulty may not accept blame for firing the USAs and otherwise not doing his job, but there should be confirmation hearings for his sucessor. A small mercy.
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/doj/mcnulty51407resltr.html
mo2 wrote on May 16, 2007 12:20 PM:@jzap, Only the President and the AG acting on behalf of the President can fire USAs. Goodling and Sampson could fire Assistant USAs and lower -- they could even fire McNulty's staff, but he was not copied in on that secret memo.
Why was he not copied in? Was his lack of curiosity deliberate on his part? I don't know.
HopeSpringsATurtle wrote on May 16, 2007 1:00 PM:What else is Freddo but an empty suit without a brain" Someone ought to photoshop his head on the Scarecrow's body. Thanks for the write up.
ignoreland wrote on May 16, 2007 1:59 PM:Surrounding himself with incompetents seems to be working for Bush!
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 2:38 PM:"Someone please help me understand how this can possibly be resolved.
"I’m serious. We now know that this administration is the most corrupt in history. What will be done with that information? Is the strategy just run out the clock and hope the Democrats don’t insure another four Republican years with the nomination of Hillary?
"From this perspective, there doesn’t appear to be a plan in place beyond the exposure of even more incompetence and malfeasance.
"Posted by:
Date: May 16, 2007 10:00 AM"
Jesus Christ! You "think" you know so much, and yet you don't _THINK_.
Get the basics: We the people are the ultimate check on gov't. And it is We the people -- not Congress -- who must "initiate" impeachment -- _DEMAND_ it until congress does it.
But that takes time -- both within We the people, and in Congress. There must be swufficient evidence, sufficent time for it to ripen -- in both loci. In fact, the impeachment movement, which must begin and is beginning at the grassroots, as proceeding quite rapidly. By the time We the people are able to put sufficient pressure on Congress, Congress will be ready to act on impeachment.
But again: it cannot be initiated by Congress on its own, else it appear to be partisan. The _LAST_ thing you should want is to leave any opportunity for accusations of partisanship. It must be not only aboveboard, and based upon aboveboard investigation and hard evidence; it must also be _SEEN_ to be that.
Then the loud but insignificant fringe who opposes it will be naturally drowned out.
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 3:03 PM:"Anyone got any idea why, of all the papers reporting the Comey high-speed chase to Ashcroft's bedside story, the LATimes never once mentions the name of Andrew Card in their first page of coverage? They reference Gonzales, but never Card, and the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. all mention both Card and Gonzales, but the LA version ommits Card's name completely, referring to him only as a "white house aide" and you must go to the second page to even see the name "Card" in print.
Just wondered...
"Posted by: JEP
Date: May 16, 2007 11:01 AM"
The media is focused essentially on Gonzo because they are preparing themselves to smell blood. Gonzo's. It's just that "LA" is more narrowly focused.
Right now a bunch of balls are in the air -- Comey not only established his credibility -- note there hasn't been any effort to smear him? he's scaring the shit out of the WH -- but his testimony is powerful. Gonzo can try all he wants to distract from that, and claim that all the decisions were made by McNulty. But Comey's testimony is still out there -- unanswered by WH and Gonzo. Everyone's wiating for the WH and Gonzo's next moe; and the longer they take to speak to Comey's testimony, the more suspicion they will arise about themselves.
Comey blew a big hole through the wall around the slammed shut door that is Gonzo. We now get a clearer look beyond Gonzo. And then there're the Palast emails nailing Rove.
Gonzo can smirk all he wants; it will more and more look like desperation and guilt. Especially if they dcontinue their silence in the face of Comey's vivid testimony.
SC = green. As in, come down to it, when it comes to public scrutiny, Gonzo is green, amateur.
And Wolfowitz ain't helping the larger picture.
dancer79 wrote on May 16, 2007 3:07 PM:AP reported that AG AG threw McNulty under the bus at "a National Press Club event." Weren't any of our watchdog journalists then able ask him why, after repeated questioning along the lines of "who made the decision to fire?" by many Senators and Reps, AG AG was unable to come up with McNulty's name while he was UNDER OATH??? - as little as two or three days ago???
JNagarya wrote on May 16, 2007 3:12 PM:"Shouldn't Comey have told Congress (or someone) about this sooner? I know everyone thinks he's a straight shooter, and I agree he's better than the folks in place now, but he let this sit a long time.
"Also, I understand that he said when he described the scene that he expected to have to testify about it someday (I didn't see the testimony -- I think I read this in the liveblog at Firedoglake).
"If he expected that it was something that was a problem, and that it would come to light eventually, shouldn't he have talked sooner?
"Posted by: mwk
Date: May 16, 2007 11:28 AM"
Congress doesn't take public testimony from witnesses "cold". As a trial lawyer will tell you: Never ask a witness a question to which you you don't already know the answer. Congress interviews witnesses privately first, and schedules when they will testify publicly. Did they know in advance that Comey was going to talk about the Ashcroft incident? Good question -- it looked like they didn't. It may be he gave more information publicly than he had privately. And it's possible the Democrats don't share what they derive from private interviews with the Republicans -- how devasted was Specter?