Comments (10)

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:10 PM:

It is UNPRECEDENTED that an agency has such discretion over which political appointees they are going to hire.

These decisions are almost always handed down directly from the Office of PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL at the White House.

Where is PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL in this matter?

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:11 PM:

It is UNPRECEDENTED that an agency has such discretion over which political appointees they are going to hire.

These decisions are almost always handed down directly from the Office of PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL at the White House.

Where is PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL in this matter?

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

It is UNPRECEDENTED that an agency has such discretion over which political appointees they are going to hire.

These decisions are almost always handed down directly from the Office of PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL at the White House.

Where is PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL in this matter?

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:14 PM:

It is UNPRECEDENTED that an agency has such discretion over which political appointees they are going to hire.

These decisions are almost always handed down directly from the Office of PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL at the White House.

Where is PRESIDENTIAL PERSONNEL in this matter?

anon, too wrote on May 23, 2007 1:16 PM:

While Goodling said she had not received emails from Rove while at DoJ, she went on to say that she did have emails from him while at RNC, I think, but her answer was cut off, and it was not pursued. Wondered why she let that little tidbit drop.

If her indoctrination as to what needed to be done at DoJ happened while she was at RNC, and came directly from Rove, then there would not have been need for direct contact with Rove after she got to DoJ, and the communications with Jennings would be enough to let Rove know plans to get the people with the right ideology in place in critical states were proceeding as expected.

Anonymous wrote on May 23, 2007 1:18 PM:

No one will be sent to jail for this. No one. Without Rove under oath this investigation will get nowhere. And the Dems are unwilling to have a showdown with the White House. Disheartening.

Damian wrote on May 23, 2007 1:29 PM:

A sense that "we could do better?" WTF does that mean? It's important to get an answer for the record.

Jane wrote on May 23, 2007 1:41 PM:

Speculation: AG read Sampson's answer as we have no cover but he is on our list so don't push it?

Given the way this Administration thinks once you are on a list -- any list -- Voter Rolls, Guantanamo, A.G. List or whatever -- you are guilty until proven innocent.

SC: Story -- I would love to know what the real story is. I'm not sure which is scarier -- that the AG is such a chump that we just had a feeling qualifies as a rationale or that there were devious motivations. Probably doesn't matter --probably both. (Hard to make a case for this administration's competence after the Debacle they made of Iraq despite all the warnings they received.)

shipwreckedcrew wrote on May 23, 2007 1:58 PM:

I have tried to tell the residents of this board this fact for two months. Ron Bodgen is a perfectly fine guy, a good prosecutor, and a decent citizen.

What he is not is a political operator. Ron was a DOJ prosecutor from 1990 to 2006. He didn't go looking for the US Attorney job in 2001, it came looking for him when John Ensign's Chief of Staff -- a newly elected John Ensign -- started asking people in the legal community for suggestions on who to name US Attorney for Nevada. Bogden was the Chief of the Reno Office, and a longtime OCDETF (Org.Crim.Drug.Enf.Tsk.For) prosecutor. Bodgen was interviewed by the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Staff recommened him to Ensign. Ensign then had a 20 minute telephone conversation with Bodgen, and offered him the job at the end of the call. I got those facts from Ron in 2002.

Bogden was easy to fire because no one was going to be upset -- though emails show that Ensign's office was upset when they were told. But, when the decision was made, there was no one present who said "Maybe that's not such a good idea."

I think the motivation to fire him was exactly as Bodgen publicly stated in his testimony -- the explanation given to him by Bill Mercer in the telephone call telling him he was being asked to resign -- that DOJ wanted to create openings for DOJ people to get high profile Presidential appointments for the purpose of enhancing their resumes. People like Rachel Brand and Rachel Paulose.

Stuart Taylor's article yesterday in the National Journal gave you a very good window into what has happened at the top of DOJ since Gonzalez took over from Ashcroft. Taylor interviewed some very seasoned veterans of DOJ that have retired over the last couple years -- people who had worked there 30+ years, and were among the top of the DOJ Career staff. As the "First Team" of Ashcroft's DOJ staff and appointees from the first term began to leave when Ashcroft left, they were replaced by Gonzalez with a lot of young political hacks -- people like Sampson and Goodling. This isn't necessarily unusual -- I remember meeting AG Reno in 1999, and her staff was dominated by young female aides, most of whom were under 30. They were mostly like-minded when it came to political considerations. It was what it was, and career people just shrug and do their work.

The difference with Gonzalez is that most of his aides have either rotated through the WH Gen.Counsel's office, or have had prior political experience, rather than prior legal experience.

That's a recipe for disaster, and its played out that way in what you can see with Sampson and Goodling in terms of their myopia and inexperience.

phil james wrote on May 23, 2007 3:42 PM:

Poster said:
No one will be sent to jail for this. No one. Without Rove under oath this investigation will get nowhere. And the Dems are unwilling to have a showdown with the White House. Disheartening.

What makes anyone think that, even if Rove is under oath he won't lie his ass off as well? How ya gonna prove he's lying? If no one tells the truth and everyone points elsewhere, it's a stalemate.