The question is whether these moves (the firings) were politically motivated. Would a private, non-binding conversation with Rove, Miers and such suffice? Don't know?

What I do know is that for the President to posture and set-up a showdown in the Supreme Court is a bit much for a situation that isn't a big deal.

In short, the president can fire U.S. attorneys for any reason, or for no reason, and there is nothing anyone else can do about it.

Oh really? So if he fired attorneys because they were investigating republicans too much or democrats not enough, that's ok? And you think he can get away with that? If that's what you think, you're living in fairyland. These kinds of actions are corrupt - no other word suffices.

Not that I'm sure that's what happened. That's why we have subpoenas and investigations. That's something that congress can do, you know, legally. Since congress is acting within the law, you've got nothing to complain about, since that seems to be the heart and soul of your defense of Bush's actions (i.e. that he did was he is allowed to do).

Surely, your argument could have been written a bit more concisely?

Make no mistake. The Democrats believe, to the core of their party, that the Republican party tried to kill “their” president politically, and that they did so by tricking him into lying under oath.

Absolutely true.

This is their revenge.

No, there are a ton of reasons that democrats hate Bush. And they really do care about this issue.

"The question is whether these moves (the firings) were politically motivated."

It doesn't matter. There is no caveat against politics in the phrase "at the pleasure of the president."

He could fire them at any time, for any reason. No matter what.

"No, there are a ton of reasons that democrats hate Bush. And they really do care about this issue."

But that's the point. There IS no "issue" to care about. There is no possibility of an "issue," because it is not possible for the president to have done anything wrong. He has the power to terminate the employment of anyone in the Executive Branch.

Should he refrain from firing, say, Rumsfeld for "political" reasons? Aren't most decisions in Washington made for "political" reasons?

Should he refrain from firing, say, Rumsfeld for "political" reasons? Aren't most decisions in Washington made for "political" reasons?

Uh, I'm not talking about "political" reasons in that sense. I'm talking about the fact that some may have been fired for investigating political corruption on the right. If you think that's ok, you're crazy, and you should really reevaluate your notion of ethics.

The rest of it just raises eyebrows with its Busheoypical arrogance.

Before you comment in sweeping ways about the purpose of the firings, you might actually want to familiarize yourself with the particulars. It's embarrassing how you write at such length and still manage to gloss over details. You'd think in the zillion pages you just wrote, you would do something more than explain your feelings about separation of powers, and a bit more about the real issues here, which would involve maybe mentioning a name or two. The fact is you don't know jack about this situation, as usual, so I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. I don't know enough about the situation that I would feel comfortable authoring a post about it, but I know more than you. All you know is that you heard the firings are politically motivated, and that's what democrats are complaining about.

If I'm wrong, feel free to slap me down with your knowledge. Believe it or not, it would be my pleasure to apologize to you because you know what you're talking about. Then we could engage in a real conversation, and you'd probably be able to teach me something. If that's the case, let me know and my sincere apology will be forthcoming. Hell, if you just go out and learn something before your next comment, you'll put me in my place at least a little.

And if you're going to write back about how the details aren't important or you have no obligation to know what you're talking about, I'm not interested.

Kerry,

Every person I have seen interviewed on the right or the left, said if the firings were precipitated by a prosecutor investigating to many republicans or too few democrats, that the firing would be totally inappropriate. Because basically the administration would be interfering in investigations, which frankly is wrong. It may not be illegal, but everybody agrees it frankly is immoral. The only disagreement I have seen is whether the administration actually was interfering, not whether interfering is wrong.

"Every person I have seen interviewed on the right or the left, said if the firings were precipitated by a prosecutor investigating to many republicans or too few democrats, that the firing would be totally inappropriate."

"Inappropriate" is not illegal. And the Congress has no right to force the president's staff to testify about anything except ongoing CRIMINAL investigations.

"Inappropriate" is not illegal. And the Congress has no right to force the president's staff to testify about anything except ongoing CRIMINAL investigations.

What happen to your morality?

Here's yet another investigation into "inappropriate" behavior. Go Waxman!

A New Probe into Justice Meddling http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1602410,00.html

Love this quote from the Republican side:

But Hill Republicans are getting tired of political trouble from Justice and the White House. "What the heck is going on over there?" asked one frustrated senior Republican aide. "It's something new every day." Bush can stand by Gonzales for a while, but the way things are going on Capitol Hill, he may soon be the AG's only friend in Washington.

Bye Bye Gonzales.

Docs: Gonzales OK'd Firings 4 Months Ago Documents Contradict Earlier Claims That He Was Not Closely Involved In Attorneys' Dismissals

Lying to the public. Bad! Bad! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/politics/main2604296.shtml

How did Gonzalez lie? According to your "CompleteBS News" report, he said he was not "closely involved." It also says the only time he WAS involved was in ONE, ONE-HOUR meeting.

That is NOT "closely involved."

"What happen to your morality?"

My morality says where there is no crime, there are no criminals to look for.

The president can fire the US attorneys because they are not loyal, if he wants to. He can fire them because they aren't Republicans. He can fire them because it's Wednesday and he has an upset stomach. Or he can fire them just to try out his new pen.

And none of it is properly the business of Congress to investigate.

I guess you have no problem with adultery then, since its only "inappropriate", but not illegal right?

"I guess you have no problem with adultery then, since its only "inappropriate", but not illegal right?"

As a criminal matter? Only in those jurisdictions in which it is criminal.

Let me guess: you're trying to make this about Clinton, right?

The impeachment was about perjury and obstruction. The perjury and obstruction flowed from testimony in a LEGAL case of SEXUAL HARRASSMENT and violation of civil rights.

NOT the privilege of the president to hire and fire whomever he likes (or doesn't like).

Do you see me calling for adultery investigations? I don't think so. Our idiot culture has decided to accept adultery, so there's not much I can do about it, except count it against people as part of a long list of things that count against politicians. But it's not grounds for investigation--and neither is firing US Attorneys.

By the way, is it better that Janet Reno and President Clinton fired EVERY US attorney at the beginning of the second term--for NO reason? They did have the right to do that, you know, and they did it. President Bush and Gonzalez had the right to do what they did, too. And no amount of Congressional posturing can change that.

But IF, by chance, they do manage to find agreeable members of the court to change that, it would be a crippling blow to the equal powers of the presidency. There are those who believe that being Article I means the Legislative branch should actually be more powerful than the Executive branch. Those people are dangerously wrong.

This system cannot function if one branch is more powerful than the other two, whichever one that is. The Democratic leadership doesn't care about that. They just want to bring down another president.

This whole thing is just dems doing their usual "sound and fury, signifying nothing", emphasis on nothing. What Gonzales should have done right from the start when the dems came whining, would have been to give them nothing. Nothing. Because there was nothing illegal going on. But no. Wimpy republicans have to trot out their mea culpas, for NOTHING. Like they don't have a clue as to how saying, "mistakes were made" will be played in the MSM. What they SHOULD have said was yes, they were fired, the President wanted them fired, he can do that, we don't have to tell you why, it isn't a crime, it has been done before, case closed. Oh, and if it WERE about politics, you dems may hate it, but it still ain't a crime. Did anyone quiz Clinton about his firings? Was it broadcast ad nauseum in the media? No, of course not. Supposing it was all about politics. So frickin' what? That is allowed morons. For the love of Pete! Get honest will you please?

Let me guess: you're trying to make this about Clinton, right?

Honestly I wasn't think about Clinton at all when I wrote that. I was trying to get remember your moral convictions

Its funny you would do nothing about adultery where its legal, even though it is commanded in Deuteronomy that an adulterous woman should be immediately stoned to death.

The country is not served well if federal prosecuturs have to balance their jobs with the pressure of being hitmen for Rove.

The former federal prosecutor in New Mexico received 2 phone calls from members of Congress about a case involving illegal election activity from Dems.

The attorney told the Congressmen he would not bring charges forward before the Nov.06 election. A month or so later, he was canned.

Congress has a right to make sure this action, along with the other dimissals, were paybacks from the GOP.

Excuse my typo, I meant to say that Congress has the right and responsibility to make sure the dismissals weren't paybacks from the GOP.

Did anyone quiz Clinton about his firings?

No because Clinton did it during the traditional switch over of administrations...which is not unusual, because he wholesale policy change that targeted nobody in particular. He got rid of them all.

But Bush waiting until deep into his second term, and then cherry picking a few, suggests he was removing them not because of a wholesale policy shift, but because he didn't like what individually they were doing. And several of the prosecutors suggested numerous instances of political interference before they were fired. Even a career prosecutor (not a president appointee) walked away more than 20 years of service because of political meddling in the tobacco lawsuit.

The firings were personal, with the smell of political retribution all over them. Big difference.

It's not about politics so much as corruption:

Some actual details

More about the same

Making it easy for you:

On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, sent a confidential E-mail to the White House counsel's office regarding the "removal and replacement" of U.S. attorneys whose four-year terms had expired, including the U.S. attorney in San Diego, Carol Lam: "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," Sampson wrote, "that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."

U.S. News has learned that on May 10, one day before Sampson's E-mail to the White House counsel's office, the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego alerted the Justice Department that the FBI would execute search warrants in two days for the No. 3 official at the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, in connection with the spiraling corruption probe into former Republican Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham of California.

Even the Republicans are saying his time may be coming to a close. Gonzalez' contempt for Congress and "service at the pleasure of the President" are legendary. There is supposed to be some independence between the Justice Department and the White House.

I'm hoping the trail doesn't grow cold at Gonzalez. After all, why would the Justice Department care about Carol Lam and the CIA? If it turns out that Gonzalez was involved in these kinds of considerations, he was obviously acting on someone else's behalf.

This administration is addicted to lies and partisanship. Of course, the public is only really seeing that when it's too late to make much of a difference. I'm just glad people are starting to sorta come to their senses.

SM,

Here is an important point of the same USnews article that should not be lost.

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But although they are political appointees, there is supposed to be a firewall that allows them to make decisions in criminal investigations without regard to politics.

Its clear to me that "firewall" has been violated on more than one occasion.

Hey ahm, who's SM? My login would be abbreviated 'SF'. No big deal, though.

Another interesting article:

Money quote:

Several of the fired U.S. Attorneys testified earlier this month that they were given no reason for their dismissal. When some called senior officials at Justice late last year to question their firings, they were told that they were being pushed aside to give others a chance at the jobs.

But in January, under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales told senators he would "never, ever" ask U.S. Attorneys to step down for political reasons. Gonzales was further contradicted by the release of e-mails last week from Sampson which showed that prosecutors were judged in part on whether they were "loyal Bushies."

Must have goofed up my link. Here it is again:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1174035822692

I know how seriously republicans take it when someone lies under oath...and in this situation, it's even pertinent to his job! I would hate to be Gonzalez right now. Your blood must be boiling with fury against him. What a fuckin sleazebag, right?

As some senator famously stated recently. Under the Republican congress it seems there was no issue too small to investigate under Clinton, but under Bush there was nothing, no matter how large, worth investigating. I think Bush is painfully realizing, he no longer has home field advantage. And Alberto I predict will not last more than a couple more weeks.

"Its funny you would do nothing about adultery where its legal, even though it is commanded in Deuteronomy that an adulterous woman should be immediately stoned to death."

Since you are actually completely uninterested in Biblical ethics, and since this is a totally idiotic thing to say, I will refrain from explaining why Deuteronomy is not on point.

"Excuse my typo, I meant to say that Congress has the right and responsibility to make sure the dismissals weren't paybacks from the GOP."

No, actually, it does not. "Payback" is not illegal as a motivation for firing a US attorney.

"Several of the fired U.S. Attorneys testified earlier this month that they were given no reason for their dismissal."

They don't have to be given a reason. Their 4-year terms had EXPIRED, which means they can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for NO reason.

"But in January, under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales told senators he would "never, ever" ask U.S. Attorneys to step down for political reasons. Gonzales was further contradicted by the release of e-mails last week from Sampson which showed that prosecutors were judged in part on whether they were "loyal Bushies.""

Fine. You caught him committing perjury. So send him to jail for five years, bring in a new AG, and close the book on it. Just like Scooter Libby. If witnesses are dumb enough or confused enough to make contradictory statements, send them to prison for what they say, when there is no reason to send them to prison for what they did.

Because it's the only option you've got.

If witnesses are dumb enough or confused enough to make contradictory statements, send them to prison for what they say, when there is no reason to send them to prison for what they did.

Right out Republican playbook ah? Now I am definitely thinking of Clinton.

" If witnesses are dumb enough or confused enough to make contradictory statements, send them to prison for what they say, when there is no reason to send them to prison for what they did.

Right out Republican playbook ah? Now I am definitely thinking of Clinton."

Except Clinton only did the crime; he never did any time for it. Now the new tradition is apparently commit perjury about a non-crime, do hard time.

If that's the justice system you want....you better learn to tell the truth, all the time, with no contradictions whatsoever. And good luck with that.

Oh something tells my Libby isn't going to serve much time.

Fine. You caught him committing perjury. So send him to jail for five years, bring in a new AG, and close the book on it. Just like Scooter Libby. If witnesses are dumb enough or confused enough to make contradictory statements, send them to prison for what they say, when there is no reason to send them to prison for what they did.

I'm just not sensing the outrage here.

Now the new tradition is apparently commit perjury about a non-crime, do hard time.

So you think no time for perjury about non-crimes is good? Sounds like you'd be happy that Clinton wasn't successfully impeached.

You're not even trying to be consistent here. Clinton lies under oath about something completely unrelated to his duties as president, and you guys are foaming at the mouth. Gonzalez lies during his confirmation hearing about how he will conduct himself on the job and you're not particularly bothered by it. You'd be perfectly happy to see Gonzalez get away with it.

When people are as blindly partisan as you, it abets corruption. This goes for either party, of course. And before you try to turn this around on me, I don't even like Clinton (either one).

"Clinton lies under oath about something completely unrelated to his duties as president".. You see, this is very illustrative of the difference between moral people of either party, and those who are not. A person who has been proven to have lied repeatedly to the entire country is someone that you cannot trust. It definitely has a serious impact on his "duties" as president. Or should.

Bottom line here and one which I fervently wish the President had come out swinging with; Even if it was for political reasons[ and oh, THAT never happened before!], it is ALLOWED. Why is that such an incredibly difficult concept for libs to grasp? Dem or Republican, it is not illegal. Hilarious how libs are trying to justify the witch hunt by saying that well, Clinton did it at the BEGINNING of his term, not in the MIDDLE. Incredible. What frickin' difference does that make? It is all politics. It is all legal. End of story.

Sorry Lisa,

Republicans and Democrats have already come out and say it is inappropriate to fire a prosecutor because they were not going after Democrats hard enough, or going after Republicans to hard. That is political interference and corruption in an arena that shouldn't have either.

Here is the same point in a different way

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But although they are political appointees, there is supposed to be a firewall that allows them to make decisions in criminal investigations without regard to politics.

Here goes one more card.

Justice official to plead the Fifth before Senate panel http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/26/fired.attorneys/index.html

And as one senator rightly asked:

"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath."

"Republicans and Democrats have already come out and say it is inappropriate to fire a prosecutor because they were not going after Democrats hard enough, or going after Republicans to hard. That is political interference and corruption in an arena that shouldn't have either."

I don't give a rat's rear end what craven politicians of whatever party say about it. That's not what the law says. And this is a serious and ongoing question of presidential power versus Congressional power. It would be a grave mistake to give an inch on the issue.

""And as one senator rightly asked:

"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath.""

That Senator is a moron (and, by the way, that isn't a QUESTION--it's a STATEMENT.) There is no implication of CRIMINAL wrongdoing in taking the Fifth, which is what is REQUIRED for executive privilege to be overwhelmed by the public interest.

No doubt these are the same ACLU liberals who got us where we are in the criminal justice system--funny how they always want to protect the rights of the "suspect," but never the rights of a potential WITNESS--who happens to be a Republican.

So, tell us, ahmanrah--and tell your pals at the ACLU--since when are you opposed to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

I just love the selectivity of liberals when it comes to the Constitution. They'll defend to the death the right of a doctor to exercise the imaginary substantive due process right of privacy via abortion--but they can't stomach the plain text of the Fifth Amendment, which hasn't changed a bit in more than 200 years!

"Clinton lies under oath about something completely unrelated to his duties as president..."

Actually, it doesn't have to do with his duties as president.

He committed the CRIME of perjury, while being investigated for the CRIME of sexual harassment. It's a completely different situation.

What we have here is the attempt to entrap administration officials in perjury (when they are asked questions they cannot answer for reasons of national security or executive privilege) when there is NOT and CANNOT HAVE BEEN a crime committed.

You see, if they answer any questions, they can no longer invoke the privilege on other questions--which they may not be able to answer for the reasons above, which will not satisfy the Congressional and Senatorial inquisitors. The witnesses are then faced with a personal choice: reveal information contrary to the interests of the United States in a public forum--or lie about it.

If they lie, and are contradicted by other witnesses, then they do 5 years for a perjury rap, even though they chose the good of the country over their own freedom.

It is a wicked, wicked thing to do to honorable public servants. And a dangerous and unconscionable game to play in a time of war.

Kerry,

Look up the word incrimination.

If no crime has been committed, why would she be worried about self-incrimination?

"Look up the word incrimination."

I don't have to look up the meaning of the word. I know the LAW. And the LAW says you have an absolute right to remain silent.

"If no crime has been committed, why would she be worried about self-incrimination?"

The privilege applies in both criminal and CIVIL cases, and because it is the right to refrain from providing information, there is no way to know what the information not provided would have been. AND the jury may NOT legally infer guilt from the exercise of the privilege.

How did you feel about the Hollywood Ten invoking the privilege? Remember what happened to them? Congress charged them with contempt. They went to prison for a year. Congress doesn't always play by the rules of the Constitution. And the Administration has no obligation to play the game with them.

Just to clarify.

In a criminal proceeding, taking the fifth cannot be used to infer guilt. In a civil proceeding, it is up to the trier of fact to make that inference, one way or the other. The Fifth Amendment privilege may be invoked in any proceedings requiring testimony. In front of Congress, it may cause the panel to infer guilt and to impose punishment, regardless of the witness's guilt or innocence (as in the Hollywood Ten case; the witnesses invoked the privilege, incurred the contempt of Congress and served a year in prison.)

Because of the highly sensitive nature of confidential advisory communications within the Executive Branch, there can be no compulsion to testify in cases not arising from a criminal investigation.

The best direction for the White House to go in this is to refuse to comply, and to remain silent. If there are people involved who are not confidential advisers to the president (people who know only about this issue, and not other issues that might be of other interest to the panel), they can testify as to the facts. If there are no such people, the Congress will, no doubt, find itself a parade of witnesses to testify as to the malicious intent of the Administration.

But there's still nothing that Congress can do about it. They have no authority to get those people's jobs back (which they had no right to in the first place--their terms were up), they have no authority to impose punishment on anyone in the administration for something that wasn't a crime.

What do they want?

A stage on which to posture. A summer of testimony with which to bore the country. But they might want to go back in history and see how well that works. Remember--Oliver North came out of his forced testimony a hero and a star.

How delusional can you guys get? How far are you willing to bend reality? It's time to put subjectivism clearly on the side of the right wing.

A person who has been proven to have lied repeatedly to the entire country is someone that you cannot trust.

I agree. Since you're not just talking about lying under oath but rather frequent general lying. That's why this administration's gotta go.

It is all legal.

If it's legal to fire a district attorney who is about to investigate a political ally, it shouldn't be. And I doubt it is.

He committed the CRIME of perjury

Sounds like Gonzalez so far.

while being investigated for the CRIME of sexual harassment.

Which he was acquited of. Charges that were brought in order to entrap him. You recall that this was by Ken Starr, whose original purpose was to investigate Whitewater. Apparently, his real purpose was to unseat the president, period.

It's a completely different situation.

Yeah, true. Clinton was being investigated on spurious charges, and he lied about something tangental. Gonzalez was being questioned about how he would conduct himself in office, and he lied about that.

when there is NOT and CANNOT HAVE BEEN a crime committed.

Lying to Congress under oath is a crime.

As for firing an attorney who is close to investigating political allies, I don't know the law, but I bet that's illegal

As for firing an attorney for not investigating a political opponent in time for an election...my suspicion is that it's legally grey. But it's thoroughly corrupt.

It is a wicked, wicked thing to do to honorable public servants.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Clinton was entrapped, plain and simple. You imagine a bizarre circumstance where senators are going to use their inquiry to intentionally ask questions sensitive to the government just to force your honorable public servants to lie. Oh my god you have such a drama cooked up in your head. It doesn't seem to matter what actually happens.

Kerry,

There is a tipping point between pleading the 5th to save yourself, and obstructing justice. If everybody in the Whitehouse, any Whitehouse, stays mum to cover-up a criminal act, that is an abuse of executive privledge, and at some point Congress has a right to recognize what appears to be an obstruction of justice, with a contempt of congress declaration. Because find justice doesn't always involve settling a criminal act, it has to do with getting to the bottom of an investigation whether it turns out to be criminal or not. And obstructing that process at some point is a crime, whether an original crime occurred or not.

That's not to say that Congress has never abused its power in the past, but we have hardly reached that point with the current investigation.

"If it's legal to fire a district attorney who is about to investigate a political ally, it shouldn't be. And I doubt it is."

A "district attorney" is not a US Attorney. And the latter serve "at the pleasure of the president." It's legal to fire them. Period. The US attorney's job is to represent the United States in legal cases. If the president fires one, it is no different than any other client firing his attorney when he is displeased with that representation--FOR ANY REASON.

""He committed the CRIME of perjury""

"Sounds like Gonzalez so far."

How?

""while being investigated for the CRIME of sexual harassment.""

"Which he was acquited of."

That makes no difference. Perjury does not require that the underlying investigation produce any fruit. That's why Scooter Libby is going to jail. Prosecution of perjury is a matter of prosecutorial discretion. In fact, in most cases, the threat of prosecution is simply a tool to get the truthful testimony the prosecutor is looking for.

"Charges that were brought in order to entrap him. You recall that this was by Ken Starr, whose original purpose was to investigate Whitewater. Apparently, his real purpose was to unseat the president, period."

No, his real purpose was to investigate WhiteWater, which he did. Along the way, the president managed to commit perjury during an investigation that was part of a sexual harassment lawsuit. Nobody entrapped him. He committed perjury, not to protect the interests of national security, but to protect his own reputation. There is no executive privilege for that.

"Yeah, true. Clinton was being investigated on spurious charges, and he lied about something tangental."

No, try to remember. I know it was long ago, but try. Clinton was testifying about his personal conduct, in connection with a sexual harassment accusation. He lied in response to the questions he was asked concerning his personal history--which were legally asked, in accordance with the Violence Against Women Act--WHICH HE SIGNED.

"Gonzalez was being questioned about how he would conduct himself in office, and he lied about that."

You cannot commit perjury through the promise of future conduct. How you will conduct yourself is a promise, if anything. If you do something at a later date, that is a broken promise--but it is not a lie, and it is not perjury.

""when there is NOT and CANNOT HAVE BEEN a crime committed.""

"Lying to Congress under oath is a crime."

Which alleged "lie" are you talking about? No one has lied under oath.

"As for firing an attorney who is close to investigating political allies, I don't know the law, but I bet that's illegal"

No, you don't know the law. The US attorney represents the US. If the Federal government wants an investigation and the attorney doesn't do it, the president or his delegated representative can fire him. The same thing for a US attorney who is investigating something the Federal government considers a waste of time. The president has an absolute right to US attorneys that follow his orders. That's what serving "at the pleasure of the president" means.

"As for firing an attorney for not investigating a political opponent in time for an election...my suspicion is that it's legally grey. But it's thoroughly corrupt."

It is neither. The US attorney represents the Administration. Period.

""It is a wicked, wicked thing to do to honorable public servants.""

"Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Clinton was entrapped, plain and simple."

No, he wasn't. Entrapment means leading someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. Not just leading them by the offer of an opportunity, as in asking a question to which he MIGHT choose to give a lying answer. It means ENTICING someone to commit a crime. As in "if you tell us this, we will drop the other charges, or pay you, or not tell your constituents about the pictures we have of you." In fact, "entrapment" to commit perjury would be an entirely different crime, called "subornation of perjury," which Ken Starr should in your scenario be prosecuted for.

Lying about your personal conduct is a choice. No one was "persuading" him to lie about anything.

"You imagine a bizarre circumstance where senators are going to use their inquiry to intentionally ask questions sensitive to the government just to force your honorable public servants to lie."

Oh, maybe because I've seen Congress in action. Especially this one. There's nothing these members of Congress would like better than to ask someone from the administration, under oath, "Are we at war in the Middle East for oil?" or some such garbage--at which point, the cameras flash, the administration rep says it's a ridiculous accusation, the member (and isn't that an appropriate term for those inquisitors, now that I think of it?) pulls out a transcript of Farenheit 911 or a New York Times op-ed or a message from the Mother Ship and grandstands, claiming the witness is lying. It all goes on the six-o'clock news with Katie Couric (and maybe youtube, if anyone wants to actually see it), and the game's on for the rest of the summer.

What fun.

"Oh my god you have such a drama cooked up in your head. It doesn't seem to matter what actually happens."

Have you even seen Congress in front of cameras? Remember the Bork hearings? The Thomas hearings? Remember the Iran-Contra hearings?

You think these people care more about the national security of the United States than defaming the Administration? If so, you've either been asleep for seven years, or you're clinically insane.

""There is a tipping point between pleading the 5th to save yourself, and obstructing justice.""

No, there is not. You can't be charged with "obstruction" for invoking your 5th Amendment privilege.

"If everybody in the Whitehouse, any Whitehouse, stays mum to cover-up a criminal act, that is an abuse of executive privledge, and at some point Congress has a right to recognize what appears to be an obstruction of justice, with a contempt of congress declaration."

But executive privilige applies UNLESS there is a criminal act--which there cannot be in this case, because there is NO crime POSSIBLE in this set of facts.

"Because find justice doesn't always involve settling a criminal act, it has to do with getting to the bottom of an investigation whether it turns out to be criminal or not."

And until there is a criminal act, the position of the Court has been (for 200 years) to make a fairly broad interpretation of executive privilege.

"And obstructing that process at some point is a crime, whether an original crime occurred or not."

Yes, it is. As in the case with Clinton's obstruction. However, there is no point prior to a criminal investigation at which executive privilege doesn't apply.

"That's not to say that Congress has never abused its power in the past,"

Snort. At least you admit it.

"but we have hardly reached that point with the current investigation."

No, not yet. But if they attempt to force the president's staff to testify, they will have reached it. Right now, they are very close.

""He committed the CRIME of perjury""

"Sounds like Gonzalez so far."

"How?"

He told congress he would never fire an attorney for political reasons. And it seems at this point that that was a lie.

You think these people care more about the national security of the United States than defaming the Administration?

Yah especially during the Clinton years. Instead of passing Clinton's anti-terror legislation, they were looking for any way they could to get him impeached on a technicality.

Which alleged "lie" are you talking about? No one has lied under oath.

OK, let me get the blockquote for you again. You may recall a couple of comments back I remarked about how upset you must be that Gonzalez lied under oath? And you responded? Here it is again; try to commit it to memory this time:

But in January, under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales told senators he would "never, ever" ask U.S. Attorneys to step down for political reasons. Gonzales was further contradicted by the release of e-mails last week from Sampson which showed that prosecutors were judged in part on whether they were "loyal Bushies."

You got it this time? We were just talking about this a few comments ago, and suddenly you don't remember? You know, this would only be fun if I could get you to see yourself, but you are frustratingly unreflective.

Oh, maybe because I've seen Congress in action.

What a priviliged position, unlike anyone else here. Why don't you explain a similar episode in the past that makes you think such a thing could happen.

No, you don't know the law.

Do you? I haven't seen you quote the law once here. I know your MO. You haven't read the law here. You have no idea what the law actually is. The only thing you recall quite clearly is the pleasure of the president, and that's because it's a pre-chewed phrase from the right wing talking heads. I don't doubt that you're right in general. But I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws about interfering with investigations. What about obstruction of justice? Interfering with a federal corruption investigation MUST be illegal.

You also seem to miss the point that it is immoral to do such things. Even if it turns out that everything was legal, if the administration or justice department fired these attorneys because they didn't investigate democrats in times for elections, or worse, because they investigated political allies - that's just wrong. For you to ignore that demonstrates a kind of...moral relativism? Yeah, that fits.

A "district attorney" is not a US Attorney.

Thanks for correcting me. I was being sloppy.

If the president fires one, it is no different than any other client firing his attorney when he is displeased with that representation--FOR ANY REASON.

Uh, no. Big difference here...there's no danger of you being investigated by your own attorney. They represent the US, not the president (even though they "serve at his pleasure", which is sounding increasingly more perverse). If you're going to be so adamant about the law, why don't you quote us some? Have you read it?

I won't go too far into the Clinton entrapment again (for now). I think your extreme bias is all the proof I need, anyway. You strain to look the other way when Gonzalez lies under oath, but when Clinton does it, you guys can't talk about anything else. It's just an excuse, and most of you aren't even aware of your own feelings on the matter. The hatred is so extreme that it naturally excludes thought and self-reflection.

I'm prepared for lame excuses and attempts to explain how these things are different. But I know that somewhere, deep down, buried beneath your ability to admit to yourself, the cognitive dissonance is causing you discomfort. And that small piece of repressed self-realization is the only thing I get out of these debates anymore.

going back to the beginning. political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. they can be fired without reason.

all the US attorneys are Republicans. if the unfortunate occurrence that a Democrat would win in 08 should transpire, all the US attorneys should initiate investigations against Democratic office holders and then when the new Democratic president fires them, they can claim it was "politcally" motivated and "immoral".

"Do you? I haven't seen you quote the law once here."

Okey-doke. Listen up, then.

The law:

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART II CHAPTER 35 § 541

§ 541. United States attorneys:

"(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."

From paragraph 546, "Vacancies":

"(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of— (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or

(2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

(d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court."

Paragraph 547, "Duties":

"Except as otherwise provided by law, each United States attorney, within his district, shall— (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States;

(2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned;

(3) appear in behalf of the defendants in all civil actions, suits or proceedings pending in his district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to these officers, and by them paid into the Treasury;

(4) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law, unless satisfied on investigation that justice does not require the proceedings; and

(5) make such reports as the Attorney General may direct."

AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY DIRECT. They are to pursue the cases the AG tells them to. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know that all sounds complicated, but it's not. The US Attorneys are employees of the Justice Department of the Executive Branch of the US Government, and they can be fired for any reason, or for no reason.

Point Two:

The statement that "he would "never, ever" ask U.S. Attorneys to step down for political reasons." is not a statement of actionable fact, it is a hyperbolic promise and thus not subject to the perjury law. It's like a witness telling the judge he's "wise," and later saying to someone else that he thinks the judge is a joke. It's a statement that is subject to change, and cannot be the grounds for perjury.

THE LAW OF PERJURY

U.S. CODE TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 79, § 1621:

"Whoever—

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."

In other words, for there to be perjury, the PERJURER must BELIEVE his statement to be false. In the case you want to bring, you would have to prove that Gonzalez's definition of "political" motivation and that of his inquirer were the same AND that Gonzalez DELIBERATELY made a false statement concerning his intention, his motivation, AND his impression of the word "political."

Good luck with that.

Look, here's the fact. The President could have fired 93 US attorneys. He didn't. He only fired a few that the vetting of the Justice Department identified as problematic. Why? Because to fire 93 US attorneys would have meant having to FIND 93 new ones that the SENATE would consent to. Which, given the intransigence of the Senate in confirming the president's selections in every OTHER area, seemed basically impossible. So we fire 8 of them, bolster our position with 8 more the Senate WILL pass that are satisfactory to the Administration.

That MAY be "political," but it's not actionable, and it's not criminal.

There's nothing worthy of ANY kind of investigation here, much less the "summer of the subpoena" that the Democrats long to re-live this year, in their desperate quest to prove themselves the equal of the impeachment team.

all the US attorneys should initiate investigations against Democratic office holders and then when the new Democratic president fires them, they can claim it was "politcally" motivated and "immoral".

Funny thing is, the attorney's aren't the ones playing politics in the Justice Department Ben, its the president and his cronies. So don't expect them to do any such thing, because their job demands they stay impartial, even though are political appointees. Ones of these days you'll figure it out I hope.

There's nothing worthy of ANY kind of investigation here

Something tells me if this were Clinton and not Bush, you'd be all over this like a fly on...

Fact is, I don't care whose administration (Democrat or Republican) this is, behavior of the type that has been alleged should not be tolerated...period.

And Senators, (regardless of their strips) calling up federal attorney's to pressure them should not be tolerated either.

"Fact is, I don't care whose administration (Democrat or Republican) this is, behavior of the type that has been alleged should not be tolerated...period."

Well, it's fine that you're all up in arms about something that's perfectly legal. If you don't like the law, I guess you need to lobby for a change in the US Code. At the moment, the "behavior of the type that has been alleged" is not only "tolerated," it is 100% legal and also common practice.

"And Senators, (regardless of their strips) calling up federal attorney's to pressure them should not be tolerated either."

No, they shouldn't. Because they are not part of the Executive Branch, and they have nothing to say about US attorneys once they are appointed. As a matter of fact, there is very little leverage the Senators could employ, since they have nothing to do with US attorneys. That's how US attorneys have independence in investigating legislators, when necessary. But, ultimately, wherever the impetus comes from, the decision to pursue or not pursue cases lies in the hands of the Justice Department, at the discretion of the AG, at the pleasure of the President.

no ahmanrah,

when the Democratic president fires them, the attorneys can claim their firings were politically motivated. comprende????

Ben,

Sorry there is a big difference here, between cleaning the whole slate clean at the beginning of a term, and cherry picking who to fire 6 years in, because you don't like who they are or are not prosecuting. Sorry, there is a big big big big difference.

As a matter of fact, there is very little leverage the Senators could employ, since they have nothing to do with US attorneys.

Bullshit. Senator A, calls up president, and says I don't like the US attorney in my state. He is causing waves. If you want my support on bill B, you will deal with the situation, and replace him with attorney wannabe C, who also happens to be my good friend.

If you don't believe the above scenario happens in Washington, you are more naive than I realized.

you mean the president can't get rid of political appointess mid-term? I don't hear you complaining about Rumsfeld leaving.

Ben,

The timing is only the tip of the iceburg and you know it.

nothing prevents the president from getting rid of political appointees. nothing.

ahman and sf, you are both incredibly useless in this debate, because you just continue to ignore the FACT that these attorneys were legally fired. LEGALLY. The only reason this story has legs is because of the cozy bedsharing between the MSM and the dems. So ahman, what IS the "big big big big difference" between the two sets of circumstances? Wait, don't bother to tell me, it is the fact that one pres was a dem and the other is a Republican.

"Sorry there is a big difference here, between cleaning the whole slate clean at the beginning of a term, and cherry picking who to fire 6 years in, because you don't like who they are or are not prosecuting."

Please, oh please, read the LAW.

"Who they are or are not prosecuting" is a perfectly logical reason to keep or fire a US attorney. Those prosecutions are ON BEHALF OF the US--that is, the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Not doing what the BOSS wants you to do is a PERFECT reason to be FIRED, in ANYBODY'S job.

Kerry, It is a lost cause with these guys. They WILL NOT admit that there is nothing illegal with these handful of firings. They seem to have been brainwashed by the left that for years now has seized on imaginary "crimes" by the Bush Administration. So much so that when a fact is staring them in the face, they cannot see it. But you know, it really is the lib stance on life. Ignore reality.

Lisa,

Frankly there would be no debate on this board if it wasn't for myself, sf and others. You can't have a debate among yes-men.

The fact is, interfering with legal investigations, and firing US attorney's for extremely partisan reasons is inappropriate, and whether you like it or not it is the duty of the congress to examine this issue, whether it is currently illegal or not and determine if the law needs to be changed. If what has been alleged, actually happened it frankly crosses a line that no other presidental administration has been caught daring to cross...because most administrations know it wrong, even if it is not illegal. And this administration if notable for nothing else, has spent alot of energy trying to test the limits of presidential powers. So this may ultimately end up in court...which frankly is the appropriate venue to decided the gray areas of the law.

Don't even start to say though, that Congress has no business investigating this, because it is there right, and their duty to investigate potential wrong doings, and abuses of power of all branches of government. They are the law writers, and the funders of all government activity.

Its also Congresses right to decide if something currently deemed "inappropriate" should be codified as illegal....which you sometimes have to do, when an unwritten rule that has been followed for generations is ignored.

Gah, I didn't have time to respond to this at all today (technically yesterday...that's how busy I've been). I haven't even read anything, except I saw Kerry's big law quotations (didn't read through yet). I just want to say thanks for proving me wrong, Kerry...at least with regards to my accusations of not doing your homework. I'll see tomorrow (later today?) what I think about your arguments, but I definitely respect the hard data.

OK, I'll say one thing quickly before I head to bed (can't help myself). I want to repeat to you guys the phrases "obstruction of justice" and "interfering with a federal investigation". If these apply (and I don't know yet if they strictly do), then THAT is what was done that was illegal. A lot of what I hear about this case is depressingly par for the course with this administration. However, only if those are relevant charges would I support an inquiry.

Yes, I would never disagree that the president can appoint and fire whomever, even if it is a stark violation of accepted practices. However, doing this to disrupt a criminal investigation against a friend...I'm sure that can't be legal. And *if* that's what happened, then let's find out.

As for Gonzalez: Kerry, reading the law you quoted, I have to agree that proving perjury could be an uphill battle to say the least. However, I think we all know he *lied*. He lied then, and he lied when he told the press that the firings were for performance reasons alone. Even though you think that he should not have answered those questions, surely you don't think he should have lied? If you're going to exonerate him on technicalities and ignore the central fact that the primary advocate of federal law seems to make a habit of lying, then you've given up on truth in favor of "our team". And if that's the case, you've got no ground to stand on when you accuse democrats of partisan politics.

some fella,

I am sure that US attorneys at any particular time have hundreds of cases. so what I am hearing from our leftist friends is that it is not possible to fire attorneys because that would disrupt investigations and result in "obstruction of justice".

Lisa pretty much nailed it with this made-up scandal. It has been given life by the liberal media and their friends in the Democratic party.

"The fact is, interfering with legal investigations, and firing US attorney's for extremely partisan reasons is inappropriate..."

No, it's not. And they are not INTERFERING with legal investigations. They are IN CHARGE OF them. It is their decision who is and is not investigated. US attorneys are POLITICAL APPOINTEES. They EXIST for "partisan" reasons.

"However, I think we all know he *lied*. He lied then, and he lied when he told the press that the firings were for performance reasons alone."

No, he didn't. What you apparently consider "political" is what HE considers "performance." If you are PERFORMING your job as a US attorney in a way displeasing to the person who POLITICALLY appointed you, that is a perfectly GOOD reason to fire you. They were fired for the way they were doing their JOBS, not because they voted the wrong way. It wasn't personal; it was performance.

By the way, the law on obstruction of justice is very long, but you can find it here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html

There's nothing in it that could be applied to anything alleged to have happened in this case. In fact, since the act being investigated is the firing of US attorneys, there's nothing here that could even apply to this case in any way whatsoever, since at that point the US attorney is no longer an investigating officer that can be interfered with.

I appreciate all your attempts to set me straight, but here's something from your favorite newspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29cnd-attorneys.html):

Democrats and a few Republicans have said the handling of the dismissals suggested that the Bush administration may have intended, for partisan purposes, to slow or jump-start certain cases under the purview of some of the eight United States attorneys.

That sort of interference, Mr. Sampson testified, would indeed fall into the category of “improper reasons” for removal. He then added that “to my knowledge, nothing of the sort occurred here.”

To clarify, this is the testimony of D. Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff. He seems to agree with me, that IF this was the reason for the firings, then it was "improper". Does that mean illegal? Obviously, that's vague here.

I am sure that US attorneys at any particular time have hundreds of cases. so what I am hearing from our leftist friends is that it is not possible to fire attorneys because that would disrupt investigations and result in "obstruction of justice".

That's a good point, but among those hundreds of cases, not many are devoted to investigating corrupt congressmen.

What you apparently consider "political" is what HE considers "performance."

Then what could he have possibly been talking about when he said he would never ask for an attorney's resignation for political reasons? Keep in mind, I don't think it's illegal to fire the attorneys for political reasons, but that's not what I'm talking about *here*. I think it's pretty damn obvious that he was lying.

I'll read the obstruction of justice link later. I just got into work after a late night oncall and I have a lot to catch up on.

No, he didn't. [Lie]

Unless Sampson came out and lied today to the congress, it seems that Gonzales isn't being honest in his discussions with the media. Because Sampson said he knew full well about the firings, and Gonzales said he didn't. So while Gonzales didn't get caught in lying to Congress, it does look like he isn't being honest, and as more than one congressman has said, if the Attorney General can't be honest about his conduct on the job, we need a new one. I agree.

Ex-aide contradicts Gonzales on attorney firings http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/29/fired.attorneys/index.html

Gonzales "and I had discussions about it during the thinking phase of the process," Sampson testified. "Then after the sort of more final phase of the process in the fall of 2006 began, we discussed it."

"So far as I knew, my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers," Gonzales said. He said he was "not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on."

Question is, why would Gonzales seem to think he has to lie about something totally benign as firing people for a legitimate lack of performance?

Hmmm....yah got to wonder.

"Question is, why would Gonzales seem to think he has to lie about something totally benign as firing people for a legitimate lack of performance?

Hmmm....yah got to wonder."

Or, you could accept the simpler, and more likely explanation (the horse instead of the zebra, as it were.) Gonzales delegated something to those below him and was barely kept in the loop simply because it--like thousands of other things--was a function of his office. Sampson recalls some discussion, because it was his responsibility, and he was paying attention to it; Gonzales didn't, because he put it far, far down on the priority list and simply let it pass before his eyes, unremarked, unremarkable, and unremembered.

How much of what you do on any given day can you remember years later?

Kerry,

This isn't years later, this was last November. If I was preparing to fire someone last November, I would remember it, especially if it involved Karl Rove, Harriette Meyers, and other high level administration folks. Sorry I don't buy the I was to busy to remember argument.