bascule Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3227.html In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings. Hmm, seems awfully similar to 18 minutes of erased tape... Tony Snow was confronted on the matter today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 Hmm, seems awfully similar to 18 minutes of erased tape... I'll agree it is an awful analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is one story I don't really understand. What exactly was the wrongdoing, here? As far as I can tell, they were fired for political reasons, which is not in itself wrong, but is wrong if you claim it was for other reasons, and it gets more wrong the more you cover it up...? Is that about right? The talking heads seem particularly incoherent on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is one story I don't really understand. What exactly was the wrongdoing, here? As far as I can tell, they were fired for political reasons, which is not in itself wrong, but is wrong if you claim it was for other reasons, and it gets more wrong the more you cover it up...? Is that about right? I think you just about nailed it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This is one story I don't really understand. What exactly was the wrongdoing, here? As far as I can tell, they were fired for political reasons, which is not in itself wrong, but is wrong if you claim it was for other reasons, and it gets more wrong the more you cover it up...? Is that about right? The talking heads seem particularly incoherent on this one. My guess is that the administration came to believe that these particular US attorneys were targetting republicans for investigation disproportionately. They probably felt they had enough to deal with considering the regime change on the hill. I would also guess that the particular investigations these attorneys were pursuing will still be pursued; the administration hoped, however, that the targets in the future would be more left-leaning. Which, of course, is why every administration makes sweeping changes at the beginning of the term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 I think you just about nailed it I don't think there is any evidence of a cover-up under oath. Not telling is not the same as lying under oath (*coughClinton!cough*). This is why the dems want to put Rove et all under oath and why Rove will tesify under oath over Bush's dead body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 22, 2007 Share Posted March 22, 2007 This issue is political hay, nothing more. Perfectly legitimate political hay, but that's it. Sure has been a while since I heard anything about that "first 100 days" legislation. I guess the press considers that a complete success and old news, in spite of the fact that not one single piece of it has yet become law. The press is so obsessed with Iraq and whatever controversy is around this week that it's completely forgotten to hound the administration about something that actually matters: SIGNING OR VETOING THE LAWS THAT ARE PUT BEFORE IT. Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 I don't think there is any evidence of a cover-up under oath. Not telling is not the same as lying under oath (*coughClinton!cough*). So just a quick ethical question here... which is worse: covering up why you fired the attorneys who were conducting criminal investigations into your activities, or lying about a blowjob under oath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 22, 2007 Author Share Posted March 22, 2007 The press is so obsessed with Iraq and whatever controversy is around this week that it's completely forgotten to hound the administration about something that actually matters: SIGNING OR VETOING THE LAWS THAT ARE PUT BEFORE IT. Duh! Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 So just a quick ethical question here... which is worse: covering up why you fired the attorneys who were conducting criminal investigations into your activities, or lying about a blowjob under oath? The US attorneys were investigating the White House? Where is the "cover-up?" Let's rephrase. Which is worse: Using your executive perogative to fire someone who serves at your whim or committing perjury on a material issue in a sexual harassment case which you eventually settle by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Can't they both be wrong? I really loathe two-wrongs arguments. With a passion. Please trot them out so I can show just how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 Can't they both be wrong? Yes, they are both wrong. I hate people trying to excuse this administration's wrongdoings with comparisons to Clinton, which seem almost inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Can't they both be wrong? I really loathe two-wrongs arguments. With a passion. Please trot them out so I can show just how much. Loath away but this thread started with a comparison of an 18 day email delay to the infamous 18 minute tape gap in Watergate. This thread is ALL about where this latest "scandal" fits in our frame of reference for past scandals. The comparison to watergate is laughable nor does this tempest compare to Billy gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Yes, they are both wrong. I hate people trying to excuse this administration's wrongdoings with comparisons to Clinton, which seem almost inevitable. Bascule, you do realize that you are the one who started making comparisons to past wrongs with the very title of this thread? You were the one using the word "coverup" ignoring that past coverup scandals that had legs were those involving lying under oath. You guys don't think this is all about jamming the square peg of this silliness into the square holes of past scandals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't think the comparison is laughable. I think it's valid. But then, I think the subject is about as relevent as the 18-minute gap, in the sense that I think there MAY be a nice old lady in outer Mongolia who doesn't know what it contains. This is about politics, not missing information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 This is just Schumer's plan at work. The idea is to keep the administration in chaos. Keep the republicans on the defensive. People always believe the accuser over the accused. Where there's smoke, there's fire sort of mentallity. No one considers the smoke to be manufactured by the accuser... I guess what bothers me about it is that I am relatively convinced everything the democrats are doing is anti-bush - none of it is for america, for the troops - it's about trashing Bush. When can we ditch the party system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 This is just Schumer's plan at work. The idea is to keep the administration in chaos. Keep the republicans on the defensive. People always believe the accuser over the accused. Where there's smoke, there's fire sort of mentallity. No one considers the smoke to be manufactured by the accuser... I guess what bothers me about it is that I am relatively convinced everything the democrats are doing is anti-bush - none of it is for america, for the troops - it's about trashing Bush. When can we ditch the party system? I dunno, aren't there Republicans in Congress who are angry about it, as well? Obviously a lot of the motivation is just typical partisan nonsense, but that doesn't mean there's no merit in the accusations. I agree that we send to be spending too much time on this, though. (Incidentally, the two motivations you contrast are not mutually exclusive. Actually, in a lot of cases they go hand in hand - plenty of liberals follow the general rule that what's bad for Bush IS good for America...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't think the comparison is laughable. I think it's valid. I don't want to impose a straw man on you. What comparison is valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 Bascule, you do realize that you are the one who started making comparisons to past wrongs with the very title of this thread? Point taken. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 This is just Schumer's plan at work. The idea is to keep the administration in chaos. Keep the republicans on the defensive. People always believe the accuser over the accused. Where there's smoke, there's fire sort of mentallity. No one considers the smoke to be manufactured by the accuser... If so it's failing miserably. The liberal base is just as annoyed with Congressional Democrats as it's always been, there's been zero progress on ANY issue, left-wing or otherwise, since Democrats came to power, and nobody thinks that's Bush's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I don't want to impose a straw man on you. What comparison is valid? Pardon me for any unclarity.* What I meant was that I think bascule's comparison of the 18-minute Nixonian gap and his 18-day email gap is valid in the realm of historical comparison. It does not, however, form the basis for an argument on the subject of firing federal prosecutors -- that would be a straw man. It does, however, address the subject of the behavior and tone of the current administration as compared with previous ones. Objection overruled -- baliff, please bring the jury back into the room! * And if you won't pardon me, maybe I can get Bush to give me one after he takes care of Scooter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I guess what bothers me about it is that I am relatively convinced everything the democrats are doing is anti-bush - none of it is for america, for the troops - it's about trashing Bush. When can we ditch the party system? I don't think EVERYTHING is just anti-bush trashing, but things like this can make it appear that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted March 24, 2007 Author Share Posted March 24, 2007 Looks like we have ourselves a new John Dean! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/us.attorneys.firings/ Well, maybe not. We'll see what happens. (Last Nixon comparison for this thread, I promise!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Pardon me for any unclarity.* What I meant was that I think bascule's comparison of the 18-minute Nixonian gap and his 18-day email gap is valid in the realm of historical comparison. It does not, however, form the basis for an argument on the subject of firing federal prosecutors -- that would be a straw man. It does, however, address the subject of the behavior and tone of the current administration as compared with previous ones. At least we agree that this thread, and much of the political debate, is about comparing this administration to previous ones. I assume youw ould think that if the Nixon comparison is fair game, so would be comparisons to Clinton. Half the battle for the dems is to find a scandle to which the suffix "gate" will stick in conventional wisdom.. In any event, at this stage in the "scandle de jour" (of which we will have a string for the next two years, I think that is a huge stretch to compare this to Watergate. "Laughable" might be a stretch but so is "valid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haezed Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Looks like we have ourselves a new John Dean! http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/23/us.attorneys.firings/ Well, maybe not. We'll see what happens. (Last Nixon comparison for this thread, I promise!) I love how even CNN feels compelled to slip in the obvious disclaimer which should put to rest this entire mess: "The president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now