Re: There Oughta Be a Law

Shorter Kinsley (by way of Homer Simpson): "In this hi-tech modern world, who's to say what's right or wrong?"

How about this: when every position -- whether it be Iraqi reconstruction, FEMA, US Attorneys, is the fealty to Bush, Rove and right-wing think tanks, it is fair to ask whether government appointees are there to serve the public interest or to advance political interests.

I mean, one can talk about the "faceless bureauracy", but we did get rid of the spoils system for a reason, right?

Not to go Mike Dukakis on y'all, but sometimes we want competence from our government, not just ideology.

Who would have thought Kinsley needed a flow chart to remove his head from his arse for the occasions it happens to find its way there.

Ana, you're approaching this from the wrong perspective. Kinsley argues as he does because he wishes to be contrarian and anti-left. It's a by-product of having been at the New Republic.

Only an idiot would look at the example of Carol Lam and not admit that it looks very suspicicious. An idiot or one who wishes to be contrarian.

You people are all focusing on the wrong story. The big story today is:

MORE CONFESSIONS FROM GUANTANAMO

Odd that all these guys, after being at Guantanamo for years, should suddenly pick this week to spill their guts.

For "political reasons" read "obstruction of justice." That's why there's a controversy.

Wait, so let me get this straight.

On the 10th, Lam executes a search warrant on Dusty Foggio. On the 11th (next day), Justice sends out an email stating that Lam is a problem and needs to be fired. And then she's fired?

And Kinsley thinks this is ok?

Ana's trying to tamp out the fire before it gets hot, an admirable exercise but I don't think it's gonna work here.

It's certainly within the President's perogative to appoint US attorneys who share his or her policy goals. But it is an impermissible policy goal to desire prosecutors who will prosecute crimes by Democrats, and who will not prosecute crimes by Republicans.

Surely Kinsley agrees? Or is he stuck on that "political appointee" label?

The Kinsley post read more like a consciously obtuse provocation to those who are actually paying attention than a genuine attempt at analysis.

I mean, come on. It reads like a parody of the infamous Jay Carney post.

"the Democrats' attempts to gin up controversy over this"

Didn't the Republican AUSA's "gin up" this controversy when they went public with the fact that there were no performance issues on record?

Unless "gin up" is actually a code word for "shove the faces of corporate media journalists into the toilet of their own ignorance" -- in which case, yeah, I agree.

And here I thought this Kinsley person was added purely for comic relief! TIME found a bigger D.C. crotch sniffer than Jayh Cahrney. Congratulations!

Last week, Keith had the guy who wrote Bush's Brain on to talk about the USA's firings. He said that this is a Rove MO. He said that around election time, there were always lots of "democratic corruption prosecutions". Maybe some intrepid Time reporter could mosey on down to Texas & report on this angle of the story??

Ana, you can say what you like about Schumer, but Feinstein is making EXACTLY the same point about Carol Lam as Josh Marshall is. You called this "unsavory" when we pointed it out -- why is Feinstein ginning things up when she says it? You're getting all Borges "Pierre Menard, Author of The Quixote" here -- different people saying the same thing should not have radically different meanings (outside of Borges stories).

If the Carol Lam firing is what it appears to be we've moved beyond a "political firing" to obstruction of justice. Even your "very smart people" ought to be more concerned about that...

I'm surprised so many pundits have failed to see what this scandal is really about. Let me try to explain.

Yes, the President has the power to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys. But that power can be ABUSED. This scandal involves a potential abuse of power. That abuse of power has not yet been conclusively proven, but it really looks that way, the case gets stronger every day, and the White House seems to have no contrary explanation.

To make it plain: the abuse of power lies in hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys because they were: 1) investigating people who, although they committed crimes, happened to be Republicans; and 2) they were refusing to indict Democrats merely because, it turned out, there wasn't any evidence those Democrats had done anything wrong. To put it more plainly, the White House was hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys because it wanted them to drop legitimate prosecutions against Republicans and instigate frivolous prosecutions against Democrats.

As I said, the case hasn't been made conclusively, but where there's smoke there's fire, and there's a ton of smoke here. The White House, for example, cannot explain why it engaged in this mid-term purge, and cannot explain why any individual U.S. Attorney was fired. That's truly odd. One of the U.S. Attorneys, Carol Lam, had just opened an investigation into a high-level CIA appointee and a second Republican Congressman. On the day after she told the Justice Department about this, Kyle Sampson sent an e-mail that referenced the White House's "real problem with her." Put two and two together people! John McKay refuses to investigate democrats for voter fraud about the Washington State mid-terms, because there is no evidence, and when he's called to the White House to interview for a federal judgeship Harriet Miers tells him the White House is disappointed over his "mis-handling" of what she calls "the Washington democratic voter fraud case."

So, just because the Executive Branch enjoys the authority to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys does not make it OK to hire and fire them for political reasons. The administration of justice, including law enforcement, should be impartial. When it ceases to become impartial, public trust in the administration of justice erodes. Not to become alarmist, but one of the chracteristics of dictatorships is that they prosecute their political enemies and never investigate or indict their political friends.

So, just because the President has the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys does not mean that power cannot be abused, and just because he chooses to politicizes law enforcement does not mean that he should.

Ana, Karen, Jay, Joe and now Mike, you have a responsibility to educate your readers on this point. Please help out with this.

Oh, Time has become a cruel mockery, a mere shadow of its former glorious self, when Ana -- ANA! -- is the beacon of clear thinking around this blog. But she is absolutely correct in her all-too-kind takedown of Kinsley, whose post should be kept as evidence of early-onset Alzheimer's.

Could he REALLY be that obtuse? Or is has he played at being the "house liberal" for so long that he naturally falls into a pattern of obfuscation and "even-handed" smoke-screening. The last time I saw anything that stunk as much as his post, it fell out of a dog.

Kudos to Ana for raising some salient corrective points as kindly as possible.

"unconvincing to even some very smart people."

Is Enron running the Justice Department now?

Let me just add that Ana, you seem to be on the right track, but you're not quite there.

The controversey is about the corruption of prosecutorial power. The White House was firing prosecutors because they were investigating Republicans who seem to have committed crimes, and because they were not prosecuting Democrats who didn't seem to have committed any crimes.

Try that one on. The White House was corrupting the Justice Department by shutting down politically damaging investigations into criminal wrongdoing and firing prosecutors for refusing to bring unfounded claims against political opponents.

I generally agree with the commenters who say that Kinsley is just trying to be contrarian.

But it's pathetically ironic that this kind of New Republic contrarianism always ends up affirming the corrupt status quo.

Which, of course, makes it the exact opposite of true contrarianism.

Someone oughta do a Bourdieu-ian study of these journalists' self-presentational styles ...

Let me just add that Ana, you seem to be on the right track, but you're not quite there.

The controversy is about the corruption of prosecutorial power. The White House was firing prosecutors because they were investigating Republicans and not prosecuting Democrats.

Try that one on. The White House was corrupting the Justice Department by shutting down politically damaging investigations and firing prosecutors for refusing to bring unfounded claims against political opponents.

It's Watergate with a twist. In fact, I would say that puzzling over the meaning of this scandal is like saying you don't understand Watergate because it only involved the break-in to a hotel, and why should anyone care about one lousy hotel break-in?

Kinsley would argue with a fencepost. Ignore him.

Feinstein says it well here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/feinstein-political-attorneys/

"“[O]nce that prosecutor takes the oath of office, that prosecutor must become independent,” she said. “That prosecutor must be objective and what I worry about most of all in this is the chilling effect this has on objectivity of the American U.S. attorney who is the main prosecutor for the federal government of big cases under federal law.”"

If the prospect of an administration using the highest law enforcement officials in the land to carry out politically motivated investigations in an effort to influence voters on the eve of an election isn't cause for concern among the "very smart people" I can't imagine what would be...

Ahh, if only Bill Buckley was still alive, he'd be smiling in pride at his former "sparring" partner, the print version of Alan Colmes. Instead, he's rolling over in his grave at what his magazine's web site has become, with the Doughy Pantsload's incicive thinking on everything from the Simpsons to Star Trek. Oh, wait, he's still alive? Never mind.

Hey Time powers that be -- Can't you get rid of that Michael Kinsley joker and give this Sean Carman commenter temporary blogger status for the week. It'd be nice to actually read intelligent commentary than, you know, the ramblings of an ill informed stooge.

Very Smart People have pointed out that the pressure to investigate "voter fraud" (which there is essentially no evidence of) is actually pressure to disenfranchise as many voters as possible. Very Smart People have also pointed out that this particular mode of political firing has made all federal prosecutors look like hacks, by association

Repeatedly pointing out that Bush may have had the narrow legal right to fire people is a lazy distraction from the more serious issues at stake -- corrupting the entire system of justice to make all prosecutions look political, and tilting the electoral system even further away from democracy.

But pointing out issues like that might involve thought and effort. So why not focus on heat and light? Shiny shiny is totally way more interesting!

"[T]he Ds seem to want to make this about the inherent wrongness of 'political firing,' which -- as Mike's post shows -- is unconvincing to even some very smart people."

The only one talking about the inherent wrongness of a political firing is Kinsley and the usual (breathless) suspects, intoxicated by the White House talking point du jour, yet sober enough not to repeat it in mixed company.

The effort to suggest that "there is nothing to see here," is boring the hell out of me.

It is always wrong to subject USAs to loyalty tests that are contingent on timing baseless investigations of the other party to affect elections. Period.

Read Josh Marshall on the GOP's favorite game of claiming voting fraud where there is none. That is, in large measure, what this is about.

Plus, the provision allowing the administration to appoint people with zero oversight was slipped into a bill by a staffer without the knowledge of any congressmen, at the request of the DOJ.

Remember the DiIulio email, and Paul O'Neill's book, about zero difference between policy and politics in the Bush White House? They're bringing that winning formula to the application of the rule of law.

"But it's pathetically ironic that this kind of New Republic contrarianism always ends up affirming the corrupt status quo."

Are you sure that's true? Weren't they hot to trot over Whitewater? They certainly didn't like Clinton (even as DLC as he was).

I like Mike Kinsley but somebody please tell me how he is a "balance" to such foaming at the mouth, lynch mob, partisan right wingers as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol?

Sad thing is Michael Kinsley who is on record saying he is not a liberal is the most left-leaning pundit that is acceptable to the powers that be at AOL/Time/Warner.

Problem is not Michael Kinsley or his views. Problem is the corporate media that spits in our faces by giving us Michael Kinsley as a "balance" to right wing jihadist columnists.

Time is not getting a dime of my money until they hire a liberal columnist.

"1. The argument that the AUSAs themselves are making is not that anyone did anything illegal -- or even wrong"

Jay Carney is wrong. Yet again.

Read today's NYT op-ed. Firing a prosecutor to obstruct and/or influence an ongoing investigation is illegal on many levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19mon4.html

Some crimes that a special prosecutor might one day look at:

1. Misrepresentations to Congress.

2. Calling the Prosecutors.........18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations.

3. Witness Tampering. 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses.

4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

Great post Ana, but leave Jay out of this! When proven wrong, Jay had the courage to admit it and move on (even if a little belatedly). For that fact alone Jay is far more intellectually honest than Kinsley ever will be. Jay also writes better. Unlike Kinsley, he's concise.

It really isn't about political firings per se - the firing of Cummins seems to be so that Rove could get his buddy Griffin in there, and quite possibly to strengthen Griffin's resume for a future run at elective office. That isn't really scandalous, although it is a clear violation of Gonzales's pledge not to fire a USA for political reasons.

Lam, however, was dumped (more precisely, the plan to dump her was made) one day after it became clear that she was taking a major corruption investigation well beyond Duke Cunningham. That's deeply troublesome; quite possibly it's also obstruction of justice. We may well learn eventually that this was really all about Lam, the other firings were mostly a smokescreen so her dismissal would be less conspicuous. (Josh Marshall pointed out that possibility weeks ago.)

Thread - Also: The USAa were being rated by Kyle Sampson based on their 'loyalty' to the administration. Plus, they prosecuted Democrats at neary FIVE times the amount that they prosecuted Republicans during a period of healthy Republican majorities. It becomes clear that the Republican PARTY was using the Executive Branch powers of the USAs as coercive muscle against the opposition party. If I were to re-write this substituting Spanish names then you would think that I was describing the worst of banana republics.

The most obvious scenario is that the GOP 'Dirty Tricks' elections machine was being fortified by all of the investigative and prosecutorial power of the Executive Branch of the United States. And to think we all got worried because Al Gore might have used a White House Christmas card list to solicit donations. Oh, and that Lincoln bedroom thing was the worst abuse of power. And, yes, that was snark.

Ana, I posted this earlier on Michael's article and it fits here too.

Here's a little help for you, Mike. Question #13 could be, "What did the 85 U.S. Attorney's who didn't get fired do to keep their jobs?" Whew! Reporting is hard. Keep up the good work all you used-car salesman, I mean journalists.

I really would love to see someone dig into this. Good luck with that,eh?

Ana - I want to second this from FitterDon:

"Question #13 could be, "What did the 85 U.S. Attorney's who didn't get fired do to keep their jobs?""

This is a key question to address Kinsley's 'lack-of-illegallity' spasm. Paul Krugman (why is he not here instead of Kinsley?) wrote about a study of prosecutions from 2001-2006 and found that in a time of healthy Republican majorities that the Democrats were prosecuted nearly FIVE TIMES as often.
Clearly, they were CWD.

Campaigning
While
Democratic

This type of abuse of power surpasses mere 'illegallity'.

"the Ds seem to want to make this about the inherent wrongness of "political firing," which -- as Mike's post shows -- is unconvincing to even some very smart people."

No, I don't think so. Political firings are inherently wrong if they are done to the detriment of the people, full stop.

Look, I'm delighted if appointees who fail to perform their jobs with competence and integrity get fired, but that's not political. And I'm delighted if appointees are fired because their ideology prevents them from doing a competent and honest job - but that's still not political.

Firing people because they fail to completely politicize their jobs, even though doing so would be to the detriment of the people - now that's just wrong.

Krugman? Yeah, that's what this site needs, a truly objective and fair voice. Answer this: if Lam was canned to stop her getting Cunningham, why is he where he is today?Do you really believe he would not sell out all others for leniency? (If you do, you don't know much about the power of the US Atty. Even in New Orleans, they flip people all the time).Honest democrats with no power swept him into the tumbrils? Did Lam's firing cancel the subpoena to Foggy? Yeah, right.You don't even hear yourselves anymore.

Quick note: You mean "USAs" not "AUSAs" in the first line of point 1. The people fired were the U.S. Attorneys, not Assistants.

Shorter Ana Marie Cox: But it's Dubya and Rove they're teh EVIL! Clinton is just a big dumb lug we all love! Also, buttsex!

I read this post twice and am positive their no buttsex joke in it anywhere. Why did Time hire Cox if they're getting no buttsex joke? It can't be for the substance of the posts, in which Cox clearly can't keep up with Kinsley. For example, as to her #2 - there is absolutely zero difference between firing the USAs for political resons at the beginning of a term (what Clinton did) and firing the USAs for political reasons mid-term (what Bush did). So Kinsley is right - there is no reason to find any difference between what Bush did and what Clinton did.

As for the the idiotic references to obstruction of justice - when there is even a shred of evidence to support such a charge, call me. Since there is no such vidence now, it is pure politics.

Wow. Assf*cking Mike Kinsley. I guess someone other than Marty Peretz had to do it.