There Oughta Be A Law

Michael you're blogging. The post is too long!

what surprise! Michael Kinsley has taken a contrarian view!

It's so unpredictable. What's next? Will Saletan and Kaus and Weisberg agree that the liberals have it all wrong?

Hey Michael,

You really should read TalkingPointsMemo.com and bring yourself up to speed on this stuff. Josh Marshall's kind of like you used to be before you used to be. You know: engaged in thoughtful, adversarial journalism.

This post of yours is just a rambling, semi-informed wreck. Man, "Big Babies" sure was a great book. What happened?

Great job fighting the good fight and standing up for the relative autonomy of the law from politics (and yes, I understand it can only be "relatively" autonomous; but better more than less in the context of an administration like this one).

And I suppose you feel the same way about the relative autonomy of journalism from political power and market forces.

Shame on us coarse-minded members of the public who fail to see all the subtleties of your perspective.

But let's be honest--and why not?--your perspective sounds more like that of disinterested aesthetic judgment than that of practical political judgment.

Either that, or you're just trying WAY too hard to demonstrate your own high-minded independence of judgment and fairmindedness. But this administration has for a long time now shown that it won't reciprocate such fairmindedness. So you're basically sounding like a true sucker.

Fool you once, &c. &c. &c.

Hey Michael, you forgot to throw in the observation that the Libby trial was a farce as well. If you stop telling me that, how can I sit in awe of your brilliance?

Michael,

You seem to be a little confused. Do you really not see the enormous difference between a routine changeover of prosecutors at the beginning of a new administration and the targetted firings prosecutors mid-term? Whether or not a law was violated here, this incident is highly problematic. There's a reason why past administrations have not fired their own prosecutors midterm for anything other than obvious performance-based reasons. It's because doing so is likely to be interpreted by the public and by other prosecutors as political retribution for specific prosecutorial decisions that administration doesn't like. If prosecutors live in fear that they will be fired if they make an unpopular decision, it corrupts our system of justice at its core. Not everything that is normatively bad is also illegal. But that doesn't make it any less bad. In other words, just because the Bush administration is within its rights to do something, doesn't mean that thing is good or defensible. Get it?

Okay, if you have a blind spot it's you don't think any of this is a problem. Libby should be pardoned, politicizing the DOJ is not big deal, blah, blah, blah. You and Mickey Kaus should have lunch - I'm having difficulty telling you apart.

(BTW, thank you for posting on a relevant topic. )

Why couldn't The New Republic have died thirty years ago? The careers it has spawned....

Whew - and people were concerned the brain surgery would affect his thinking.

Michael,

Your post either reveals a startling inability to apply reason and logic, or stark intellectual dishonesty. Which of the two, would you mind telling us, is it?

Mr. Kinsley, do yourself a favor and check out Marshall on this subject -- take a look at his archives over the last few weeks. It is far more informative than either a Post or Times editorial.

Ok, there are four major issues, imho -- and mine is not the most coherent of the arguments that are out there:

1) Even if not illegal, this goes back to the Michael Brown/FEMA issue -- that every single thing that this Administration touches has B or C list cronyism involved. This is part of the Bush pattern -- every single thing, every single policy decision has to do with politics and very little with justice, interest in the law no matter whether or if it is in the public interest. The book by the WaPo reporter about Green Zone staffing based upon, say, a position on Roe v. Wade rather than an ability to speak Arabic, is one that hasn't received the attn. it deserves.

To say nothing about what this says about the validity of the actions of US Attys in the last five years. If blind loyalty to the Admin. is the only prerequisite for one's job, then how can we as citizens say that the investigations of Dem. officials shortly before the election were valid or that "voter fraud" investigations are ever serious.

2) Forgive me, but were the Clinton firings -- at the beginning of an Administration -- really unprecedented? Isn't that what new Administrations are allowed to do? The question is what happened here -- in the middle of the Administration -- to fire US attys. based mostly on their fealty to the Admin.

3) Aren’t these all policy questions? And doesn’t a president have the right to appoint US Attorneys who agree with him on policy matters?"

Well, the Carol Lam firing doesn't appear to be connected to policy, based upon the timing. Nor does the firing of Iglesias. Nor does the firing of the AK US Atty (replaced by a Rove oppo research guy who *guess what* is replacing him at a time when Hillary might run).

4) And if there is a serious discussion of "we need to get rid of Carol Lam" b/c of the Jerry Lewis/Foggo/Cunningham investigations, isn't that obstruction of justice?

and, fwiw, I thoroughly enjoyed your earlier books of TNR pieces. Two of my favorite books.

Right Mike, let's let the DNC's habitual ballot box jamming (see Pulaski County, Arkansas for starters) and free cigs & beer to dead felon triple voters (hello Madison) be the acceptable norm - but Allah forbid someone ASK some slacker USA's to get of the ball, on anything of actual merit.

Good plan.

Oh, not to mention the fact that this was done without Congressional oversight -- which was unprecedented.

Good lord, this is worse than I thought. Michael, catch up with Josh Marshall and the rest of us -- it's a criminal act to fire a prosecutor because he or she is investigating corruption of individuals who you or members of your party (Domenici, Rove) do not want to see prosecuted.

And to selectively fire some but not all midstream has an obvious chilling effect on the ability of these prosecutors to carry out their charge without political interference.

You better hope Atrios doesn't link to this mess of a post -- sorry, but not a great way to start.

Right Mike, let's let the DNC's habitual ballot box jamming (see Pulaski County, Arkansas for starters) and free cigs & beer to dead felon triple voters (hello Madison) be the acceptable norm - but Allah forbid someone ASK some slacker USA's to get on the ball, on anything of actual merit.

Good plan.

Right Mike, let's let the DNC's habitual ballot box jamming (see Pulaski County, Arkansas for starters) and free cigs & beer to dead felon triple voters (hello Madison) be the acceptable norm - but Allah forbid someone ASK some slacker USA's to get on the ball, on anything of actual merit.

Good plan.

Sorry for the multiple posts.

I thought I was Howard Scream for a minute...

THIS JUST IN:

GET OUT TROOPS OUT OF MADISON SQUARE GARDEN, NOW.

WE CAN NOT WIN THE WAR AGAINST HIGH SCHOOL HOOPS THUGS.

THESE PEOPLE DON'T WANT US IN MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ANYWAY, BRING THE NYC BOYS HOME TO NOLA, ER, VERMONT NOW.

THIS IS AN ILLEGAL WAR AGAINST HOOPS THUGS AND WE HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN NYC, FOR ANYTHING.

THIS WAR ON HOOPS THUG IS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, LET THEM HAVE THEIR HOOPS CIVIL WAR, BRING OUR BOYS HOME IN TIME FOR SUPPER AND STIRRUP PANTSNOW...

Someone smack the QUESTION HILLARY bot upside the processing unit. I think it's stuck in an infinite recursion loop again. (btw, I hear he's dating ELIZA.)

thanks, I think that did it.

"Oh, not to mention the fact that this was done without Congressional oversight -- which was unprecedented."

???

Sorry Mrs. Co-President, say that again?

Your message was muffled by the din of rifled FBI files and Travel Office firings.

Next!

And now that QH has chimed in, Kinsley can safely join Richard Wolffe and whine, "See? I'm getting criticized 'from both sides,' so that means I must be getting things right."

It must feel so satisfying seeing yourself as above the fray--from the comfortable perspective of someone who doesn't have to give a sh** about the actual consequences of this administration's politics.

How about maybe investigating whether the claims that "both sides" make about voter fraud are equally legitimate? Nah, OK, just kick back and declare that everything is indeterminate, so none of it is worth stirring up a fuss over...

Posts like this demonstrate why Josh Marshall found an ecological niche in our media landscape. Hellooo? Anybody home?

It helps me sleep better knowing that the USA's spend their time chasing down and sliming Democrats, instead of the important job they were hired to do. Remember? Truth, Justice, Fairness, American Way, etc.? Bah. Who cares about that stuff in this brave new world of ours... Journalists should sound coolly cynical and full of 'tude, not actually engaged in finding the truth, which is so, so America 1.0 ... (There's a whole Apollo Theater of "Yous" out there booing you at this moment.)

"A couple of them were opposed to capital punishment"
I've heard Rove make that arguement too. I wonder if someone, I don't know maybe a reporter, could check and see exactly how many capital punishment cases weren't prosecuted as capital cases.

Cunningham IS in the clink, demlix.

Check your timeline, and then on to the next bogus lib news non-story please.

Poor Kinsley, even Jay Carney had the good sense to stop passing along the GOP smoke screen of "move along, folks - nothing to see here." Once again, getting rid of all US Attorneys is common practice when the party in charge of the White House switches hands. Clinton did it. Reagan did it. Bush II did it. Any "professional" pundit who is ignorant of this fact no longer deserves consideration as a creditable observer of the political scene.

Even Fox news reports it:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

"When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however. It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.

I also wonder whether Kinsley was expressly told to post something like this--because it would anger those "crazy liberals" who care, which will get people commenting on the site, which might draw links from other sites, which will draw in more eyeballs to make the advertisers happy.

That might be so, but I still think it's worth it to let journalists know what many of us think about their warped, insulated worldviews.

I mean, what is the big deal. Lam announced she would be going after Foggo, and the next day Gonzales' chief deputy said she had to be fired.

Dear lord. What is wrong with you Kinsley?

It's not the crime, it's the cover-up of the crime that cuts like a knife, every time. Why admin elites (on both sides of the aisle) never learn this lesson is beyond me.

This Bush Administration is arrogant and stupid. And their foot soldiers keep paying the price.

And you can't wash away the stink or the stain with the old 'Clinton did it' argument.

This one is going to hurt, and Gonzales will go down for this.

One thing I find most curious is that the very same people who were demanding a full inquiry into the firing of the White House Travel office now characterize the politicization of the US Attorneys as presidential prerogative.

Adam Cohen is dead on. It's not the replacement of these 8 attorneys (9 if you count Fred Black), but the reasons for doing so. Obstruction of justice is not a president's prerogative. There may not be any proof yet, but that's why you do an investigation, and there's more than enough smoke here to justify one.

"Why do I think the Bushies have been lying so vigorously if they aren’t trying to hide something?"

That's a key point I've been saying for a week. The Republican spin machine has been flogged so hard they're in danger of burning out the clutch. Not that this administration has been a model of honesty, but these lies have an air of desperation that suggests someone much bigger than Alberto Gonzalez is implicated. You don't use a tarp this big to cover a dead mouse. There's a big elephant at risk here.

Michael- Is it true that "Crossfire" was a Robert Novak production? If so, I can see why you were chosen to be the "Alan Colmes" lefty!

I called it! I knew he'd weigh in on the "this is not a big story" side of things.

You New Republic types are so predictable, Mr. Kinsley.

I predict that we will get: (1) a defense of how "little" the war is costing, (2) a smack down of universal health care, and (3) a piece about how we shouldn't worry about global warming.

Neoliberals never disappoint.

You can't seriously claim that sending out an email saying "Carol Lam must be replaced as soon as possible" the day that Carol Lam executed search warrants against Dusty Foggio isn't suspicious?

Can you be that willfully obtuse? Can you?

I was trying to reserve my response, but when
"Well, one of them had sent a Republican congressman to jail for accepting a bribe ......, Is followed by "Aren’t these all policy questions?", I had to respond.
No! A bribe is not a political matter, it's a crime.

Does Mr Kinsley know the difference between a change of administrations instituting a change in USAGs and what happened here? Does he know which Presidents removed USAGs after being elected?
Does Mr Kinsley realize that the Illinois Congressman who was under investigation when a USAG by was removed by Clinton wound up being indicted?
How can these folks be this bad and remain employed?

Given the length of the post, the word blatherskite comes to mind, but I'm withholding making it official until Mr Kinsley's next post.

QUESTION HILLARY
Shouldn't you be listening to Rush now? Robert Ray the Whitewater Special Prosecutor after Starr concluded that there was no crime committed in connection with either Filegate or Travelgate.

Sorry buddy, time to turn the calendar. Its the new millenium now and we are on to much weightier presidential scandals.

I'm glad this guy is only staying for 1 week.

(1) Engineer a change in the law so that USA's no longer have to be approved by the Senate.
(2) Fire the USA's that refuse to persue meritless "voter fraud" cases and replace them with hacks who could never have been approved by the Senate and now won't have to be.
(3) Fire the USA who has uncovered bribery and fraud among Republican congressmen and CIA political appointees and replace her with another hack
(4) Smear the reputations of the fired USA's by falsely claiming that they were fired for poor performance.
(5) Get ready for 2008 with a slew of new political hack USA's who are all ready to indict Democratic candidates on no evidence, intimidate black and hispanic voters with phony "voter fraud" investigations, and turn a blind eye to Republican corruption and election stealing.

This is a recipe for a generation or more of corrupt one-party rule. The administration is trying to turn the United States into a banana republic and what does Kinsley think? Nothing going on here, just politics as usual.

Well, I'll wait to see what he has to say. But if he's true to form, it'll be another whitewash. This is the guy who thought the Downing Street memo was nothing much, either.

Michael Kinsley: "The argument so far goes something like this: 1) blah 2) blah 3) circular 4) huh? 5) wha? 5) blah 6) um 7) wha? 8) duh 9) er 10) blah 11) wha? 12)..."

Reality:
1) Republican Congressman goes down in dramatic flames, the number three at the CIA was under serious investigation, and hookers were involved.

2) The AUSA's who were seriously investigating Republican corruption were quickly axed, and the AG lied about the reason to Congress.

3) - 100) Go read TalkingPointsMemo, you blithering fool.

(You also just got beaten down by Ana Marie Cox, of all people. Ouch.)

Mikey,

Go have a glass of warm milk. Its nap time. The big people have work to do.

Hey, when did Kaus start posting as "Michael Kinsley"?

Isn't it just stunning that this guy is a nationally known, "serious" journalist while people like Digby and Kos aren't given columns by the mainstream media. What an utter, contemptible bubble brain. And yet they pay him REAL MONEY for this tripe!

I AM MICHAEL KINSLEY!!

They aren't many posts from "respectible" journalists that so perfectly illustrate the utterly pathetic state of affairs of mainstream journalism. Firing a prosecutor for prosecuting someone for bribing political officeholders is nothing more than a policy decision? Talk about a morally and intellectually bankrupt "argument."

You'd think a real journalist would be concerned when it appears the rule of law is being skirted for crass political purposes. You'd think a real journalist would be concerned when politicians start acting as if the law does not apply to them. You'd think a real journalist would be concerned when politicians start pushing prosecutors to go after their political opponents. But hey, why be concerned about all that when you can write a semi-coherent, rambling defense of manipulating the execution of the law for political gain? (then again -- why not?)

Mr Kinsley,

This is glib contrarianism, masquerading as thoughtful, even-handed wisdom. The facts teased out to date would suggest that the Bush administration is punishing US attorneys for being overly aggressive via a via Republicans, e.g. Carol Lam, or not aggressive enough via a vis Democratis, e.g. Iglesias. Most people find the politicization of prosecutions to be problematic, although you are evidently above this sort of thing.

Plus your naive, give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt posture suggests that you have been sleep walking through the last six years. If they are lying (as they appear to be) it seems reasonable to assume that there is something worth lying about.

I've always been an admirer or your thinking and writing, but this is a weak, weak effort.

Why people care:

(1) It's not about illegality-- no one is saying that. It's about FIRING USAS WHO INVESTIGATED REPUBLICANS, AND DIDN'T INVESTIGATE TRUMPED-UP CHARGES ABOUT DEMOCRATS.

No one ever argued that Nixon violated the law in the Saturday Night Massacre, either.

(2) The White House and DOJ LIED TO CONGRESS about (1) the reasons for the firings, and (2) the degree of communication b/w the WH and DOJ.

(Etc.) The provision allowing the WH to appoint their cronies w/o senate confirmation was slipped into the bill by a Specter staffer, w/o the knowledge of any senator. That staffer is now a USA. Also, this raises concerns, ie in NJ and Pittsburg, that unfired USAs are politicizing their investigations. That's bad for rule of law and respect for the rule of law.

Punditry 101: Learn facts and arguments, THEN opine. Do not pass go, go directly to TPM to learn some facts.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php

Try learning what the argument is about next time. You are

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.

Great, Michael the K is here to give us the RNC line on the US Attorney firings.

Yes, let's have more total politicization of our legal system, just like we've had with everything else.

Let's have a world where, for example, the GOP could decide that Mr. Kinsley's writings were insufficiently flattering to the right-wing and arrange to lean on a US Attorney of their choice to investigate Kinsley long enough to, at the very least, get him fired. It doesn't matter - they just have to keep it going until he's spent every dime he's got on legal fees. And perhaps he'll get lucky and be tried in front of the last remaining Democratic judge who's still in office, so he'll end up poor but free. That'll be good.

Of course, alternatively, Mr. Kinsley could just be declared an enemy combatant....

anyone have a reliable link (not the AP, definitely) proving that Reagan fired every US Atty when he took office? Can't take that on faith; I want to see proof. For example, the NY Times reported that Karl Rove had been appointed head of the Katrina relief program. Untrue, but there are still fools who quote it.

>there is not only nothing illegal about the president firing a US attorney. There is nothing even really wrong with it. Even if it’s just to make room for a crony of Karl Rove.

Mr. Kinsley,
Being contrarian is one thing, but being pro-obstruction of justice, pro-lying to Congress, and pro-crony is just unseemly.

>But he has one blind spot: he loves the law, and tends to believe that anything he doesn’t like must be illegal.

I know you are trying to be contrarian, again, but, as a lawyer, I believe Mr. Cohen has the prerogative to argue things he believes to be illegal should be ruled on and either found to be legal or not. Y'know, let justice be done whether the heavens may fall, and all that.

Michael: I have alwasy admired your work so it surprises me to read this post. Perhaps it would help to think of it this way. King David as commander in chief of the Hebrew armies had the clear legal right to send Uriah the Hittite into the front lines of battle. God, however, objected becasue he did it for the wrong reasons.

Looks like Mikey's gotten into Joey's vodka cabinet...

Sir -- a couple "small" points.

1) Clinton's firings were not "unprecedented" -- in fact, Reagan did this AND George W. fired 77 of the 93 at the start of his administration, and then phased in the rest at all deliberate speed. I don't blame you for your ignorance, as this information is highly protected and kept secret at a little place I like to call "the internets."

2) Refusing to go along with partisan warfare in the guise of our judicial system is not a "policy decision." In fact, to not refuse would be prosecutorial misconduct. The fact you think the refusal to betray the rights of the accused is a matter of "policy" reveals only that you should be fired.

Thanks, and good work!

Like Broder's nonpartisan centrism, Kinsley's contrarian centrism has gotten old. But Kinsley is easily the champ, because he got old younger.

I fear Michael Kinsley has finally and definitively chosen sophistry over truth. I'll miss him, because when he cared about truth, he was really, really good.

"An editorial in the Washington Post last Thursday, for example, avoids disingenuousness—but only at the price of utter confusion" -- so, you decided to supply the disingenuousness yourself?

You seem to be consciously overlooking one of the larger concerns, which is that the 8 US Attorneys being fired appear to have been terminated for NOT knuckling under political pressure. And that is exactly why it IS a bigger scandal to fire 8 as opposed to 93.

Why would the White House want to get rid of the attorneys who AREN'T resisting their political pressure -- to investigate Democrats in disproportionate numbers, or to soft-pedal Republican investigations, etc.?

There is a BIG difference between firing 8 and firing 93 - if you fire 8, it is a system of punishment (for the 8) and reward (for the 85 others). Given the admittedly highly political reasons for wanting to dump the 8, it is an overt politicizing of the AGs - do what we want or we'll dump you.

It would have been a lot less objectionable to dump all 93 ("loyal Bushies" and non), but it would POd a lot more people and their sponsors, which is probably why they decided it was not feasible.

Don't we understand yet? The Constitution, all other laws, Congress, Governors, the Supreme Court, you and me... we all just serve at the pleasure of the Stun King, G.W. Bush Jr.

He can do anything he wants at any time, for any reason, and the only people who ever want to stop him are wacky crazy extremist fringe elements who don't know the first thing about getting invited to important social circles in Washington DC.

Mar. 19, 2007: The day Michael Kinsley rewrote the US Law Enforcement Code in his head and decided lying to Congress wasn't a crime anymore.

Sadly, this comes 5 years or so after he ceased being relevant.

When you're too much of a hack to work for the LA Times anymore, it's over.

We need to find the journalism school (or maybe its just The New Republic) that is functioning as a wanker generator. Michael, can you tell us from whence you came?

There are so many untruths, half-truths, misunderstandings of the criminal justice system, failure to keep up on the facts already discovered, etc. in your post, Michael, that one would need 2 or 3 times the space you've taken to call out your errors and faulty judgements.

Next post suggestion: just withdraw everything you said in this post, and promise a journalism-worthy new post after you learn the facts and cogitate on your moral failings and repent.

Keep talking to your cohort Mr. Kinsley because the rest of thinking America has already moved past you.

Nothing wrong with firing Republican United States Attorneys for the express purpose to obstruct justice? Retire Kinsley.

Mike, you were once one of the few high profile news media figures not slated to be thrown into the Duck Pit when The Revolution comes.

I'm sorry to say that's changed.

I feel bad for MK, he's already out of style and too young to retire. Next thing you know he'll have a column at the WP with the rest of the ol'farts who never will go away.

Mr. Kinsley,
Reading this post I am reminded of the reasons I stopped paying attention to you ten long years ago.

I like how the standard we rate a Bush scandal on is whether he violated a criminal law. This should be a campaign slogan: Bush, not ethical, competent, moral, but arguably, not criminal. Vote Bush.

Subjective vs. Objective Mike. Look it up.

Mikey,

To think that I used to listen to what you said on Crossfire. Your a pathetic shell now, my friend.

I think Mike is bucking for Alan Colmes gig. Call me, Mike.

This argument is either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest:

"The Post concedes that Clinton’s mass firing was “unprecedented,” and “unprecedented” is the toughest adjective the Post can bring itself to apply to the recent Bush firings, too."

Mr. Kinsley,

With all due respect, the mass firing of US attorneys when a new administration of a different party enters office has been standard operating procedure in Washington as far back as I remember. Reagan fired all Carter's US Attorneys; Clinton fired all Papa Bush's US Attorneys; and Shrub fired all Clinton's US Attorneys.

And if you go back and do some research, I'm reasonably sure that you'd find that JFK, Nixon and Carter also fired the previous administration's US attorneys.

It's like the mass firing of cabinet officers when a new administration of a different party takes over...just standard operating procedure.

What was different in 1993 was that the GOP Smear Machine was able to manipulate its presstitutes in the so-called "liberal media" into regurgitating the lie that such a mass firing of US attorneys was "unprecedented."

And notice how quiet the presstitutes were eight years later when Shrub did the exact same thing Clinton did in 1993 and fired all the previous administration's US attorneys.

I suggest you might want to check out Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon on this matter. It sounds like you're in dire need of an emergency injection of facts.

Dear Mr. Kinsley,

As others have pointed out, you appear to be woefully behind on this story, and just how far it's been advanced by TPM, McClatchy, WP, and others.

Even if we excuse the actions of the DOJ and the White House in replacing the AG's, shouldn't lying to Congress still be a problem? Last I checked it's called Perjury.

Get up to speed, or get butchered in the comments' section. Oh, and, welcome to blogging!

Posted by QUESTION HILLARY
March 19, 2007
I AM MICHAEL KINSLEY!!

After reading this post, it wouldn't surprise me.

Actually, Mr. Kinsely, I do care what you think and I've cared for a long time. When I became politically aware, you were THE guy on the left, battling Buchanan on Crossfire. I care.

But, you pointed out the problem with your own take here -- the provision in the Patriot act that allowed for the Bushie's to recplace sitting attorneys with political appointees, without Senate confirmation, was put there on purpose.

It's not just a case of firing political appointees... it's a case of a lame duck administration trying to pay favors to its partisans withouth having to go through confirmation by an opposition senate. So odd that the Patrio Act allowed this and that the Bushies used it when the Senate might have stopped them.

Mike,
This is embarrassing.

aren't you ignoring the attorney general lying to congress? isn't that a big deal?

here's something else: serving at the pleasure of the president does not mean that nothing is out of bounds. i am an at-will employee. my employer can fire me for a good reason, bad reason or no reason. at-will employees are the standard employment relationship in all 50 states.

but guess what? i can't be fired because of my race, or sex, or religion, or a handful of other things. that's true even though i serve "at the pleasure" of my boss. he can terminate me for no reason but not because of the color of my skin.

likewise, bush can fire prosecutors for no reason at all. but if he or his surrogates try to get them to indict or not indict, and then fire them when they don't do what he wants, that is obstruction of justice, and suddenly it's illegal.

get the difference? we have a tradition of this country of prosecutorial independence. in the quarter century before the bush administration a total of 8 u.s. attorneys were fired or forced to resign in the middle of their term. that's how many bush canned in the past couple of months. and unlike bush's terminations, the prior 8 were all because of documented misconduct.

and putting criminal laws aside, undermining prosecutorial independence is simply a bad idea. in other countries there is no such tradition of independence and prosecutors regularly go after members of the opposition and look the other way when the ruling party engages in criminal conduct. the lack of prosecutorial independence thus undermines democracy and encourages corruption.

Is this post a joke? Michael, this is nothing more than uninformed ranting. Geez, what an embarrassment.

I am under the impression that the Attorney General testified that these were not political decisions and they clearly were. I am under the impression that lying to Congress, even if you are lying about something that is not illegal, is a crime. I seem to recall hearing that from various Republicans a few years back. I don't quite see your point.
Why is it blogs are so far ahead of the mainstream press on every important issue involving this administration?

Damn, Kinsley can't even win a debate with himself anymore.

Should I put a nice four lettered word in my post? That way Mr. Kinsley can ignore the content of all the posts and start a column about how the filthy mouthed bloggers attacked him ruthlessly and senslessly over his position and therefore invalidated their own criticism and lent credence to how important and correct his own position must be. After all, that is in the Time Manual for Nasty Bloggers Response.

Mike, I'm so sorry for you. This is just a completely pathetic excuse for both writing and thought. I don't mean to be personal, but I really can't muster the energy to actually address your points because they are so half-baked.

Yes, it's illegal to fire someone for the purpose of blocking an investigation. It's called obstruction of justice. And the Clinton situation has nothing to do with ... ah, forget it.

R.I.P. Michael Kinsley.

Sad.

Are you really this thick? You haven't even read up on this story! You have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course a Republican Congressman calling and pressuring US Attorneys to either back off prosecuting other Republicans or vigorously pursue fraudulent 'voter fraud' charges which have already been investigated and found to be unsupported is behavior which has entered criminal territory. Of course having an Attorney General of the United States who is ready willing and able to do the President's political dirty work by removing Attorneys who are prosecuting fellow Republicans is pretty much the very definition of impeachable behavior - on both of their parts. Of course lying under oath about some or all of it is criminal behavior. Not to say that this even comes close to being the worst scandal of the Bush administration, its just the most currently easily prosecute-able one going. That is, until we can get the real criminals - Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and George Bush himself, under oath.

What a house of cards these thugs rule over. And how they have shat upon everything that this country is about. This is just par for the course, but you have mistaken that fact for it being normal and excusable: legal. Par for the course for this administration is criminal, mendacious, wrong. Anything we can do to weaken these people's hold on power and influence over the public and political realms is good for the United States, short of resorting to their level of means to achieve it.

Clinton firings are unprecidented? Reagan, Bush and Bush all did the same.

THe problem with these firings is that W went around Congress to appoint his new U.S. attorneys. That is what is wrong with it. Also, that there seems to be evidence that they were removed for political reasons. That is why it's a big deal.

You're way behind the curve here, Michael. You need to read about 8 weeks of TPM to get caught up. Otherwise you're gonna be eating what's left of Jay Carney's crow.

Addressing everyone else, we're seeing Washington opinion journalism in real time. They get up in the morning, read a couple of stories, call their friends and then write stuff that doesn't reflect the actual story, but does reflect the conventional wisdom of the Republican beltway.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/19/105632/315

On the republican beltway. This theory, which is Atrios' rather than Matt's explains a lot of other wise inexplicable things, like why the centrist Clinton was so hated, and why the radical Bush is so tolerated by the DC "bipartisans."

I'm not sure why Kinsley has ever been considered a liberal. yeah, he was novakula's foil but he also seemed like a TV liberal, you know, in name only, just like this post. can't wait to hear some repuke quote, "even the liberal MK from the liberal Time thinks there's nothing wrong with it." Sir, you are a tool. Firing Lam in particular is the height of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. And how about that NJ hack who indicted those associates of Senator Menandez fraudulently? What happened with that? Get off your rump and do some investigating. Nobody cares about your impressions or observations just because you once wrote some book that somebody thought was insightful. The very idea that you have your megaphone boggles the mind. The god awful scary monsters that the new repuke hacked up. most foul!!!

") Well, one of them had sent a Republican congressman to jail for acceping a bribe. A couple of them were opposed to capital punishment. A couple weren’t being vigorous enough for the administration in pursuit of obscenity. A couple were too lax about prosecuting illegal aliens. One was ignoring evidence of voter fraud, and another had let a Democrat become governor by failing to demand a recount of a close, contested election. Once again, all this is as the administration saw it."

And is the administration's point of view decisive? Surely it's worth investigating whether the administration's point of view is actually factual. Especially given that there's evidence in the administration's own words that the AGs who were supposedly lax on illegal aliens were doing a good job, that the evidence of voter fraud was too weak to bring a successful prosecution, and that the "too weak in prosecution of obscenity" was actually doing a pilot program in allowing victims of abuse to testify before videocameras.

I don't understand why you believe that if the Administration said they had good reasons to fire these AGs, that is indisputable.

They lied. About why they fired the attorneys. To Congress. That's a crime.

Also: They leaned on the prosecutors to prosecute crimes for which there was insufficient evidence. And they punished the prosecutors who didn't go along. If that isn't illegal (and I don't know; it may be), it's extremely unethical.

Also: Their lie defamed the prosecutors. Gonzalez said they fired them for "performance related issues." That's a no-no.

They lied. About why they fired the attorneys. To Congress. That's a crime.

Also: They leaned on the prosecutors to prosecute crimes for which there was insufficient evidence. And they punished the prosecutors who didn't go along. If that isn't illegal (and I don't know; it may be), it's extremely unethical.

Also: Their lie defamed the prosecutors. Gonzalez said they fired them for "performance related issues." That's a no-no.

Next week Mikey's going to tell us how taking away all the federal investigations against "R"s was just like the time Clinton's outgoing staff stole all the "W"s off the White House computer keyboards. Heh.

(P.S.: that story was urban legen also)

I knew DC had a serious crack problem, but I never expected to see the addiction reach high into the upper echelons of the punditocracy.

Seek help, Michael. You can recover, but you know the first step: admit that you are a Republican sycophant. Until you've acknowledged the problem, you will continue to circle the drain.

Aside from your obvious addiction problem, you could use some guidance on writing for the webh. Hint: Keep it short and accurate. Long, rambling pantloads of Republican talking points don't work for the A-D-D afflicted, fact-addicted denizens of the blogosphere. We like our facts served fresh and accurate, or we blast the crap out of you for, oh, the rest of your career.

Enjoy!

Congratulations Mike! You got "wanker of the day"!

Thanks for the flashback too. Your post reminded me that you don't think the Downing Street Memo mattered either.

Are you the same inept Michael Kinsley who used to get smacked around by Buchannan all the time on Crossfire?

Dear Michael:

How can you be so blind to what goes on around you?

Did you poke out your own eyes?

Oh boy. Mr. Kinsley hasn't done his homework.

If he had done the required reading, he would know that Bush 43 "fired" almost every US attorney and that Reagan "fired" all 93 of them. Just like Clinton.

But, instead, Mr Kinsley has fallen prey to easily available (and easily discredited) GOP talking points and fallen for them hook line and sinker.

Lazy, ineffectual, non-informative pack-journalism. I remember when Michael used to be engaged. Now he apparently just phones it in without bothering to do the research. OK, the paycheck clears, so I can't really blame him, but there's no reason to take him seriously anymore. Sad.

Michael, it's rather sad how little you understand this story. This isn't about how many were fired or if they were for political reasons. It's because the firings appear to be an obstruction of justice and Alberto appears to have lied, under oath, about the reasons for the firings. Both of those matters require by our system of government, additional looking into or even an investigation.

I'm a programmer from Phoenix who reads 1 hour of news a day and if I'm lucky maybe can catch a 1/2 hour or hour of tv news each day and I know more about this than you do.

Michael, it's rather sad how little you understand this story. This isn't about how many were fired or if they were for political reasons. It's because the firings appear to be an obstruction of justice and Alberto appears to have lied, under oath, about the reasons for the firings. Both of those matters require by our system of government, additional looking into or even an investigation.

I'm a programmer from Phoenix who reads 1 hour of news a day and if I'm lucky maybe can catch a 1/2 hour or hour of tv news each day and I know more about this than you do.

I think pundits should be subjected to annual performance reviews so that it can be determined whether or not they are clearly in the tank, simply shilling, defending a status quo, or faxing it in from Barbados.
Clearly Mr. Kinsley is either in the tank for yet another GOP crooked scheme to politicize the judiciary branch, as Rove did in Texas for Bush in the past, or is faxing it in based on what he reads from the mainstream press, which yet again has failed its readership by downplaying the awful realities of this administration.
A George Will-Tucker Carlson bow tie will be mandatory attire, or "flair" if you will, for all future apologists for the dark lord and his minions.

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

###

Reading Mikey's columns is like throwing the squeaky rubber hamburger for the toy poodle next door The Republicans toss our their talking points and Mikey goes tearing after them and then brings 'em back to Time readers, squeaking and snarling and showing us what a tough, little doggy he is.

Except the dog next-door is younger, fresher and more appealing.

It is really sad to read someone on Time's website mindlessly refer to Clinton replacing all the USA's as "unprecedented".

It's like saying, rather stupidly, that Clinton firing all of Bush's cabinet and replacing them with his own appointees was unprecedented!

All Presidents replace THOUSANDS of appointees from previous administrations. Reagan replaced all of Carter's USAs. Bush, Sr., replaced all of Reagan's.

Bush, Jr., replaced all of Clinton's.

There was nothing unprecedented about Clinton replacing the USAs except for the faux scandal it caused.

One expects to hear that kind of thing from Rush Limbaugh. But one does not expect to read it on a supposedly informed and insightful news magazine's website.

Shame on you, Michael.

Michael, I've generally thought highly of you as a pundit. However, in this post, you've missed one crucial part which Josh Marshall pointed out early. Namely, that these USAs were fired within a short time after the Bush administration snuck in the codicil to the Patriot Act that allows new U.S. Attorneys to be appointed by the A.G. (instead of the Senator from the home state) and for an indefinite period of time WITHOUT SENATE CONFIRMATION!

I suppose I shouldn't fault you too much for this -- the rest of the media seems to be ignoring it as well. But it is, in my opinion, the worst part of this scandal. Why? Because it eliminates a crucial check and balance in our government.

Let's face it, Madison and the other drafters of the Constitution put in Senate confirmation for a reason -- to prevent the executive from running hellbent over the legislative and judicial branches.

If Mr. Kinsley's job involves writing editorials, he should do his homework rather than repeat White House talking points. Anyone who has read a blog in the past month knows that replacing US Attorneys in between administrations of different parties is routine. Replacing any in between, except for demonstrated mismanagement, is extraordinarily rare. Only someone who's only source of "information" is Faux News would not have learned that by now.

The reason midterm changes are appropriately rare is because arbitrarily changing them potentially disrupts thousands of cases that thousands of legal, investigative and support staff work on. That, in turn, affects district and appellate judges, defense counsel and defendants, jurors and local communties. And costs taxpayers millions. It's no excuse that this President has never learned the difference between having power and using it wisely.

That said, any President can replace political appointees at will for no reason. Yet Mr. Bush's senior staff has coordinated giving us conflicting uncoordinated reasons for these firings. More, I think, than they gave for going to war in Iraq, which suggests that they are just as accurate.

Parents, for example, usually read such shifting rationales as guilty behavior, and ask again just who their teens were with, when, and what were they doing. The same social knowledge ought to apply to Mr. Bush. Congress should fully investigate these firings to find out what reasons they aren't admitting to. Those may ultimately merit the attention of a special prosecutor.

Why didn't Bill Clinton keep that nice James Baker as Secretary of State and Dick Cheney as his Secretary of Defense? See, he fired them too when he came in and had the audacity to appoint his own political appointees at the beginning of his term.

This post from Mr. Kinsley is in such sublime context here. It's such a wonderful example of, well, something. It's not journalism. It's commentary I suppose but not really original. Not even accurate.

This is like going to a funeral and peering in the casket of a person you respect and seeing something that really doesn't represent the human you once knew.

Ah hell, this is really beneath you Mr. Kinsley. At least, I thought it would might be. Obviously, I was wrong.

Hey, there's an idea.

Try repeating that one Mr. Kinsley, "I was wrong".

Compare and contrast with the level of reporting Josh Marshall has presented on his blog and this blathering is stunning.

My suggestion, ask them to delete your post, have a cool, refreshing drink and relax.

This is really sad. Here I thought all these years you knew what the heck you were doing.

Instead, I find out you wear the same beltway blinders that the rest of them wear to work every day.

Well, at least you didn't sing the praises of a book you wrote anonymously. I'll give you that.

Now,what is wrong with the Administation's behavior in this matter?

HERE'S A HINT, MR. KINSLEY:

HE FIRED THEM AND REPLACED THEM WITH PEOPLE THAT DID NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE SENATE. HE REPLACED THEM WITH FLUNKIES WHO AGREED TO INVESTIGATE DEMOCRATS. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LIED TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT.

Should I write that in bigger text? Or do you get it now?

Reading this post produces a feeling akin to what I imagine it must have been like to be present as the Clash made "Combat Rock."

What a stark, raving hack. You have truly lost your "beautiful mind."

Michael Kinsley? Surely not THE Michael Kinsley.

TI-I-I-IME is on our side. Yes it is. (GWB)

I gather Mr. Kinsley agrees that it would be illegal to fire USAs for investigating Democrats/not investigating Republicans for political reasons and that his only complaint is he doesn't think the evidence is persuasive. At this point, my advice would be for him to just wait a bit, there's little persuasive evidence at the start of most investigations.

If on the other hand, he doesn't think it's a crime to do so, then he's probably wrong and, even if he's right, I dare say the electorate would be interested in hearing more about how the Bush administration is handling its law enforcement resources.

Poor Mr. Kinsley. This post proves that the once former star has met his final doom - sucked into the Black Hole Of Pundit Irrelevency - never to be seen from again. R.I.P., Michael.

Poor Mr. Kinsley. This post proves that the once former star has met his final doom - sucked into the Black Hole Of Pundit Irrelevency - never to be seen from again. R.I.P., Michael.

Kinsley, why don't you just admit that you believe Republic Party members are above the law and tey can do anything they want. Why, tey even get away with murder, like Laura Bush did!

Kinsley, why don't you just admit that you believe Republic Party members are above the law and they can do anything they want. Why, they even get away with murder, like Laura Bush did!

still waiting for that link to the Reagan firing of every US Attorney. Others have reported that both he and Carter kept attorneys on staff engaged in soon-to-be-ripe prosecutions; would like to see the proof. Surely there must be a press release from back then?.BTW, firing Ms. Lam doesn't seem to have gotten old Duke off the hook, did it? Or even Foggy.Still, that MUST have been the reason. And Mr. Barr, thanks for proving yourself to be a creep. Don't let your kids behind the wheel, now.

Michael Kinsley Post Scoreboard

One troll kinda sorta likes it.
90+ others accurately destroy it.

. . . hmmmm.

In my comment above, I stated the the codicil inserted into the Patriot Act changed the appointment of new U.S. Attorneys from the Senator to the A.G. This was incorrect. Appointments were formerly from the District Court Judge and then had to be confirmed by the Senate. Now, they can be appointed indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

Sorry for the error.

In my comment above, I stated the the codicil inserted into the Patriot Act changed the appointment of new U.S. Attorneys from the Senator to the A.G. This was incorrect. Appointments were formerly from the District Court Judge and then had to be confirmed by the Senate. Now, they can be appointed indefinitely without Senate confirmation.

Sorry for the error.

You know, I always thought that Nixon got a bum-rap for firing Archibald Cox. So what, really? It was within his rights, as president, right? Right there in the ol' constitution. Nothing to see here, move on, folks.

Michael, the part that really bothers everybody about this whole story is this: Carol Lam. The biggest corruption and profiteering story in decades. And here we have emails saying we gotta do something about Carol Lam, just as her investigation begins to focus on Foggo. That suggests an intention to scuttle any further legal accountability for their own administration. Policy indeed!

Jiminy Cricket!

I considered offering my own thoughts on Kinsley's ridiculous post, but after reading the comments, I just don't have the heart to join the pile-on.

Jeebus, Mikey, you got p\/\/n3d!

Michael, just because you're blogging doesn't mean you get to play fast and loose with the truth. You wrote:

"[A]nother [fired U.S. attorney] had let a Democrat become governor by failing to demand a recount of a close, contested election."

You're talking about Washington state, where I believe you used to live. So you should know that we have newspapers here (in addition to blogs) where you can actually find out what happened in the 2004 gubernatorial election, instead of making things up.

The U.S. attorney in this case, John McKay, did not have the power to "demand a recount" in the governor's race. There were two full recounts, both under state law. Democratic candidate Christine Gregoire prevailed in the final count by 129 votes. Her Republican opponent, Dino Rossi, sued in state court to overturn the result, asserting voter fraud and other claims, but lost badly at the trial court level and decided not to appeal.

Rossi's supporters were not satisfied, however, and exerted pressure on McKay to convene a grand jury to investigate claims of voter fraud. The chief of staff of GOP Congressman Doc Hastings placed calls to McKay urging him to take action. McKay objected that the calls were improper. His office found no evidence of fraud, and he refused to "haul innocent people in front of a grand jury."

Do you really think that prosecutorial decisions should be made by political operatives in the White House and that U.S. attorneys who refuse to comply should be dismissed? If so, you're entitled to your opinion. (Good luck when charges are brought against you -- I, for one, won't have your back.)

But you're not entitled to your own facts. Why don't you get the story straight instead of spreading misinformation. I thought that's what journalists are paid for.

Why do I feel like I'm watching my dog lapping up his warm vomit? Sorry -- that's the absolute truth. Pets are extremely loyal, and Kinsley is proof positive. Watch him lap up his vomit again, despite how sick he becomes from what's been fed him, until he sicks it up, and starts over. He TRUSTS his owner to care about him. You can only pat him on the head, and wish he only had a brain.

...Oh, wow, Mike. Next time you ride the ganja train, don't even get close to anything as complex as a keyboard. I mean, that is what happened here, right? I mean, dude, this is some serious whack.

Better you just munch out on some Oreos or go zone at a Laserium...

oh man, mikey, what the hell happened to you? you used to be a person who was smart enough to fact check before you opened you fountain pen, now this claptrap? clearly you are working from information now long discredited.

sorry to say you are not simply over the Hill but well across the cultural divide and are not keeping up with what facts are available with a flick of your mouse, don't feel sorry its just that the way you do your work has long since passed into obsolescence.

you have moved away by standing still.

sad to say that there is no one more surprized than a revolutionary being revoluted upon, but there it is, your NET children have surpassed you in collecting and assessing data in an intelligent way.

either move to a seaside resort house with T1 line and start pouring over the expanse of data out there, like just about all of the posters have on this thread and catch up with the rest of us, or kindly shut the hell up, because you are making a fool of yourself by showing your ignorance of the facts.

you may do this stuff as a living, but give me the zeal of a hobbyist any day to really delve into a subject. you seem to have lost the zeal of your youth and are just phoning it in anymore.

you're better than that or at least you were, if you have any respect for your craft either stop writing or stoke that fire in your belly because you have become an embarrassing old man like joe louis became when he fought into the 1950's

You sir, have been Atriosed. When named after the object of the most famous of such events, it is also known as being "Carneyed." The usual result is either a self-righteous retreat into big media self-deception or an abject mea culpa (or at least the blaming of a convenient fact-checking college intern).

Which is it going to be, Mr. Kinsley?

"there is not only nothing illegal about the president firing a US attorney. There is nothing even really wrong with it."

There's nothing wrong with a US attorney being pressured to pursue bogus investigations for partisan gain? And for the US attorneys who are actually doing their job well to be fired for it?

Nothing illegal about firing a prosecutor because you don't like her targets of prosecution?

Have you heard of "obstruction of justice", Mr. Kinsley?

"There is nothing even really wrong with it."

I'm greatly disappointed in you, Mike. It's legal for the president to fire the US attorneys, but to obstruct justice by firing Carol Lam? there is nothing wrong with that? gime a f*king break.

Mike,
Are you a total idiot or do you just play one at TIME?

Shocking! a Time reporter has no problem with corruption. apparently, he thinks there's nothing wrong with firing people for investigating crimes that happened and firing other people for refusing to indict for crimes that were investigated and no cause was found.

This is the reason why people don't trust the media. What Michael Kinsely really means is he doesn't want any of his friends to get into trouble because of this. Well guess what, he doesn't decide when a politician has done something wrong. The American people do, despite the fact that he clearly holds them in contempt.

If Kinsley expressed an honest point of view, he might not get invited to the next Washington soiree, and that's grounds for a pay cut. What the hell do you expect him to do, buy his suits at The Men's Store and get his haircuts at a barber shop?

Hey, guys, back off. Didn't you read the piece? Adam Cohen once said something stupid and PC, therefore Kinsley has NO CHOICE but to run interference for antidemocratic swine who hold the law in contempt.

ATTENTION: MIKE KINSLEY!!
Your computer has been hacked, and somebody is posting BushCo apologia under your name. Call the Sysadmin IMMEDIATELY before whatever is left of your reputation is destro