The last line sums it up pretty well. Bush has abused his role as commander in chief, and has squandered the lives of US soldiers for a his bizzare personal goals.“Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers. ‘You have a Monica problem,’ Ms. Ashton was told. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, ‘She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.’ Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year.
“Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several United States attorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, ‘Have you ever cheated on your wife?’ Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan.”
. . . .
But while the Bush team has been lecturing the Iraqi Shiites to limit de-Baathification in Baghdad, it was carrying out its own de-Democratization in the Justice Department in Washington. . . .
. . . But this degree of partisanship — loyalty over competence — was destructive in a much bigger way. It also deprived the Bush team of the support it needed when things in Iraq didn’t turn out to be as easy as it expected.
. . . Democrats need to be careful, though, that they don’t let their rage with the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush make them totally crazy, and blind them to the fact that they — we — still need a credible plan
. . . . After all, who can ask more soldiers to sacrifice their lives in Iraq for an administration that wouldn’t even sacrifice its politics?
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/"It used to be that high-level DOJ jobs were generally reserved for the best of the legal profession," wrote a contributor to The New Republic website . ". . . That a recent graduate of one of the very worst (and sketchiest) law schools with virtually no relevant experience could ascend to this position is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong at the DOJ."
It's hard not to believe the Ashcroft-Comey-Gonzalez-Card incident played at least some part in making sure Ashcroft would be replaced with someone who wouldn't think of saying no. I would assume any replacement for Gonzalez would be similarly disposed to support Bush policies on wiretaps, surveillance.Last night on The News Hour, on PBS, Mark Shields made an interesting point. If Gonzo goes, there is no way that a loyal bushie is going to replace him. Congress would only approve someone with a long reputation for honesty and integrity. But if someone like this is made AG and has unfeterred access to inside and classified information, it could be very bad for Bush.
I think he makes an excellent point. Bush may indeed face certain impeachment and prosecution if an honest man was AG.
Arlen Specter?I think that BobG is right. Bush will "regretfully" accept Gonzales' resignation when Congress adjourns for Memorial Day, and he will appoint a loyal Republican Senator or Congressman using a recess appointment - one who is popular enough to quell complaints. Look for senior members of House and Senate who are ready to retire and who have held positions on committees overseeing law-enforcement.
Both John Bolton and Sam Fox were appointed via recess appointment. Bolton was at least being filibustered. Fox would have been rejected in a vote, so was withdrawn as a candidate just hours before the Senate could vote on him.With a democratically controlled Congress, I think the chances of that are exactly zero. This may be the achilles heel that they're after.
Specter wouldn't need a recess appointment. He'd easily be approved by the Senate. He'd also have a nearly zero chance of being nominated.Arlen Specter?
I didn't quite read this right the first time. Ugh!!! I wasn't thinking that Bush could do this as a recess appointment.Congress may not approve an AG nominee like that, but another Congressional recess is just around the corner (regardless of when the nominee is submitted). Bush will get a supportive Attorney General regardless of whether Gonzalez resigns or not.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/02/inspector_general_probes_lawyers_firing/7762/WASHINGTON, April 2 (UPI) -- Federal investigators are looking into claims that a U.S. Justice Department official fired a career attorney because of sexual orientation, officials said.
Numerous people questioned by the inspector general's office told NPR they thought the attorney general's office dismissed Hagen due to rumors that she was a lesbian.
In a Feb. 1, 2007, evaluation Hagen received outstanding ratings for her job performance. The evaluation came several months after she was informed the department was not renewing her contract, NPR said.
Officials reportedly have said Hagen's contract was not renewed because her position is a privilege and more people should have an opportunity to fill it.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_8786382?nclick_check=1 [Broken]Memo linked to warrantless surveillance
By PAMELA HESS and LARA JAKES JORDAN Associated Press Writers
Article Launched: 04/02/2008 04:48:21 PM PDT
WASHINGTON—For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn't apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.
That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.
The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.
The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."
Exactly what domestic military action was covered by the October memo is unclear. But federal documents indicate that the memo relates to the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24668.html#ixzz0Kcfx7iQU&CFormer White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel’s chairman.
Rove’s deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.
Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.
“He was deposed today,” Conyers said in an interview. “That’s all I can tell you.”...