Did I hear this right? One of the U.S. Attorneys got complaints because he made his assistants go to a cabin in the woods with some sort of consultant and be analyzed. At least he didn't make them squeal like a pig.
I know that management consultants do weird stuff, but Jeesh.
UPDATE: Monica was just asked if Attorney General Gonzoles put his loyalty to the President above his loyalty to the rule of law. She said he was a good man, and that he tried -- but she couldn't answer because she wasn't sure about her own opinion on the matter.
Ouch.
Now she's talking about "inaccuracies" in Gonzales' testimony.
It says something that Monica Goodling -- who looks like a teenager -- is a better witness that the sitting Attorney General.
UPDATE 2: Gonzolas tried to get her to discuss their mutual recollections of what happened. She tries to spin it, but it sounds as if he was trying to get her to get their story straight.
UPDATE 3: Keith Ellison is sure a bully.
Showing posts with label US Attorney Firing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Attorney Firing. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
"We Have a Lot More From Harvard and Yale."
One of the more annoying things about this whole "scandal" is some of the simmering school snobbery. When asked about the number of people from Regents who wound up working for the Department of Justice, Monica said "we have a lot more from Harvard and Yale."
Go, Monica!
Go, Monica!
A Good Point
In response to a question about Deputy Attorney General Comey's assessment of the fired U.S. Attorneys, Goodling makes the quite valid point that different people have different experiences with a particular individual.
Maxine Waters
What a moron. Maxine Waters is asking Goodling if she "used opposition research skills" that she learned at the Republican National Committee.
Goodling said she used Lexis and Westlaw and Google to research political appointees. Now that's ominous.
Goodling said she used Lexis and Westlaw and Google to research political appointees. Now that's ominous.
Thoughts On U.S. Attorney Firing
While Monica is on break, I had just a couple of thoughts on this whole thing.
Quite a few people seem pretty apoplectic about the "overblown personnel matter," but I have never known what to make of it.
United States Attorneys are political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire a U.S. Attorney because of the way the person parts his hair. For any reason, or no reason at all. President Bush was entitled to fire people whom he (or the Attorney General) thought weren't doing a good job. Or he could let people go just to shake things up, bring in new blood. Or, more likely, he could want to replace one political hack with another.
It would surely be improper to fire a U.S. Attorney to torpedo a case involving a political ally, or to bring a purely political case against one's political opponents. Or to punish a U.S. Attorney for prosecuting a political ally. At the same time, however, if the Attorney General believed that a U.S. Attorney wasn't bringing valid cases, it would be legitimate to replace that attorney with one who would.
I certainly don't trust the Bush administration at this point, and I thought that Al Gonzoles was singularly unimpressive in his testimony. But I have yet to see any evidence that these people were fired for improper reasons.
Quite a few people seem pretty apoplectic about the "overblown personnel matter," but I have never known what to make of it.
United States Attorneys are political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire a U.S. Attorney because of the way the person parts his hair. For any reason, or no reason at all. President Bush was entitled to fire people whom he (or the Attorney General) thought weren't doing a good job. Or he could let people go just to shake things up, bring in new blood. Or, more likely, he could want to replace one political hack with another.
It would surely be improper to fire a U.S. Attorney to torpedo a case involving a political ally, or to bring a purely political case against one's political opponents. Or to punish a U.S. Attorney for prosecuting a political ally. At the same time, however, if the Attorney General believed that a U.S. Attorney wasn't bringing valid cases, it would be legitimate to replace that attorney with one who would.
I certainly don't trust the Bush administration at this point, and I thought that Al Gonzoles was singularly unimpressive in his testimony. But I have yet to see any evidence that these people were fired for improper reasons.
Ewwww . . . She's Getting Close
All right, she is getting close to admitting that her decisionmaking with Civil Service jobs was illegal. She admitted "crossing the line."
But she is standing firm on the main issue -- nothing she's said gives credence to the notion that U.S. Attorneys were removed in order to interfere with investigations or retaliate for going after Republicans.
But she is standing firm on the main issue -- nothing she's said gives credence to the notion that U.S. Attorneys were removed in order to interfere with investigations or retaliate for going after Republicans.
Monica Update
She just admitted that she had delayed the hiring of a potential Assistant U.S. Attorney because he struck her as being too liberal. She said she regretted the mistake.
OK, I'm sure that this was technically improper, for a career position.
But I have to wonder. Suppose a well-qualified right-winger with experience in the College Republicans and the Federalist Society and a clerkship for a conservative judge interviewed with the Department of Justice during the Clinton era. Isn't it possible that a rock-ribbed Republican wouldn't be hired?
OK, I'm sure that this was technically improper, for a career position.
But I have to wonder. Suppose a well-qualified right-winger with experience in the College Republicans and the Federalist Society and a clerkship for a conservative judge interviewed with the Department of Justice during the Clinton era. Isn't it possible that a rock-ribbed Republican wouldn't be hired?
Monica Goodling
I'm watching Monica Goodling testify live on C-Span as I write this.
Maybe others will disagree with me, but gosh, she is a good witness. Partly it's her looks -- she's quite pretty, in a girl-next-door kind of way, and she exudes this mom-and-apple-pie sincerity. Her opening statement was really good, particularly when she admitted going a bit far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions.
Maybe she's just slicker than Al Gonzales, but she's doing all the usual "to the best of my recollection" hedging, but she's accompanying such answers with enough information that you get the sense she's actually telling what she knows.
That doesn't keep Republicans from blowing it -- Representative Chris Cannon (R., Utah) is reading a bunch of crap into the record, enjoying the sound of his own voice, instead of letting the well-scrubbed and photogenic Monica Goodling do the talking.
Maybe others will disagree with me, but gosh, she is a good witness. Partly it's her looks -- she's quite pretty, in a girl-next-door kind of way, and she exudes this mom-and-apple-pie sincerity. Her opening statement was really good, particularly when she admitted going a bit far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions.
Maybe she's just slicker than Al Gonzales, but she's doing all the usual "to the best of my recollection" hedging, but she's accompanying such answers with enough information that you get the sense she's actually telling what she knows.
That doesn't keep Republicans from blowing it -- Representative Chris Cannon (R., Utah) is reading a bunch of crap into the record, enjoying the sound of his own voice, instead of letting the well-scrubbed and photogenic Monica Goodling do the talking.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal
The Rude Pundit is angry (what's new) about the whole U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. Now, I'm not ready yet to comment on the the whole mess -- I'd like to see more facts shake out first -- but he seems particularly incensed about the dismissal of Paul Charlton, apparently because of policy differences regarding application of the death penalty. According to one report, "his insistence on determining whether to push for capital punishment on a case-by-case basis clashed on at least two instances with a Justice Department effort to centralize decisions nationally and to seek the death penalty in a uniform way."
Um, I hate to stand up for Al Gonzoles and the Bush administration, but this doesn't strike me as being a wholly unreasonable position. Any President -- Democrat or Republican -- can reasonably want to have a uniform policy with respect to application of the death penalty. In some cases, this will mean that U.S. Attorneys who would be inclined to be less aggressive in seeking the death penalty will be forced to seek it when they would not. In others, more aggressive prosecutors will be reigned in. In any case, it makes sense that the policy be uniform.
Um, I hate to stand up for Al Gonzoles and the Bush administration, but this doesn't strike me as being a wholly unreasonable position. Any President -- Democrat or Republican -- can reasonably want to have a uniform policy with respect to application of the death penalty. In some cases, this will mean that U.S. Attorneys who would be inclined to be less aggressive in seeking the death penalty will be forced to seek it when they would not. In others, more aggressive prosecutors will be reigned in. In any case, it makes sense that the policy be uniform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)