If you have "no place to go," come here!

In 2008, no Federal Prosecutor can be trusted to enforce the law when that would favor Democrats

I mean, that's just obvious, right? Jon Carrol in the San Francisco Chronicle:

If those eight U.S. attorneys were fired at the behest of Karl Rove for real or imagined disloyalty to the president (and that does seem to be the case), then what were the 85 other prosecutors doing right? Why are they still in place?

Good question:

See, the thing is, there's an election coming up in 2008. There are likely to be disputes about what happened in the voting booths. A pliable federal prosecutor would be a useful thing to have around when legal challenges are starting. Since the plan to fire the attorneys had been in the works for two years, it could be an example of Karl Rove's ability to think long term. Just an idea.

Makes sense. Somebody should cross-tab the USAs with the seats Rove thought were vulnerable in his (Hatch Act-violating) presentation at GSA...

No votes yet


Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Only thing Carroll missed was proper attribution: this should always be cited as "Krugman's Conjecture" when discussing the US attorney's scandal. But he sure gets the details of it right:

The other interesting thing is the use by now-resigned Justice Department employee Kyle Sampson of the phrase "loyal Bushies." What is interesting is that he did not use the phrase "loyal Republicans." There have always been patronage appointments, and most often those appointed are members of the same political party as the president. [snip]

But George W. Bush and the Republican Party are not coterminous. It would be hard to describe the belief system of a loyal Bushie, other than unquestioning faith in George W. Bush. Would he be in favor of reduced government spending, increased individual liberties, a conservative and prudent foreign policy? Nope. George W. Bush does not stand for any of those things. Loyal Bushies can be counted on to do the right thing, the Bush thing, whenever a thing needs doing. That's the belief system.

And people who have passed the Bushie Test are now in charge of investigating--deciding whether or not a given action represents a violation of Federal law--and prosecuting those deemed to meet that standard, everywhere in the fucking US. EVERY case they have is now compromised by this unanswered question hanging over their heads.

I can see a creative defense lawyer saying that his accused crack-dealer client is obviously the victim of Rovian political persecution because he was driving a used car with a Kerry-Edwards '04 sticker on the back when he was pulled over.

[waves hands to acknowledge hyperbole in the cause of exasperated frustration]

Submitted by lambert on

It's certainly easier to enforce the law, for example, in countries where the assumption is that the courts and the police aren't utterly corrupt.

Because otherwise, of course, the only recourse is the goverment monopoly that authoritarians really like:


Of course, when the mercenaries come home, there will be more options.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

It's a part of the plan.

So are the mercenaries private security, right here at home. If we don't take apart the Company before we end the War, they'll take the next $election, even with only 25% of voters in the exit polls.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

If the Administration of Justice is corrupt, we are all doomed. If it is merely perceived as corrupt, chaos reigns, which ultimately dooms us.

There's no difference.