Corrente

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

Republicans: Government is fiefdom for "loyal Bushies"

AP:

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Kyle Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

R-i-i-g-h-t. All perfectly normal:

Because, for a Republican, allowing Republicans to get away with corruption, and ginning up fake "voter fraud" allegations against Democrats is exactly the performance they want.

Talk about defining deviancy down!

And no wonder they can't run a government.

NOTE What this proves is that every political appointee put in place by the administration, and every policy decision they've made, is automatically suspect. All of them, at this point, are guilty until proven innocent.

UPDATE VastLeft adds more damning detail. MSNBC:

"A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective ... is unsuccessful," he added.

They don't show any shame, do they? Hey, somebody should ask Abu G if he shares Sampson's perspective and, if so, whether Fitz was a "successful" prosecutor.

UPDATE And they're all in on it:

[SAMPSON] "But the decision to ask them to do so was the result of an internal process that aggregated the considered, collective judgment of a number of senior Justice Department officials."

UPDATE "Highly improper"? Can't the Dems come up with a better talking point than that?

UPDATE Miers and Gonzales signed off:

"The decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So, the Decider didn't decide? And the attorneys serve at the pleasure of Gonzales and Miers? Because if Bush didn't sign off, that's what Sampson is saying.

And let's remember that Sampson is already a known liar:

The Feb. 23 letter, which was written by Sampson but signed by Hertling, emphatically stated that "the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." It also said that "the Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Those assertions are contradicted by e-mails from Sampson to a White House aide, saying that getting Griffin appointed "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers was among the first people to suggest Griffin as a replacement for Cummins.

Too bad Sampson and his family are devastated, but lying to Congress will do that.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

At the UPDATE.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It's at some level refreshing to hear them flagrantly admit they don't give a shit about laws or ethics. About as close to honesty as these people get.

www.vastleft.com

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

So, basically the position of this administration is that there really isn't any such thing as politicizing the DOJ, but if they did that, it's okay, because that's their prerogative, or should I have said "pleasure."

Ruth's picture
Submitted by Ruth on

..and they're paid to carry it out.
Diane at cabdrollery reported on one ex-DoJ leader who's spilling the beans:
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/2007/03/...

Ruth

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

Does he think it just doesn't matter, that his bosses will get away with it regardless? Or (more likely IMHO) has the Committee got something on him and he's just out to cover himself? Funny how often "loyalty" takes a back seat to "save your own skin" with this bunch.

Submitted by lambert on

To them, everything is political -- and what is "good" is what The Leader wants.

They have become, completely, what they claimed to opposed. They're an authoritarian party whose only rationale is hanging onto power for the benefit ("pleasure") it brings them, personally, and they'll do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

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

"No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post."

Why not?