Comments on: The Politics of Vindictiveness

By: steve

steve — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:00:22 +0000

Just on the funny basis alone that firing them for no reason versus firing them for a reason but it was a fraudulent reason according to the democrats (yet nobody has made a peep about Ronnie Earle in the case of Tom Delay who first had to empanel six grand juries to win an indictment and years later still has not delivered a conviction to the people of texas)is the most laughable thing.

Who in the hell would say “go home, fred – no special reason – just, go home!”?

Unless of course it was a decision mothered by Sotomayor.

(Sorry for the weird fonts, I’m on vacation doing this from my blackberry)

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:07:34 +0000

“And why did he do that? Because a buch [sic] if disappointed people did not understand it was his perogative [sic] to fire them?”

No, because he gave unsolicited reasons for their terminations. You can’t tell someone they’re fired because their performance sucks when in fact they have stellar performance reviews. It tends to raise the eyebrows of the ones who knew their performance was not lacking…

By: John in CA

John in CA — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:51:23 +0000

“Yes, exactly. EXACTLY! But Bush went out of his way to give a reason for firing them.”

And why did he do that? Because a buch if disappointed people did not understand it was his perogative to fire them?

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:14:22 +0000

“Attorneys serve at the will of the Chief Executive. Pres. Bush did not need a reason to fire them.”

Yes, exactly. EXACTLY! But Bush went out of his way to give a reason for firing them. Reasons which turned out to be fraudulent. He said they were fired for poor performance, but further inspection showed that they each had stellar performance reviews. They said they fired Carol Lam for not prosecuting enough immigration cases, but immigration prosecutions went up almost twofold under her. They fired David Iglesias for not showing up to work, ignoring the fact that he was a reserve in the national guard, serving his country in two different capacities. This fiasco would never have seen the light of day if Bush had just kept his mouth shut. If he would have simply fired them without reason, which was totally his prerogative, no one would ever know these people’s names…

By: John in CA

John in CA — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:14:37 +0000

“Yeah, except Bush fired the attorneys because they refused to take part in his political witch hunt. You know, the one where Karl Rove was instructing attorneys to prosecute only democrats for corruption?”

Again with this? U.S. Attorneys serve at the will of the Chief Executive. Pres. Bush did not need a reason to fire them. This is how at will Federal employment works.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:43:49 +0000

“Anybody remember First Lady Hillary Clinton and the Travel-gate affair? It’s almost dejavu.”

You mean the case that never was? Isn’t this the one where Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered? Yes, let’s ignore all forensic evidence that it was a suicide, and pin it on the Clintons. Yes, they pulled the trigger with Foster’s thumbs…

“And they dare to question Bush on firing 8 US attorneys? What hypocrites.”

Yeah, except Bush fired the attorneys because they refused to take part in his political witch hunt. You know, the one where Karl Rove was instructing attorneys to prosecute only democrats for corruption? The one were democrats were investigated by more than a 2 to 1 margin over republicans, and they STILL only found dirt on the republicans? Talk about poetic justice…

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:39:47 +0000

Well, I guess leave it to the right wing to make something out of nothing. This is all very nice fanfare, but I’m just wondering when someone on the right is going to mention the fact that acting US Attorney Lawrence Brown, who is a Bush appointee, agreed with his predecessor’s decision (McGregor Scott, also a Bush appointee) NOT to press charges against Johnson. And seeing as how that decision was made in November of 2008, the charge of interference by the Obama Administration doesn’t hold water. I think it should also be noted that Brown (you know, the Bush appointee) had filed an official complaint over this character Walpin’s conduct in the Johnson case:

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Brown_letter_to_Kenneth_Kaiser.pdf