Still Hating America.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not sure there is one. That said, is the travel office usually staffed by civil servants? Because there is a difference between canning civil service folks for political reasons and canning political appointees for political reasons.

i read they were appointees, although some had been carried over. that is the job was considered pesidential appointee, but they weren't always replaced at the end of a term.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i read they were appointees, although some had been carried over. that is the job was considered pesidential appointee, but they weren't always replaced at the end of a term.

Seems right. (note the guy who had been there for several admins.)

Anyway, this shows that any congressional investigation can run amuck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Here's your problem- nothing anyone in any subsequent admin will, or could do, won't find a worse analog in the clinton admin. They fired an entire office to make room for Bill's cousin for god's sakes. what are you talking about some usas for?

See, people keep bringing this up. Isn't this sort of finger-pointing a perfect opportunity to exercise your "so what" option? It really doesn't matter what the Clinton administration may or may not have done if the issue under examination is the actions of people in the Bush administration, right? And if you try to defend Bush by pointing to Clinton, how do you escape people seeing it as a tacit admission that the current guys did wrong, too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
See, people keep bringing this up. Isn't this sort of finger-pointing a perfect opportunity to exercise your "so what" option? It really doesn't matter what the Clinton administration may or may not have done if the issue under examination is the actions of people in the Bush administration, right? And if you try to defend Bush by pointing to Clinton, how do you escape people seeing it as a tacit admission that the current guys did wrong, too?

I'm just trying to make these people stop, wonk. they keep going on and on, it's like the ocean, it never stops, and no matter what anyone says they keep going. The only thing that will stop them is when the next worst thing ever done surfaces and they can start off on that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Doesn't really matter. I think it goes back to Hank's point yesterday or the day before: As definitive a ruling as teh court of appeals gave by ordering release immediately (and I'm quite sure they had that order prepared before oral argument, which was the gov't's last chance to make its case), that doesn't mean that up until then everything was necessarily unreasonable. Look at all the habeas cases where a guy is convicted, affirmed, well into his sentence and then someone comes along to show there was some flaw in the trial. In retrospect one asks "how could this possibly happen". Most of the time though the answer is that either people made mistakes or that reasonable minds can differ.

I agree from the articles this sounded like an odd case to bring. But that's often said: about Libby, about Martha Stewart, about Clinton's impeachment. Our judicial system seems to do a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. To say we can't rely on it because there's a whiff of possible political motivation strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You cannot say definitely one way or the other from what we now know, of course. E.g., if the district court judge is the sharpest tack in the Upper Midwest, the whole thing seems less dubious. If the district court judge is known for sleeping in court, then his failure to toss the case is less probative. But what we know seems -- at this juncture -- enough to raise very serious questions.

And regardless of which way you eventually come out, the vice of politicizing DOJ is that the work of prosecutors will come into question even if it shouldn't. It's collateral damage, and it's a damned shame.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm just trying to make these people stop, wonk. they keep going on and on, it's like the ocean, it never stops, and no matter what anyone says they keep going. The only thing that will stop them is when the next worst thing ever done surfaces and they can start off on that.

What I do when I get tired of threads is to just scan rapidly until the subject header changes. Sure, I miss a tangent or two, but it's worth it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And regardless of which way you eventually come out, the vice of politicizing DOJ is that the work of prosecutors will come into question even if it shouldn't. It's collateral damage, and it's a damned shame.

Sure, but the idea that DOJ wasn't politicized before 2006 is pretty naive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but the idea that DOJ wasn't politicized before 2006 is pretty naive.

To say that what we've seen doesn't suggest a material change is either naive or cynical.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To say that what we've seen doesn't suggest a material change is either naive or cynical.

Appointment of Robert Kennedy as AG.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Appointment of Robert Kennedy as AG.

What about it?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What about it?

The idea that DOJ is inherently political did not start in 2001.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The idea that DOJ is inherently political did not start in 2001.

I think that maybe they (Ty and whoever) were talking about people at a lower level than the AG. The AG is sorta a top dog, no?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The idea that DOJ is inherently political did not start in 2001.

Which USAs did he fire for prosecuting Democrats?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The idea that DOJ is inherently political did not start in 2001.

Again, I don't think that anyone is arguing that DOJ is not political. But that is not the same as making decisions about which cases to prosecute based only on the political value news that the cases will generate rather than on the merits of the case.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Appointment of Robert Kennedy as AG.

That ain't politics; it was nepotism.