<p>One of the questions about Obama was that he had only been in club fights, never tested in a championship bout. Can he take a punch? I think we are about to find out.</p>
<p>Clinton set him up with a jab on the Geffen dustup, getting him to commit on the record to a rejection of negative campaigning.</p>
<p>Now, it comes out tonight that the company responsible for the “1984” attack ad is contracted with the Obama campaign. And, that Obama’s director of new media marketing owns the company that created the ad. Uh-oh.</p>
<p>I think Barry is about to get pummelled by some Clintonista haymakers. Better get his “cut-man” to his corner…Obama might need some attention at the end of this round.</p>
<p>Speaking of punches. Poor Tony Snow staggered out of the ring after his White House briefing today. First he was asked why there is an 18 day gap in the e-mails released in Attorneygate – the 18 days leading up to the firing of the US Attorneys. Hmmm. It had to be the number 18, right? Where’s Rose Marie Woods when you need her?</p>
<p>Snow’s answer: “You’ll have to check with the Justice Department on that. I’m told they have a good explanation…”</p>
<p>Then, Snow walked into a roundhouse hook when he said that Bush has no recollection of ever being briefed on the firings. </p>
<p>Next question: So, if the President was never in the loop, what are the legal grounds for invoking Executive Privledge, which only covers Presidential communications?</p>
<p>Did you really think any campaign involving the Clintons would not descend into the gutter. Heck Hillary still has all the FBI records on half of Washington. These are the folks who didn’t shrink from rewritting history by stealing documents from the National Archives and shredding them. Barry is not an idiot.</p>
<p>The Dems are making a huge mistake if they push this executive privilege claim. Never let your opponent pick the battleground and never go into battle not knowing the strenght, disposition, and intentions of your opponent. The very fact that the White House wants this confrontation ought to tell the Dems they have a tarbaby on their hands.</p>
<p>“So, if the President was never in the loop, what are the legal grounds for invoking Executive Privledge, which only covers Presidential communications?”</p>
<p>It’s a beautiful thing when the press does its job.</p>
<p>“what are the legal grounds for invoking Executive Privledge”</p>
<p>I should think that at a minimum any papers or documents or meetings used to prepare briefings for the president would also have to be covered even if he did not recieve the briefings. Before you can give the president your honest advice you have to form an opinion yourself.</p>
<p>Really where do you think this is going? here are not even allegations of wrongdoing at this point let alone the slightest evidence thereof. You think this Supreme Court is going to allow a bunch of partisan congressmen to go on a fishing expedition inside the White House when they don’t even have a clue what they are looking for? US Attorney’s are appointed positions and they serve at the presidents pleasure. If he wanted to fire them because their belts didn’t match their shows that is his prerogative. That is why Clinton was able to fire all of them and reappoint whom he liked.</p>
<p>I think it’s going towards allegations that White House officials (Harriet Miers and Karl Rove) had Carol Lam fired to stop her investigation into corruption charges against the #3 at CIA, a defense contractor who was a member of Bush’s Pioneer club fundraisers, and a Republican Congressman who is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.</p>
<p>Good luck on that and if he did so what? The DA’s still serve at the presidents pleasure and if he doesn’t think they are doing a good job it is his duty to replace them. If congress thinks the #3 at CIA or a defense contractor or a Republican Congressman done wrong they can investigate that - though in my opinion they could better spend their time trying to figure out what papers Sandy Berger shredded and why he isn’t in jail. Or they can ask Hillary if she still has those FBI files she collected - we never got an answer to that one either.</p>
<p>Congress doesn’t have to. The first Republican Congressman plead guilty to accepting $2+ million in bribes from the defense contractor/Bush contributor and is currently serving a 10 year jail sentence. The defense contractor and the CIA boss were indicted by the fired US Attorney on her last day on the job a month ago. Her note to her superiors at Justice last May that she had gotten search warrants for the two is what prompted the flurry of e-mails identifying her as needing to be removed post haste.</p>
<p>Conveniently, the CIA contracts this particular defense contractor holds include supplying bottled water to the troops in Iraq.</p>
<p>Higherlead, you’re on: if I’m in charge, I ram the AG issue (rewarding political cronyism and deflecting unwanted corruption investigations) right up-- </p>
<p>The country is paying a high enough price that the GOP may be damned for an electoral generation.</p>
<p>This whole affair might also create problems for Pete Domenici’s and Heather Wilson’s re-election campaigns. Trying to strongarm the US Attorney and then getting the White House to fire him. A very highly respected Hispanic up and comer who had stellar ratings as a US Attorney.</p>
<p>“Her note to her superiors at Justice last May that she had gotten search warrants for the two is what prompted the flurry of e-mails identifying her as needing to be removed post haste.”</p>
<p>Either that or the fact that she wasn’t prosecuting many cases or paying any attention to US/Mexico border. US Attorney’s are political appointees. I would be shocked, shocked that politics might play a role in their dismissal but in Lam’s case it undoubtedly had more to do with what she wasn’t doing rather than what she was doing and she wasn’t bringing many cases.</p>
<p>The flurry of e-mails about Lam’s firing started the morning after she notified Justice that she had gotten search warrants and was proceding with the investigation of the CIA #3 and the defense contractor/Bushie fund-raiser. Probably just a coincidence.</p>
<p>ID: yes about Wilson & Domenici. What damning is that all these AG’s were Republicans seen as having a bright future. Trashed because they weren’t sufficiently “good Bushies.”</p>
<p>To me, that’s the biggest piece of evidence in support of these being “obstruction of justice” firings. If it were just incompetence, why bother for two years? They don’t even have replacements for most of 'em.</p>
<p>Of course, this administration has a track record of trashing anyone in the administration who isn’t a sufficiently good Bushie.</p>
<p>BTW, part of the EGO (“extraordinarily generous offer”) made by the White House to the Congressional committees is that the off-the-record interviews with Rove and Meiers would ban any questions about White House discussions. The administration officials would only be permitted to talk about their discussions with the Department of Justice.</p>
<p>I’ve been awfully busy with life lately (I’m the adult mentor for a high school robotics team), and haven’t been following DAgate. My bad.</p>
<p>If they are political appointees (and they are if they serve at the pleasure of the President), what’s the legal fuss? I understand that it might smell to high heaven, but doesn’t “at the pleasure of the President” mean that he could fire them for any reason at all – including necktie color or who they are prosecuting? Any pointers to actual facts would be welcome.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, the President has the legal authority to fire them for any reason he likes…as long as he is willing to take the political heat. What we are seeing now is that political heat. The goal is to make the Bushies squirm. The backdrop is six years of arrogance by the administration in dealing with Congress. In a nutshell, Congress is sick and tired of being lied to.</p>
<p>Department of Justice officials apparently lied to Congress about the firings in early February. In an effort to punish the US Attorneys and justify their firings, DOJ officials said the firings were the result of subpar performance. The problem is that some of them had received top peformance ratings.</p>
<p>Firing AG’s for a political purpose–obstruction of justice on one hand, rewarding undue political favors in prosecution targets on the other–is a political, not a legal crime. For political crimes, there are political penalties. We’re going to bring it.</p>
<p>N.B., it was pointed out to me that a certain Monica served at the pleasure of the president. A lot more straightforward, honest, and less damaging to the country if you ask me.</p>
<p>TheMom tonight said that she could take Bush a lot better if he were a fictional character. I’m inclined to agree.</p>
<p>For the sake of completeness, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Spector has pointed out several potential illegalities in this story, including:</p>
<p>a) the alleged pressure applied to fired US Attorney Iglesias to bring indictments by Sen. Domineci and Rep. Heather Mills.</p>
<p>b) alleged threats from the Department of Justice to the fired US Attorneys not to testify before Congress.</p>
<p>c) the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam to stop the prosecution of an administration official and Bushie fund-raiser on corruption charges.</p>
<p>Although it is unlikely to get that far, these three may all fall under “obstruction of justice” laws, according to Spector.</p>
<p>In addition, the Attorney General of the United States testified before the Judiciary Committee that none of these firings were political. That may have been perjury.</p>
<p>If “The goal is to make the Bushies squirm.” then the goal is strictly political which shows you how interested in bipartisan government the current Democrat leadership is. Not surprising as the only principlr holding that amalgam of special interests together is the thirst for power. When they throw out the NOLA congressman who was caught on tape taking bribes and found with $90 grand in the freezer then maybe we can take Pelosi & company seriously as clean government advocates. Until then we are right to judge them as interested in nothing more than the politics of personal destruction.</p>