Mormons and the Justice Department Scandal
An other week and other Bush administration scandal. This one involves a Mormon though so I figured I’d pass along the news. From the Deseret News:
Former Utah-based attorney and Brigham Young University graduate D. Kyle Sampson resigned Monday as chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the midst of a growing scandal involving eight fired U.S. attorneys.
Sampson, who almost became Utah’s U.S. attorney, had a federal political career that included stops in the U.S. Congress, the White House and the Justice Department.
New York Times has a good article on Kyle Sampson. It shows how he was pressing to get the plush US attorney position over Utah, so he could be back home. Too bad his bosses are setting him up to be the fall guy.
Comment by Dan — March 14, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Barf.
Comment by Connor — March 14, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
WSJ writes about the Clinton White House and its mass firing of prosecutors.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
Sorry I don’t do links.
Comment by Anon — March 14, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Anon,
Go learn a little something about what and who fired USA Carol Lam was investigating before trying to tell folks there’s nothing to see here …
Comment by Chino — March 14, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
How sickening. Imagine leaving so many unfired. Janet Reno only did 93 in one week. Why can’t we all be Dems like Hillary and push for 93 and then call foul when only 7 are fired. Dang.
Comment by Larry — March 14, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Larry,
What’s sickening is that the Pentagon releases a transcript of a confession from someone we’ve had in custody for like, what, 5 years, just to get Gonzales off the front pages …
Convince me that San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was not fired because of her prosecution of former Republican congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, and I’ll buy whatever else it is your selling …
Comment by Chino — March 14, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Anon, while such prosecutors do work at the whim of the President, firing everyone in the first year of office (which was fairly common) is different from this case. What is at issue, from what I can see, isn’t the firing but how the office was being used.
I’m not saying there weren’t legal shenanigans going on under Clinton – although Clinton was far more competent in his shenanigans than Bush and company are. However being at bad as Clinton is a pretty low standard to aim for. I think many conservatives had hoped for far more when Bush took office. It’s been an ongoing series of disappointments for us since he took office. He hasn’t raised the ethics of the administration one bit.
Comment by clark — March 15, 2007 @ 12:36 am
According to this article the action by President Clinton was not common:
At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
Again from the article talking about the political motivation behind doing so:
Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was “within 30 days” of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton’s economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton.
As for why Clinton is being brought up, it’s a matter of providing perspective to an overblown story.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 3:56 am
Aluwid,
The Wall Street Journal Op-ed Page will never give you a straight story. Get that in your head now. IT actually IS a common occurrence for a new administration to come in and clean out all the attorneys. Reagan did it to Carter’s attorneys, Bush jr. did it to Clinton’s attorneys in 2001. The only Clinton gets press on this is because he did it in one swift blow, instead of letting the clock run out. But yes, this is a common occurrence. When (not if) Barack Obama becomes president in 2009, he will most likely do the same to Bush’s attorneys.
The Clinton attorney firing is a red herring.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 8:50 am
Chino, you seem to think you have an ability to know what I am “trying” to do. Perhaps you can talk to my wife for me. That might be extremely helpful in preventing misunderstandings and miscommunications in the future.
All I was trying to do was reference what I thought was a relevant article about a seemingly similar situation (the firing of federal prosecutors for political reasons or for reasons other than merit or performance). Is there a reason this article is not relevant? Is the information contained in the article not accurate?
Cheers.
Comment by Anon — March 15, 2007 @ 9:04 am
Dan, focus on the difference in what Clinton did per your words:
“The only [reason] Clinton gets press on this is because he did it in one swift blow, instead of letting the clock run out.”
The question becomes, why the difference? What was the rush, why not let the clock run out like is usually done? I imagine that letting so many US Attorneys go at the same time nationwide had an adverse affect on many cases in motion. A reasonable answer to this question is provided in the quotes I specified above, he wanted to halt one investigation into an ally and he wanted to appoint a friendly DA due to upcoming Whitewater investigations. The easiest way to do both with plausible deniability would be to fire all US Attorneys at the same time.
So no, the Clinton attorney firing is not a red herring. It makes the point that this is politics as usual. Clinton does it and Democrats don’t care but Republicans cry foul. Bush does it and suddenly Democrats care but Republicans don’t.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Aluwid, note that the real problem is less the firings but the manner in which it was handled which appears to have involved a fair bit of deceit to congress. Understandably congress is upset. Even John Sununu is calling for Gonzales’ head. I know I would if he had lied to me.
As with so much in the Bush administration they went for the short expediency and gave little thought to the consequences.
I’d disagree obviously with the idea that Republicans don’t care. I think most Republicans have had about enough of Bush destroying our party. This is but the latest. And, as I said, aspiring to Clinton’s level of ethics isn’t exactly putting the bar high. The fact that Bush did it in a worse and more unseemly fashion really hurts him. Back in 2000 I was excited for a change from Clinton – now I just seem most of the worst excesses in government continuing.
Comment by clark — March 15, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Clark,
In regards to Sununu, he’s from New Hampshire, and in 2008 he will most likely lose his Senate seat. He’s trying desperately hard to distance himself from Bush and all the scandals. But he will suffer the same fate, alas, as that of his compatriot from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Hey Clark, I was focusing mainly on the firings, I haven’t followed the whole manner it was handled so I won’t comment on that. My posts here were pretty much a follow-up of the impeachment thread where the firings were being used as yet another reason for impeachment. I don’t like it when Bush does things that were done in the past but suddenly are now grounds for impeachment. Of course if Bush were to commit perjury for instance then I wouldn’t complain if the subject of impeachment comes up.
In other words, I’m not trying to justify what Bush did. I’m not sure of the particulars so I don’t know if I should be upset at him or not. But I wish people could say that they don’t like what the President did without “impeachment” always being brought up. And I also dislike the predictable partisan take on so many of these issues. Despite what you said in your latter paragraph it’s my impression that most Republicans really aren’t concerned about this matter other than that they want it out of the news. It’s also my perception that most Democrats are the same way when the situation is reversed.
It seems like this is the thought process that is too commonly followed:
“A high ranking elected official just got caught in a sex scandal! What is your opinion?”
“Well that depends, are they a Republican or a Democrat?”
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Looks like the Gonzales scandal is deepening.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Aluwid, I agree vis a vis impeachment. Although I think Bush has done so much bad that he’s a bit beyond even Clinton at this point. Although the big difference is that Clinton was self-centered but very competent whereas Bush seems sincere but amazingly incompetent.
I do think this firing bit will turn into a bigger scandal than most realize simply because it will bring out so many of Bush’s strategies and actions. While Bush, at this point, is already a lame duck and pretty well undermined this may bring down his government in a way unparalleled. I hope I’m wrong because I don’t want this to happen to our country. But I fear it…
Dan, I just realized I was confusing Sen. Sununu with his father. Mea Culpa.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 15, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Guys,
You’re completely missing the point.
Yes, every President does mass firings of Federal Prosecutors when he first takes office. Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, and Bush Jr. did it.
That’s not news, no one cares about that. It’s expected that a President will fill the prosecutor spots with people he agrees with and who agree with him.
But what is unusual is for a President to fire so many in HIS SECOND TERM (after he’s already presumably stacked the deck in his favor). Clinton, Reagan, Carter, all of them only fired at most, one or two prosecutors in their second terms. One or two!
You only fire in your second term due to scandal, incompetence or other blatant wrongdoing. The firing of eight prosecutors in a second term is absolutely unheard of.
To fire people because they weren’t moving fast enough in investigating Democratic scandals and because they refused to slow down investigation and prosecution of Republican scandals is not only unprecedented in recent US history, it’s also, quite frankly, sleazy.
This is not par for the course. It’s actually a pretty clear-cut case of obstruction of justice. It’s subverting the administration of American justice to politics. This is not “no big deal.” If Alberto Gonzales had any class at all, he’d resign – now.
The Bush administration has always liked spouting-off about how Congress shouldn’t be second-guessing the hard working men and women of the executive branch. They like to pompously insist that politicians not interfere in the day-to-day workings of our nation.
But it seems the administration has zero qualms about doing the same thing it’s reprimanding Congress for.
Comment by Seth R. — March 15, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
and the plot thickens. it seems that Rove and Gonzales were at the heart of the purge after all, right from January 2005, directly contradicting what everyone from the Bush administration has said to this point.
Additionally, CREW has filed a complaint about the emails.
We can see why Bush and Rove tried sooooo hard last fall to convince Americans to keep Congress in Republican control.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
But what is unusual is for a President to fire so many in HIS SECOND TERM (after he’s already presumably stacked the deck in his favor).
Not every President engages in mass firings of the sort Clinton engaged in. Bush didn’t, for instance, although reportedly some wanted him to. Rather they wanted some more targeted firings.
In this case, while there is some suspicion in a few cases the biggest issue to me seems less the firing than the coverup.
I think there’s a fair bit of Democratic hypocrisy in all this, even though I think some Republicans are overstating it. I think that had prosecutors moved slower on what Democrats thought was voter fraud that they’d have been fired and no one would have cared. (Yes, a counterfactual claim and thus hard to prove – but that’s my perception)
In any case despite the hypocrisy in all this, that doesn’t excuse Republican actions. We were supposed to be better than Democrats rather than merely doing them one better…
Comment by clark — March 15, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
clark,
Which Bush? If you’re talking about Bush senior, he already had a bunch of Reagan appointees. Who was he realistically going to fire.
Actually, the word “fire” is a bit misleading. The FreePress blog has a post on the process of appointing federal prosecutors:
http://1fp.us/2007/03/13/how-us-attorneys-get-appointed/
Here’s an excerpt:
Comment by Seth R. — March 15, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Seth, I recognize that’s the argument being made, but it just doesn’t hold water in my opinion. Why should it be OK to fire at the beginning of ones term and not later? That makes no sense.
Now if it can be shown that the firiings were done for illegitimate reasons (either for not pursuing a bogus politically inspired case or for following a legitimate case against a political friend) that’s something else entirely. While some are making those arguments most are not.
Note that I’m anything but happy about this. I think Bush has politicized too much and (as we saw with FEMA) put political hacks in too many places where competence is demanded. Loyalty rather than competence has been the by-word of this administration.
Comment by clark — March 15, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
To add, what makes the Bush situation different is that unlike Reagan or Clinton Bush didn’t fire everyone in 2001.
Comment by clark — March 15, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Clark, your thoughts mirror what I was thinking after reading the latest comments. I find the whole story very strange. Apparently it’s completely alright to replace attorneys at the beginning of your term, presumedly for partisan/political motives such as that you expect they will work the type of cases in the manner that you like or perhaps they get the job as a political reward. What is not ok is, after you’ve made your selection and later realized that they were not all that you expected them to be, replacing them with a difference choice.
So basically, it’s not wrong to replace attorneys for partisan reasons (otherwise why would Democrats replace Republicans or vice versa) but what is wrong is to have a “do-over” later in your term when you decide that you don’t like your choice after all. Choose good the first time I guess, and hope that your legal problems are conveniently situated at the beginning of your term so you can clean them up without anyone raising a fuss.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
clark,
Actually yes, they do. Bush fired all but one of Clinton’s attorneys. Reagan fired all of Carter’s attorneys. This is actually commonplace. What isn’t commonplace is firing attorneys in the middle of a term, which is what Bush just did. Clinton fired one, and for good reason. Bush fired eight. And as we see, the reasons were political, and not performance based.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Clark,
Actually he did.
Look at this article from the New York Times in 2001 on Ashcroft beginning to replace Clinton’s attorneys.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
Dan,
As has been pointed out, other Presidents let the tenures expire and replaced them. Clinton fired them all at once. That wasn’t usual.
Either way, I still don’t get why we’re all ok with Presidents stacking the deck in their favor at the beginning of their term but not at the midpoint when they figure out some of their cards are lousy.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Aluwid,
before this Purgegate US attorneys were considered to be outside the political realm of the party, much like the Attorney General himself (or herself) was to be. They were to be independent, thereby going after all wrongdoers, regardless of the party they belonged to. What we see from Purgegate is that Bush fired these particular attorneys because they either didn’t press hard enough on some Democrats, or they pressed too hard on Republicans. This frustrates the role of justice. If these attorneys are to be considered partisans, then anytime a Democratic administration comes to power, Republicans are to cower in fear, and vice versa. This will frustrate and degrade justice and the rule of law, because during those administrations, the party in power could just simply walk over all the laws because they know the local attorney will not prosecute them.
This is bad for America.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
Dan,
Cute that you’re calling it Purgegate.
How independent can a law body be when they all just happen to get replaced when a new President of the other political party comes into power? How does that not have an impact on the cases they will follow etc?
If we really care about partisan choices of US Attorneys then why do we allow them to be replaced like this? Why not enforce the normal civil service rules where you know your job is safe no longer who gets elected as long as you don’t screw up too badly?
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
I meant “…where you know your job is safe no matter who gets elected…” not no longer
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Aluwid,
You’ll note the quote I provided says that all US Assistant AGs traditionally tender their resignations when a new President takes office.
The AGs serve “at the pleasure of the President.” They offer up resignations. The President either accepts them or not.
There is nothing inherently wrong with politics. The Constitutional framework of separation of powers is blatantly political. The AG’s are supposed to be political animals. It offers one more check and balance in the system.
But here’s the distinction:
Once they are in office, the AGs are beholden to the rule of law. The law is the law, and is not subordinate to politics.
I have no problem with the appointment process being political.
I do have a problem with the prosecution of cases and enforcement of the law being political.
The scandal is NOT the political nature of the appointment process. The scandal is that the Bush administration has tried to obstruct justice and politicize the process of law enforcement.
That, my friends, is 50 times more worrisome than a President politicizing something that he’s already allowed to politicize under the Constitution.
I honestly don’t give a damn if Bush wants to appoint his own “waterboys” to AG positions. He’s allowed to do it with ambassadors, he’s allowed to do it with his cabinet. He’s allowed to do it with his running mate.
Big freakin deal.
Being political isn’t inherently Satanic you know.
Comment by Seth R. — March 15, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Seth,
Just to be clear that we aren’t playing favorites here. In 1993 one of the US Attorney’s that was fired by Clinton was investigating one of Clinton’s congressional allies. Was this an example of “the prosecution of cases and enforcement of the law being political”? If not, why not?
If what Bush did was wrong because it was during the course of law enforcement then it seems to me that the standard should not be that every President replaces the past Presidents Attorneys over time but rather that they only do so provided that those Attorneys are not currently investigating a case where a conflict of interest related to the President is present. Otherwise we’re giving freebies just because the President’s legal problems happened to land on a convenient year.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
I have a post still in moderation, please.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Aluwid,
Just so we’re clear here, that individual who was being investigated by that attorney, was actually convicted by Clinton’s appointed attorney. Just because Reagan’s attorney was fired by Clinton did not mean that justice was being thwarted. The individual was still convicted. Later, Clinton pardoned him, which as president he is allowed to do.
To this point conservatives haven’t proven Clinton did anything wrong with firing Reagan and Bush’s attorneys.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Dan,
So I guess Clinton made a pretty lousy pick then eh?
How could it be proven that Clinton did anything wrong with firing all the attorneys if that is more or less what all Presidents do? The worst thing that could be said is that he’s shrewd.
The whole point I’m getting at is that we’re being asked to get all upset at Bush for doing this, yet we’re supposed to be ok if he had done it just two years earlier. If the President that is elected in 2008 learns anything from this story it’s that he/she should ask for resignation letters from all their attorneys every year. Then they can conveniently reject the resignations of those that are doing the job as they want and accept the ones they want to quietly get rid of.
Personally I think the standard should change to reflect that no President should ever fire or “accept the resignation” of any Attorney that is currently investigating a case that represents a personal or political conflict of interest. If we’re going to get all up in arms about this then we might as well solve it for the next time while we’re at it.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Aluwid,
The issue is not that he fired them, but WHY he fired them. At this point, you have to look at each attorney individually. John McKay of Washington was fired because he didn’t press allegations of ‘voter fraud’ after the 2004 gubernatorial election. What kind of voter fraud? Republicans were up in arms because they lost by 150 some odd votes. The election was certified, and Mr. McKay saw no evidence of voter fraud, so he didn’t press any charges.
Carol Lam of San Diego. She was investigating the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal that rocked Congress and the CIA. Many people resigned over this. The deeper she went, the more Republicans she found tied to the scandal. Suddenly she is fired because of ‘performance issues.’ Yet just a few months before she was fired, she received high marks for performance.
David Iglesias of New Mexico. This one looks to take down a Senator, Mr. Pete Domenici. Iglesias was looking into indicting a Democrat in 2006. Mr. Domenici and a Republican Congresswoman (I forget her name off the top of my head) actually called Iglesias (when they are not supposed to do this) and asked him if he could press this indictment before the November 2006 election. Mr. Iglesias said no. A month later he is fired over ‘performance issues.’
The attorney overseeing Guam was investigating Jack Abramoff, and getting deeper and deeper into Republican ties. He was fired.
And so on….
And to make matters worse, these attorneys were fired for “performance issues” which is a black mark on their record, even though just months before their release, their own records show that they had high commendations.
Then to make matters even worse, Gonzales and Sampson both lie under oath to Congress about the matter. Tony Snow lies about Rove’s involvement. And suddenly all these Bush administration officials claim “plausible deniability,” “I have no recollection, sir.”
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Dan,
If anyone can be proven to have lied under oath then throw the book at them. Otherwise my previous recommendation stands, if I’m supposed to get mad at Bush for replacing attorneys in the middle of his term for political reasons then I should also get mad when he does it for the same reasons at the beginning of his term.
Comment by Aluwid — March 15, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Aluwid,
If indeed there were performance issues, I don’t think anyone would be bothered that these attorneys were fired mid-term. But they were not fired for performance issues. They were fired because they didn’t press against Democrats hard enough, and pressed too hard on Republicans. This is called the politicization of the law, and is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Let me state again, if the reason for their removal was indeed performance, then by all means, don’t get upset. I won’t either. I would say, they deserved it. But that’s not why they were fired.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Aluwid,
I’m mad because this happened in the middle of the prosecution of outstanding cases in a blatant attempt to influence the outcome of those cases.
I don’t care about the political appointment scheme in our Justice Department.
This is not about being mad about “playing politics.”
It’s about obstruction of justice.
The AGs were in the middle of carrying out cases. That function was interfered with.
Comment by Seth R. — March 15, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
The good folks at Talkingpointsmemo have created a timeline which shows the events that led up to the firings and then the political mess those firings created.
Comment by Dan — March 15, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Since we are being so hard on Bush, why did Clinton appoint an assistant AG that had been found guilty of serious charges in Arkansas to assist that paragon of virtue who became his AG, Janet Reno? Wasn’t this man the same one that interrupted the investigation of HRH and ran interference to the point that nothing could be investigated.
Having said that, I don’t mean to imply any virtue on Bush’s part, as Clarke has so aptly pointed out. I just hate to see Dems gloat that they are the virtuous ones. Clarke is right. It is disgraceful to see the Republicans fall to the level of the Dems. That is the biggest tragedy.
It would be nice to know also why Bush is selling out the U.S. to Mexico, but I’m also curious as to why the voices further West have given an apparent nod to his policies. Any ideas?
Comment by Larry — March 15, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
Dan,
Just as an aside, if I recall, the Dems were quick to prosecute in the press, and condemn (slander), a certain Senator from Florida just before the election to ensure that their political ends were met. I’m sure it was purely coincidental that he was found not guilty immediately afterwards.
Imagine a Republican having the same goal, only trying to do it legally, if not quickly. How shameful.
Those kind of actions probably escape your radar.
Comment by Larry — March 15, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
Larry, at this stage I say a pox on all their houses. I hope Obama wins the Democratic nomination and that Fred Thompson enters and wins the Republican. Regardless of policies it would be nice to have some more trustworthy people in office. Right now I can’t stand the leadership of either party.
Comment by clark — March 16, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Larry,
Who’s gloating?
Or maybe you’re finally seeing the fact that Republicans have always been just as bad. What’s with this notion that somehow Republicans were above the fray? I could show you numerous examples of corruption and lying and obstruction of justice in Reagan’s administration. This is nothing new. And let’s not even bring up Nixon!
I’m guessing you are referring to Mark Foley. Dude, you gotta stop reading Michelle Malkin and Instapundit.
Comment by Dan — March 16, 2007 @ 8:42 am
Instapundit has been highly critical of the Republican leadership for several years now. And he was highly critical of Foley which he saw as evidence of how far the leadership was out of touch.
Republicans have often been just as bad – but the reforms in the 90′s were supposed to be about reforming government. And, despite some problems, Republicans seemed to be doing rather well. Then Bush came to power… And we’ve already had that conversation. But lots of Republicans were highly critical of Bush that summer over all sorts of expanding the federal government issues. Then 9/11 led to rallying around the President. But the past two years have brought plenty of grumbling.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 16, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Clark Goble,
Having a “small government conservatives” running the federal government is a contradiction in terms.
This inherent schizophrenia within the GOP was bound to force a collapse once the Republicans were given free reign.
You can’t run federal programs without paying for them and staffing them. You can’t run a federal government if you don’t believe in federal government. Plain and simple.
Comment by Seth R. — March 16, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Seth – don’t confuse small government with no government. There’s a huge difference between a libertarian and a conservative. Conservatives want a small government efficiently run.
Comment by Clark Goble — March 16, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Clark,
when was the last time that conservatives, actually in power, ran a smaller government than the one they took on at the start of their term? I’m curious.
Comment by Dan — March 16, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Bob Barr, a Reagan appointed attorney says the following about the Purgegate and Gonzales:
Comment by Dan — March 16, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Dan, good job at keeping your comments shorter. I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it.
Comment by annegb — March 18, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
What happened to Kyle? I thought we were talking about him?
Comment by Jordan — March 22, 2007 @ 7:59 pm