1. Anonymous says:

    Note: just in case anyone wants to have a discussion of how Isikoff works, here’s his statement on the Goodling inquiry:

    Two government officials (not ID’d when talking about an ongoing probe) told NEWSWEEK the inquiry began after Jeff Taylor, the interim U.S. attorney in D.C., complained that Goodling tried to block the hiring of a prosecutor in his office for being a â€liberal Democratic type.â€

    He doesn’t tell a different story than Leonnig. He tells an incomplete one. And by leaving the rest unexplained–how we got from Taylor to OPR–he leaves a completely inaccurate suggestion about Taylor.

  3. freepatriot says:

    so EW, what do you do, sit around all day lookin this stuff up ???

    I’m pretty good at spotting a bullshitter, but I have a problem detailing all of the little clues that cause me to know I’m dealing with a bullshitter

    you seem to have no problem with this at all

    you’re like Michigan’s version of Vincent Gambini or something

    I guess your finished with this guy ???

    on a personal note: so why didn’t you go to law school, EW ???

    and why not go now ???

    Trust me dude, I’ve seen your parents argue, they’re amatuers

  5. Anonymous says:

    So is there anything we can do about this (by which I guess I mean â€pressure our reps to doâ€) other than wait for the next administration? We have an ever growing number of foxes under the jurisdiction of the Eastern Henhouse of Virginia, and, we need to have someone other than other foxes to criminally investigate them.

    If this were a normal administration with a sense of shame, revealing that attorneys had been hired through an illegal process (political litmus test) or an improper process (to skirt the political litmus test) would be enough to get them to resign, but I don’t see that happening here.

  6. Sojourner says:

    I just wonder how the hell you can write this stuff so fast! I write professionally (in a different venue) but I cannot come up with stuff nearly so fast as you do…

    Does smoke come off your keyboard?

  7. Anonymous says:

    â€Sure, he’s made some mistakes in judgment,†Taylor said. â€For gosh sakes, everybody deserves a second chance.â€

    can anyone tell me why this kind of attitude is acceptable? NOBODY deserves a goddamn thing in this world. The ’second chance’ doctrine is entirely incompatible with the neocon philosophy. Actions have consequences, and when you screw up, you should pay the price for it. If the manager can’t fire a failed employee, perhaps it is the manager who is a failure?

  8. bmaz says:

    I am no fan of this cluck Apperson, and there is NO WAY he should be rehired anywhere in the Justice Department, he is disqualified for forging/misappropriating Sensebrenner’s signature. However, that act is not directly analogous to the Iglesias/ Charlton situations. In Iglesias and Charlton, congresscritters tried to put pressure on prosecutorial discretion; strictly verbotten. In the Apperson scenario, irrespective of whether it was Apperson or Sensebrenner behind the communication, the communication was in effect a sentencing recommendation to a judge. This in no way per se makes it necessarily proper, but it is far different than trying to affect a charging decision.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Redshift

    Oh, dont’ worry, I think you’re particularly henhouse is proving to be particularly well-guarded–Chuck Rosenberg seems to be a real straight shooter, and recommended two DOJ investigations that were appropriate.

    It’s DC that we need to worry about. You know–they guy enforcing any subpoenas Congress issues? The guy we’re counting on to arrest Condi for contempt after Waxman’s patience gives out?

    bmaz

    Point well taken.

  10. Polly says:

    Why would there be twenty vacancies in Taylor’s office since he took over last September? Isn’t twenty a lot?

    Aren’t these Assistant USA positions civil service, different from the four year limited term of political appointees?

    Did twenty civil service attorneys quit rather than work for a â€loyal Bushieâ€?

  11. Anonymous says:

    Polly

    It could be any number of things, though it is a question I am curious to have answered myself. Most USA offices have a bunch of unfilled AUSA positions–it allows DOJ to pretend they have increased FTEs without actually spending the money. Perhaps, in Taylor’s case (perhaps in the case of the favorites?) he actually got to fill those unfilled AUSAs.

  12. orionATL says:

    polly’s question is a good one.

    i would add a related question/comment:

    twenty gov hires in seven months is extraordinary SPEED. a lot of the usual steps for federal hiring must have been compressed greatly or ignored.

    sounds like they were in one hell of a rush to gear up for something.

  14. orionATL says:

    maybe these hires were a result of the sampson/goodling â€special powers†memo signed by gonzales.

    maybe opm was the source of the leak about this secret memo.

  15. Polly says:

    sounds like they were in one hell of a rush to gear up for something.
    Posted by: orionATL

    After Nov. 7, could the D.C.’s USA be gearing up to throw rocks in the path of the Congressional investigations they knew would be coming?

    These wheels within wheels are beginning to scare me.