One rule for Dems, another for Reps

To show the utter hyprocrisy and absolute absurdity of the cries of "foul" by the Dems on the US Atty's, a few pointed comments and quotes from the annals by the anals.

Hillary says, if elected, she'd fire all Bush attorney appointees.

"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.

"I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law," Clinton said.

She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

Interesting that the beef here is because Dems say the US Atty's were fired for "political" reasons. Also interesting is that to fire all appointees from a previous CIC of the opposing party in order to replace with all of the incoming political party doesn't pass the Dem's muster for being "political".

Huh?

If it doesn't get confusing enough as to what is clearly acceptable in Congresses' eyes, consider Arlen Specter's comment on Mar 25ths MTP. Emphasis is mine.

Listen, they serve at the pleasure of the president, and President Clinton discharged, in one fell swoop, all 93. So that the president can discharge without a reason, but I think they cannot be discharged for a bad reason.

They can be discharged for *no* reason, but not for a "bad" reason. sigh... With GOP "friends" like this, who needs Dem enemies?

Truly double speak from a forked tongue pol here. Does anyone think that logic would play out in the private sector? Fire someone for no reason is a guaranteed lawsuit in the making. Having a reason may be debatable, but no reason??

Naturally, it's that unknown (but they're hoping) "bad reason" that gives Congress the impression they have the latitude (and patriotic "duty") to conduct a witch hunt hearing, and issue subpoenas to Presidential advisers. They have no evidence that it's a "bad" reason, just suspicions. Point is, in search of the next daily scandal, they are just aghast that the President and advisers didn't advise those sorry asses in Congress about letting the eight attys go.

On the danger of subpoenas, too many are missing the importance of Congressional power at will to drag WH advisers in under oath. Bad juju precedent here. No one will ever give any kind of consultation to a President for which they can be liable, put on a stand and wait for Congress to dole whatever crime-of-the-day they're passing out like candy. Advisers will have to hold back and say less for self defense and litigation protection... much as the medical profession must do sundry, worthless tests and drive up medical bills in order to avoid malpractice suits. It's all about the CYB behavior so many industries have been driven to in our lawsuit happy society because of trial lawyers.

But let's move on to another obvious "one rule for Dems, another rule for Reps" bit. One of the fired US Attorneys was Paul McKay of the State of Washington. That would be the State where the sitting governor was put in by a margin of 129 votes. However King County itself had an approx 1800 vote discrepancy that was never accounted for. And that tally was revised several times.

So in 2005, they began the trial at the local levels... and this eventually made it to McKay's desk.

McKay stated that he had an interview at the White House - a meeting with Harriet Miers and her deputy Bill Kelly. Here's his Sunday MTP comments on that subject, and what they asked in the interview.

MR. RUSSERT: And did they ask you why you did not go forward with an investigation or with indictments?

MR. McKAY: No, they actually asked me why Republicans in the state of Washington would be angry with me. And, of course, all of the actions taken by the federal government, which were not publicly discussed, were well-known to, to my supervisors and, and those who follow our work in Washington, D.C. So I was a little surprised that they would ask me about that, since our office had carefully reviewed the evidence, and really, in the case of the 2004 governor’s election here, the lack of evidence. And the decision that I made not to go forward was a really unanimous decision with the Seattle division of the FBI. So, so from our standpoint, it wasn’t controversial from an evidentiary standpoint, even though it was very controversial in the state of Washington.

Okaaaaay.... First note here. Notice the DOJ wasn't pressing the "you didn't prosecute" accusation. They were passing on the fact that they had a lot of complaints from Republican constituents about McKay's performance. And quite frankly, me as an Oregonian watching it all, found it all pretty darned odd as well. It was a very narrow margin, unlike the 2000 Presidential election margin.

But notice the distinct attitude here. It's a non-issue with the Dems because, not only did they win the gubernatorial seat, but a Republican Presidential appointee pronounced a "lack of evidence" to continue with the trial and investigation. Say no more, say no more. Book snaps shut... tightly.

So how come the "lack of evidence" for a crime doesn't slam the book shut on Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby, Cheney and Rove? Apparently "lack of evidence" is only viable as a non-issue when it falls on the side of the liberal playbook. sniff.. Something truly reeks in Congress.

'nuff. Think I'll spend the evening watching "Happy Feet" instead. Grin and lower my blood pressure for awhile.