Balkinization: Goodling Written Statement

Comments:

Is it illegal to ask whether they are members of the Federalist Society? I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?

# posted by

Charles : 2:04 PM

I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?

Please provide your source for that assertion.

# posted by

Anderson : 2:17 PM

Charles:

I don't know if you're deliberately misreading Marty's comment, but I'll charitably assume you're doing it accidentally. Marty mentioned that Ms. Goodling admitted that she may have checked on the political affiliations of Assistant United States Attorneys. Appointments to those positions, unlike appointments to the U.S. Attorney positions, are supposed to be made on a non partisan basis. Thus, the political affiliations of Clinton's nominees for U.S. Attorney positions, whatever those affiliations might have been, are totally irrelevant.

# posted by

Profhsg : 2:27 PM

Anderson:

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/research.html http://www.nndb.com and http://www.google.com

profhsg:

You don't think any of Clinton's AUSA hires were Democrats either? As I understand Goodling's testimony, OLC had indicated that Immigration Judge appointments, for instance, were not subject to the civil service rules. On the waiver requests, it seems that Goodling is admitting "in a very small number of cases" that her decisions may have been influenced in part based on political considerations, and she regrets that mistake.

# posted by

Charles : 2:48 PM

Charles, translated: "No, I don't actually have a source for that assertion -- would you find one for me, please?"

# posted by

Anderson : 2:58 PM

Not at all, Anderson. You asked for the source(s) I got that from, so I gave them to you. Every Clinton U.S. Attorney I've looked up was indeed a Democrat. I'm surprised you would doubt that in any event.

# posted by

Charles : 3:06 PM

She said "Attorney General Gonzales lied"? I am surprised her lawyers is not right there at the table a la Oliver North.

# posted by

Charles : 3:17 PM

I'll go read her written statement fairly quickly, but I think she's a pretty good witness. Maybe it's because she's kind of hot, but it's my sense she is sincere and trying to tell the truth.

It's interesting that she's a much better witness than the Attorney General of the United States.

# posted by

cheerful iconoclast : 3:24 PM

Did Gonzales testify that he never saw a list or had never been briefed on the replacements?

# posted by

Charles : 3:25 PM

charles, 2:04 pm: "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats"

charles, 3:06 pm: "every Clinton U.S. Attorney I've looked up was indeed a Democrat"

(Emphasis added.) Those two claims are not the same. Why are you backpedaling? Is it because you were caught making a claim that you shamelessly pulled out of your hat?

If your main goal is to prove that you're a complete waste of time, and that only a fool would take any statement of yours at face value, you're doing a fine job.

# posted by

jukeboxgrad : 4:27 PM

Not at all, I've looked up over one hundred so far and haven't found a single Republican in the whole bunch -- also, the first quote was a question and the second quote was my assertion -- again, as I said above, I guess it just must have all been a big coincidence.

# posted by

Charles : 4:39 PM

Well, if you dig deep enough long enough, you can find someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation.

How many weeks has it taken to find this one silly person who was honest enough to actually admit that :::gasp::: political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions?

Apparently they did not teach the class on selective amnesia during testimony when she attended Regent's Law School. I thought that was a mandatory class after the Clinton years...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:25 PM

From the Republican Grimoire:

"An that ye LIBERALS do conjure up ye Vasty Spirits of Culpabilitie, against ye Partye or President, avert their curses ye may, with the mighty name of CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON."

I can't quote more, as the Grimoire's contents have been known to drive readers into utter madness or despair; the original, I believe, is kept under lock and key in the rare books room of what used to be Miskatonic University, but is now Regent.

# posted by

Anderson : 5:29 PM

Well, Anderson, it is kinda off topic, but YOU were the one who asked for my source -- here are the nominations I've checked so far -- if you can prove any were Republicans, I'd really appreciate it:

Nora M. Manella, Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Kendall Brindley Coffey, Larry Herbert Colleton, James Lamar Wiggins, and Kent Barron Alexander;

Mary Jo White, Betty Richardson, Zachary W. Carter, Patrick H. NeMoyer, James Patrick Connelly, John Thomas Schneider, and Janet Ann Napolitano;

Charles Robert Tetzlaff, William David Wilmoth, Gaynelle Griffin Jones, Karen Elizabeth Schreier,
Judith Ann Stewart, Walter Michael Troop, and Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.;

Stephen Charles Lewis, Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange, Thomas Justin Monaghan, John W. Raley, Jr., Randall K. Rathbun, Frederick W. Thieman, Michael Joseph Yamaguchi, and Paula Jean Casey;

Paul Kinloch Holmes, III, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Robert P. Crouch, Jr., David M. Barasch, Veronica Freeman Coleman, Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Helen Frances Fahey, Claude Harris, Jr., and Kathryn E. Landreth;

Jay Patrick McCloskey, Henry Lawrence Solano, Jon Ernest DeGuilio, Christopher Droney, Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Emily Margaret Sweeney, John Joseph Kelly, Carl Kimmel Kirkpatrick, Michael Rankin Stiles, Frances Cuthbert Hulin, Sherry Scheel Matteucci, and Alan D. Bersin;

James Burton Burns, Joseph Leslie Famularo, Walter Charles Grace, Michael David Skinner, Patrick Michael Patterson, Katrina Campbell Pflaumer, Charles Joseph Stevens, Don Carlos Nickerson, Stephen John Rapp, and Donald Kenneth Stern;

Rebecca Aline Betts, Robert Charles Bundy, Larry Herbert Colleton, Harry Donival Dixon, Jr., Lezin Joseph Hymel, Jr., David Lee Lillehaug, Kenneth Ray Oden, Paul Michael Gagnon, Mark Timothy Calloway, Walter Clinton Holton, Jr., and Kristine Olson Rogers;

Janice McKenzie Cole, Michael Hayes Dettmer, Saul A. Green, Stephen Lawrence Hill, John Marshall Roberts, Kent Barron Alexander, David D. Freudenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Gregory Moneta Sleet;

Charles Redding Pitt, Faith S. Hochberg, John Michael Bradford, Thomas Joseph Maroney, Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., Joe Bradley Pigott, Charles R. Wilson, Steven Scott Alm, and Joe Bradley Pigott;

J. Don Foster, Patrick M. Ryan, James Allan Hurd, Jr., James William Blagg, Calvin D. Buchanan, J. Rene Josey, Donna A. Bucella, Loretta E. Lynch;

Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey;

Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera;

Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee;

Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

I also never said those were my "only" sources -- here are some more:

http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub

http://www.nexis.com/research

http://www.congress.gov/nomis/

http://www.fec.gov

# posted by

Charles : 5:57 PM

charles:

If it was committed by a GOP Administration, it is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it was committed by the Clinton Administration, it is a coincidence from which we should moveon.org.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:32 PM

Charles,
You are an idiot. US Attorneys - the ones in charge of the districts - are not covered by the Civil Service Act, and therefore, the President may lawfully take into consideration their political leanings in deciding whether to offer any of them a position (or more specifically, nominate them).

# posted by

Unknown : 6:39 PM

charles: "the first quote was a question"

This is the complete sentence which contained "the first quote:"

I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?

That's not just "a question." It's a question which happens to contain an unqualified assertion. The assertion is this: "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats." You stated that assertion as if it's an established fact that you're in a position to prove. But when you were asked to show proof, you essentially admitted you couldn't.

(By the way, your sentence is not even a real question. It's a statement disguised as a rhetorical question. The statement you were really making was this: 'I think it's no coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats.')

We already know you lack integrity. We just appreciate the way you keep proving it over and over again.

"if you can prove any were Republicans"

More pathetic backpedaling. You didn't say none of them were Republicans. You said they all were Democrats. Maybe you're pretending to be too thick to understand that those claims are quite different.

"http://www.fec.gov"

Maybe this is your way of telling us that anyone who ever supported a Dem candidate is fairly labeled as a Dem, in your world. Am I reading you right? Otherwise I can't imagine why you're mentioning fec.gov.

Speaking of gratuitous links, why did you mention martindale? It could be you understand it better than I do, but I can't find the place where it lists party registration.

Anyway, you have some truly amazing research skills. You've presented 129 names, and you seem to be claiming that you verified that they're all Democrats. Really? I picked just one (Michael Joseph Yamaguchi) and can't manage to verify that. Could you let us in on the secret and tell us how you figured out that Yamaguchi is a Democrat?

bart: "someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation"

As far as I can tell, "the subject matter of the investigation" is Bush's project to politicize the DOJ. Today Goodling admitted that she was so eager to politicize the DOJ that she was willing to break the law in order to do so. Only on Planet Bart would this be considered "unrelated."

"How many weeks has it taken"

The whole process would move much more quickly if the Bushist perpetrators were not chronic stonewallers and amnesiacs.

":::gasp::: political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions"

There would be nothing to ":::gasp:::" about if "political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions" with regard to political positions. Trouble is, "political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions" with regard to positions that, by law, are supposed to be non-political.

We already know that the rule of law means nothing to you, but we appreciate the way you keep reminding us.

# posted by

jukeboxgrad : 6:57 PM

jukeboxgrad:

Sure, Nomination: PN513-103 (originally hired as Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Carter Administration -- he's only constributed to Democrats per on-line search -- I don't know of any Republicans who ONLY contribute to Democrats, do you?)

Michael Joseph Yamaguchi, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Department of Justice; vice Joseph P. Russoniello, resigned.
Received: July 29, 1993
Referred: Senate Judiciary
Latest Action: September 30, 1993 - Confirmed by the Senate

Later recommended by Senator Feinstein (D-CA) for federal District Court Judge, Yamaguchi withdraws his name from consideration without comment amid speculation that Yamaguchi's decision is the result of controversy over a misstep in a drug prosecution case. Senator Boxer (D-CA) also gave him ringing endorsement. Yamaguchi admires Thomas Jefferson for his intellectual pursuits; Thomas Edison for his inventive mind; Cicero for his brilliance as an orator and writer; Harry Truman for his complexities; and Robert Kennedy for his lawyering and political bravado.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-2354220.html

Again, I'm sure that is all just a big coincidence, and Yamaguchi is NOT really a Democrat. God forbid. We certainly can't make ANY reasonable inferences about all these ties to Democrats, can we? Wouldn't be prudent. Reasonable inferences only work when John Ashcroft is in a hospital.

Besides, you are an idiot. U.S. Attorneys - the ones in charge of the districts - are not covered by the Civil Service Act, and therefore, the President may lawfully take into consideration their political leanings in deciding whether to offer any of them a position (or more specifically, nominate them). We should have both listened to Alex in the first place.

# posted by

Charles : 8:00 PM

Charles, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or mocking me. But your citations to persons being nominated to the judiciary who are the same party as the President (Democrat in your examples), is also besides the point because those appointments are ALSO not covery by the Civil Service Act. In other words, there is, again, nothing improper in taking the political persuasion of a judicial nominee into consideration.

# posted by

Unknown : 8:06 PM

charles: "originally hired as Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Carter Administration"

That doesn't prove he's a Democrat. It's just circular as claiming that he must be a Democrat, since Clinton hired him.

"he's only constributed to Democrats per on-line search"

I found one contribution by Yamaguchi. He gave Dianne Feinstein $250 in 1996. Are you claiming he made other contributions?

"We certainly can't make ANY reasonable inferences about all these ties to Democrats, can we?"

It's possible he's a Dem. It's also possible he's an independent who leans Dem (a large category). He might even be a RINO. The problem is that you didn't say 'Clinton hired lots of people who have ties to Democrats.' You said, as if it were a proven fact, that "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats" (emphasis added). We see now that you're not in a position to prove that (you've admitted you haven't even researched them all). If you were an honest person, you would have said something like this: 'I've checked a bunch of his nominations, and they seem to be people with ties to Democrats.' There would have been nothing surprising (let alone improper) about that, so instead you made something up.

bart: "it was committed by the Clinton Administration"

You're suggesting that Bush simply did what Clinton had already done. Nice job pretending you don't understand the difference. Trouble is, Sampson himself admitted he understood the difference. He described the difference in an email to Miers (1/9/06):

Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys.

The U.S. Code provides that each United States Attorney "shall be appointed for a term of four years . . . [and] shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his sucessor is appointed and qualifies." … Accordingly, once confirmed by the Senate and appointed, U.S, Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinately (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan .and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.

(See link, pdf, pdf. Emphasis in the original.)

In other words, the prior practice, under Reagan and Clinton, was to install your crowd at the start, but then leave them in place. Reagan and Clinton both did this:

…historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan. Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

Then again, you probably don't trust LAT, so maybe you'd like it hear from those moonbats over at Fox News:

When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.

It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.

In other words, Reagan and Clinton hired their own people, but then left them alone to do their job. This wasn't enough for Bush, though, so he developed his own innovation: that he would install his own people, just like Reagan and Clinton did, but then he would replace his own people if it turned out they weren't "loyal Bushies." Here's how this seems to have been defined: they weren't willing to support Rove's fraudulent voter-fraud allegations.

Here's the standard Bushist talking point on this subject:

news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993.

That's how Brit Hume said it. And that's essentially what you're saying. Trouble is, that talking point is doubly fraudulent. First of all, it glosses over the fact that what Clinton did was no different than what Reagan did. More importantly, it glosses over the fact that what Bush did is quite different than what Clinton and Reagan did. Fox knows this. Even Gonzales' former chief of staff Sampson knows this. I think you know this, too, but you think you can get away with pretending you don't.

# posted by

jukeboxgrad : 10:47 PM

LOL -- Sampson was obviously mistaken about the Clinton Administration -- or, are you prepared to accept all the rest of his testimony too? As for Judge Yamaguchi, or anyone else I posted, I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats. As you said, there would be nothing surprising (let alone improper) with all of them being Democrats either.

# posted by

Charles : 11:38 PM

Charles:

I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats.

Say, Charles, you misspelled "assertion". No charge for the editing.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:56 PM

Cheers.

# posted by

Charles : 11:58 PM

OK, now that we have Charles on record as admitting to asserting a presumption as true, can we just drop that assertion and get on with the ... ummm ... "discussion", keeping that in mind?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:25 AM

The "rebuttable presumption" is "Clinton did it first!"

# posted by

Anderson : 9:27 AM

charles: "if anyone can rebut the presumption"

Just in case you have trouble grasping what Arne said, I'll go over it again for you. There's a material difference between the following two statements:

A) They were all Democrats; I don't mind conveying the impression that this is a proven fact, and that I possess such proof.

B) I presume they were all Democrats; I think this is a reasonable inference, even though I don't have proof.

An honest person would have said B. You're something different, so you said A.

Speaking of presumptions, it's now reasonable for us to presume that all your future statements which appear in the form of A should actually be interpreted as B. Thanks for reminding us that your words are basically worthless.

"there would be nothing surprising (let alone improper) with all of them being Democrats either"

Exactly. Which raises the following question: why did you mention it, to begin with? Oh, right, we almost forgot: in your usual style of compound deception, you were falsely suggesting that USAs are civil service jobs. And that Goodling apply political considerations when hiring civil servants was no different than Clinton applying political considerations when hiring USAs.

This was quickly pointed out to you. But instead of taking responsibility for your deception, you made a pathetic attempt at misdirection.

Your practice is to be simultaneously misleading on so many levels at the same time that it takes a concerted effort to sort it all out.

"Sampson was obviously mistaken about the Clinton Administration -- or, are you prepared to accept all the rest of his testimony too?"

Sampson's statement which I cited was not part of his testimony. It was in an email he sent to Miers.

And he wasn't "obviously mistaken," anymore than LAT and Fox were "obviously mistaken" when they said essentially the same thing he did. You're just "obviously" blowing more smoke.

One more time: Fox said "it is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job" (emphasis added). That's what Bush did. Seven on the same day. And a bunch of others, too. For no apparent reason. Fox News and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, both stated that this was essentially unprecedented. You claim they're wrong. Really? Prove it. Unless you want us to adopt the "presumption" that you're consistently a complete waste of time.

# posted by

jukeboxgrad : 10:47 AM

As for Judge Yamaguchi, or anyone else I posted, I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats.

Again, the political affiliation is irrelevant, as your statement was about "US attorneys," but the original post was about "assistant US attorneys"--a whole different animal by the rules. So, yes, it would be illegal to consider their political affiliation in the hiring process.

Take a gander at the donations of assistant US attorneys during the Clinton administration, and you'll see that many of them are/were Republicans.

Now, here's your next research project: during the Clinton administration, how many candidates for the position of assistant US attorney weren't hired because they were Republicans?

# posted by

PMS_CC : 1:03 PM

Well, if you dig deep enough long enough, you can find someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation.

"I mean, of course you'll find illegal activity if you look...."

# posted by

tm : 1:18 PM

Bart writes:If it was committed by a GOP Administration, it is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it was committed by the Clinton Administration, it is a coincidence from which we should moveon.org.

So if we reverse polarity, everything will be just fine, according to you?

There are still a few people concerned with what's ethical, as opposed to what fits your politics.

# posted by

John : 2:06 PM

jukeboxgrad:

"Compound deception" huh? Just for asking simple questions and pointing out facts. Interesting.

Look, to be fair, I finally did find ONE Clinton U.S. Attorney who is a registered Independent (although I don't know what his registration was back when he was evaluated and nominated). So, I will no longer make the above claim (whether in the form of a question or not). Nothwithstanding, I have now double-checked all the names I've gathered to date above (NOTE: I don't know if these are ALL of Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations either), so that one instance may just be the exception that proves the rule. Let me know if there are any other questions.

PMS:

For all those "non-political" jobs like Immigration Judge or assistant U.S. Attorneys, no one even answered my first qestion on that in this thread: "Is it illegal to ask whether they are members of the Federalist Society?" I don't think it is. What someone hiring cannot do is discriminate based on political affiliation. That is now being addressed on another thread dealing just with these kinds of issues: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/curious-case-of-goodling-and.html

As for your requested "next research project" I'm not even done with my first one! I will note that Melanie Sloan (the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) was indeed hired as an assistant U.S. Attorney during Clinton's term, although I'm going to just leave it up to your own judgment whether she's a Democrat or not:

1993: Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Joe Biden;

1994: Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for Charles Schumer;

1995 - 1998: Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee with John Conyers;

2003: approached by Norm Eisen to co-found CREW, which she ran single-handedly until 2005 when she began to be able to hire her own staff. CREW is counsel of record for the civil lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Until its demise, Sloan was a regular guest on Al Franken's show on Air America Radio.

http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2007/mostfearedwoman.asp

# posted by

Charles : 6:16 PM

Oh, as for Kyle Sampson and Fox News claiming "it is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. Attorneys who were his choices for the job" I don't know that seven have ever been dismissed all on the same day, but so what? They could have ALL been dismissed legally, and in hindsight that might have been the better political move.

We are probably never going to agree that it was good when Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys but bad when Bush did it. Can we at least agree on the facts that, second term, Clinton replaced MORE than seven who had been his initial choices for the job:

1) Audrey Fleissig replaced Edward L. Dowd, Jr.;

2) Steven Reed replaced Walter Troop;

3) Norman Bay replaced John Kelly;

4) Daniel Webber, Jr. replaced Patrick Ryan;

5) Quenton White replaced John Roberts;

6) Daniel French replaced Thomas Maroney;

7) Loretta Lynch replaced Zachary Carter; and

8) Donna A. Bucella replaced Charles R. Wilson.

That's just the first eight I picked out from above. Tere were, in fact, dozens of U.S. Attorneys replaced in Clinton's second term. No Congress investigated him on that though. They had their hands full with all the other investigations of Clinton.

# posted by

Charles : 6:55 PM

During my research, I also found out that Zach Carter was a member of St. John Lutheran Church in Mamaroneck, N.Y.:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200002/ai_n8882254/pg_2

Scary what you find on the Internet these days.

# posted by

Charles : 7:25 PM

"That's just the first eight I picked out from above. Tere were, in fact, dozens of U.S. Attorneys replaced in Clinton's second term. No Congress investigated him on that though. They had their hands full with all the other investigations of Clinton.

"# posted by Charles : 6:55 PM"

And, as we well know, we wouldn't have heard about Monica if any of those investigations of multiply-refuted fake "scandals" had turned up anything actionable.

# posted by

JNagarya : 6:37 PM

"Did Gonzales testify that he never saw a list or had never been briefed on the replacements?

"# posted by Charles : 3:25 PM"

It's so much easier to state what Gonzales testified to knowing:

That he didn't know anything. And, whatsmore, he still knows nothing.

On which you'll doubtless base an "rebuttable presumption" that such is evidence that he is supremely qualified to head the DOJ.

# posted by

JNagarya : 6:45 PM

"As for your requested "next research project" I'm not even done with my first one! I will note that Melanie Sloan (the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) was indeed hired as an assistant U.S. Attorney during Clinton's term, although I'm going to just leave it up to your own judgment whether she's a Democrat or not:

"1993: Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Joe Biden;

"1994: Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for Charles Schumer;

"1995 - 1998: Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee with John Conyers;

"2003: approached by Norm Eisen to co-found CREW, which she ran single-handedly until 2005 when she began to be able to hire her own staff. CREW is counsel of record for the civil lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Until its demise, Sloan was a regular guest on Al Franken's show on Air America Radio.

"http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2007/mostfearedwoman.asp

"# posted by Charles : 6:16 PM"

One fact about Melanie Sloan is uequivocal: she has ethics, therefore is able to act impartially. It was CREW which reported Jefferson (D-LA) to Congress, et al.

You made no mention of that fact -- ethicality -- because obviously not a coin among the small change with which you "reason".

One other point: Though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that there are two categories of AGs -- AGs and Asst. AGs -- and that AGs are legitimately subject to selection on the basis of political position, but that Asst. AGs are not -- you have dishonestly continued to ignore that distinction.

Do you wonder why your ideological kith and kin are being kicked to the curb, and shoved back into the septic tank which, as a matter of self-respect, vomited them out to begin with?

# posted by

JNagarya : 7:07 PM

Allow me to repeatedly point out that Melanie Sloan was indeed an assistant U.S. Attorney -- pointing out ONE Democrat does not make her a Republican -- you aren't honestly making that argument, are you?

# posted by

Charles : 11:09 AM