What's the difference between me and you?

The Congressional Research Service shows, finally, once and for all, that not only did Clinton not "do it too" when it comes to Attorneygate, but NO ONE has "done it too" (special knowledge to Think Progress, and of course, those hardworking folks at TPM):

– Of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December.
– In virtually all of those 10 previous cases, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue. Prior to December, for example, only two U.S. Attorneys were outright fired for improper, and in one case criminal, behavior. The CRS report identifies six other U.S. Attorneys who resigned during the 25-year period who were implicated in news reports of “questionable conduct.” For two others, the CRS was unable to determine the cause.

Marinate on that for a second. 10 times in 25 years, and then BOOM, 8 in one day. To axe US Attorneys for no outstanding reason in the middle of the term? NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

But it makes me wonder about a broader political question. It'll speak to my naivette about conservatives, perhaps, but it is bugging me. Why is it that I'm able to see when Democratic leaders are ferkakta, and yet Right Wingers don't seem to see it in their own? How can Republicans be so stuck on their talking points that they can't admit to themselves what is happening?

Look, I strongly dislike Bill Clinton. Sure, he doesn't look so bad now. But for 6 years, he pursued awful policy initiatives that helped lead this country to where we are today. He could've pushed us to look into clean energy and oil alternatives. He could've made sure there were labor and environmental provisions in NAFTA. He could have done any number of things. Instead, he took on Republican themes and made them his own. And yes, he's brilliant and a great speaker. But so what? He was the last Democratic President, but so what?!

Can these people who screamed "rule of law" until they were deaf when he was in office see the hypo-crazy in their pardon for Scooter drumbeat? Do they honestly believe obstructing justice and firing attorneys merely for not jumping as high as you want them to is okay? And as Bush sinks lower and lower, and as the curtain on the worst presidency in our illustrius history is pulled back, will they be able to question? Will they, as MM always says to me, "stop drinking the kool aid and think for themselves?" Can they see it? Will they see it? How can I see it and they not see it? It's a cliche to suggest they're mindless. Maybe this is why I've started reading Andrew Sullivan. I don't agree with him most of the time, but if we both stop drinking the koolaid, maybe we can find some common ground and make progress.

What's the difference between me and you?

Good shabbas.

What your momma saw...

Talking Points Memo and TMP Muckraker are leading a grassroots combing of the latest attorneygate docudump. 3000 pages. Go help out if you have a moment. Some of the things people are citing are things we already know, but there's more and more stuff coming to the surface.

BZ, EAR and I were talking over the weekend about the crimes that were committed in Attorneygate. The right has been spinning that there was no crime here in the forceouts of these 8 attorneys, that clinton did this, that poppabush did this, and so forth. Neither of these Presidents did this kind of thing during their second term, no matter what the right says. But I posited to BZ the following crimes: Misleading Congress, Obstruction of Justice (influencing investigations, and also doubles as an ethics violation for at least two members of Congress), and a second Obstruction of Justice (the firing of Carol Lam). Turns out maybe I should've gone for that law degree after all. At least, according to the JM Times' Adam Cohen.

Buried at the bottom of the docudump avalanche? Check out this nugget in the AP wire:

In other trouble for the administration, the Justice Department's inspector general is to testify Tuesday and Wednesday before House and Senate committees on what he says was Justice's misuse of its power to secretly go through people's financial, Internet and other records in terrorism cases.

O RLY?! Color me surprised.

Well, Tony, where would YOU drop it?

Having changed directions with their leak to ABC, the junta has of course sent Tony Snow out for damage control to slow the Sunday headlines. With these winners:

“It has been described as her idea but ... I don’t want to try to vouch for origination,” said White House press secretary Tony Snow, who previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea. “At this juncture, people have hazy memories.”

snip

We don’t know motivations. ... I don’t think it’s safe to go any further than that.”

snip

Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, “Anything’s possible ... but I don’t think so.” He said Bush “certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can’t speak for the attorney general.

“I want you to be clear here: don’t be dropping it at the president’s door,” Snow said.

Wow, subtle, Tony. Really subtle. First, notice a few things- the party line has constantly shifted. And maybe Tony, knowing full well that this thing is turning into an avalanche, has dropped the staunch denail of Chimpy McFuckface's involvement for a "no recollection" and "memories are hazy" defense. Especially since the emails released last night, clearly show that Gonzales was involved at the beginning and that "loyalty to Bush" was a part of the criteria. Here's where things get messy: what is loyalty to Bush? Is it prosecuting people who take bribes and ferretting out a network of bribers and illegal contributors? Because that's the only thing we can find on Carol Lam. Was it resistance to ethical breaches by lawmakers and staffers? Because that's what we've got on Iglesias and McKay.

A couple other subtleties in Tony's two step:

1) He says he can't speak for AG Gonzales. That, to me, is part of the subtle separation that's happening between Gonzalez and the Junta. It shifts the discussion back to AG Gonzales and gently shoves from the sidewalk towards the oncoming bus.

2) Well, this isn't really that subtle, but the idea that this story shouldn't end up at Chucklenutz's doorstep? That is laughable. This administration has a 6 year track record of shielding and rewarding the folks that are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. This was a sure-fire plan to make sure anyone investigating damaging activity and failing to adhere to administration pushes for questionable indictments was fired- hatched and put forward by his closest advisors. Who else has culpability on this but the President? He believes, even now, that the firings are fine, that he's only upset with how telling people about it was handled. But this was a coverup of politically motivated firings to use a provision "snuck" into the (un)Patriot(ic) act to replace decent lawyers with more loyal syncophants. This was deliberate and came from on high. And since Gonzales doesn't wipe his ass without Chucklenutz's say so, who do YOU think is responsible?

Who does the buck stop with, Tony?

Someone at the White House is singing...

..because ABC is breaking news on our good buddies Karl and Alberto (h/t: talkingpointsmemo):

March 15, 2007 — New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged.

The e-mails also show that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers, and was her idea alone.

Wow, talk about long knives. Given the Mouse's serious right turn (see: bogus 9/11 movie that has earned someone a beatdown if I ever meet them), there's only one possible reason for the leakers to go to ABC. My guess is someone wants either Karl or Alberto out. But man, this administration is gangsta. Waits for Alberto to go all "mistakes were made", the President has "confidence in Al" and then BAM! the coup de grace'. No wonder he looked like he was about to piss himself the other day. Deliberately misleading Congress, eh? Let's see how far this goes. If Gonzales is smart, he'll resign before candlelighting tomorrow. But as MK was pointing out, resignation is not enough. INDICTMENT!

Dance, Varmit!

More from TPMMuckraker and Tony Snow's tapdancing... nice to see the gaggle showing a little spine today:

Q The President said, "I've heard those allegations about political decision-making; it's just not true." How can he say that when he hasn't seen all the emails, emails continue to come out, and of those that have already come out, some of them clearly seem to show that at some level, at least, there was political decision-making?

MR. SNOW: I'm not -- how would you define "political decision-making"?

Q Well, decision-making that involves politics.

Q How would you define it, Tony?

go to tpm for the rest of this insightful exchange.

Tony doesn't know!

For the record, Josh Marshall and the fine folks at Talking Points Memo and their sibling site, tpmmuckraker, have done the yeoman's work behind pushing Attorneygate to the forefront, going into their vast archives to explain how the Republican claims of "voter fraud" is code for republic voter suppression, and garnering apologies from members of the mainstream media who suggested, " in this case some liberals are seeing broad partisan conspiracies where none likely exist." This story is on the radar primarily because of their work. So in it, we see yet another example of bloggers doing a better job finding and presenting the stories than the MSM.

As part of their non-stop coverage, Paul Kiel at tpmmuckraker put up the text from this morning's press gaggle with Tony Snow, who doesn't know anything, doesn't believe loyalty should be the criteria for US Attorneys, and continues the canard that poor reviews and not loyalty to the White House is what is being referred to in the volumes of emails of the docu-dump Monday. If you have a moment and want to see just how many lies, half truths, and weasel words Snow uses, take a gander.

Tony Doesn't Know!