More On The US Attorneys
I tried to explain yesterday why this is such a serious accusation, and why the “b-b-b-ut, Clinton did it too” defense is a load of crap. If my argument failed to convince you, maybe this statement from Jeff Sessions will:
“As an appointee of the president, U.S. attorneys by and large are supporters and they share the president’s views or they wouldn’t have gotten the job,” Sessions said. “You can say that’s politics. That is politics. But when they put that hat on and go in to that office and evaluate a criminal case it should be absolutely based on nothing more than what the law and facts calls for. And the evaluation of their performance should be based on nothing more than their competence.”
Even Jeff Sessions– diehard Bush loyalist – understands the distinction between a general removal of all the USAs upon taking office (what Clinton did) and firing a USA mid-term because that USA would not take politics into account in an individual case (the accusation here).
Now Beauregard is, not surprisingly, disinclined to believe that AbuGonz and the President did, in fact, fire these USAs because of their failure to prosecute particular cases so as to benefit Republicans. I think he’s got his head in the sand. After all, if there is an innocent explanation for the firings, why does every new document reveal a new lie? The latest revelation being that – contrary to his prior assertions – AbuGonz discussed the firings while he was still White House Counsel. Of course, now he doesn’t remember the conversations. Again, if there is an innocent explanation, why so much ducking and dodging and hemming and hawing?
Still, I can respect Sessions’ position. The only legitimate defense to this alleged scandal is to deny it happened. That denial is getting less and less plausible. But it is the only honest defense. Saying even if it happened it is no big deal? That argument is so stupid even Jeff Sessions won’t make it.