The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off. If you want to change things so they aren't political appointments any longer then get to work but remember that the last time -- In 1975 -- it was Republicans that tried to do that and the Democrats who thought it vital that they remain political offices."

[wendybeth]

I believe there is a certain protocol that was not followed, not to mention that the firings were so ****ing blatantly political that even the Repubs are embarrassed. Come on, devil's advocacy aside- do you really believe they went about this the proper way? This administration has pulled off more boners like this than any in recorded history, mostly because they wrongly believed to have a public mandate, or religious one if you really want to get right down to it, and now they are scrambling to extract themselves and do damage control. If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

[Alex]

Went about what in the proper way? Firing the lawyers?

Yes, I have no problem with how it was done. I have no probably with how each administration has house cleaned these positions for political reasons. As is so commonly said in administrations of either party: they serve at the discretion of the president. They are political positions. Removal does not have to be "fair."

It wasn't a big deal. It isn't like these firing just happened. They happened a while ago. It didn't become a big deal until somebody could be accused of lying about it. Lying is the charge being pursued, not inappropriate firing. As I said above it is a stupid coverup since there was nothing particularly wrong about the underlying action.

If they didn't do anything wrong, what's the big deal?

In a political environment that has thrived for the last 14 years on finding excuses for manufacturing outrage "where there's smoke there's fire" being taken as coda is not a good idea.

See, for example, the so-called Paul Wolfowitz scandal. Which is 100% manufactured outrage to win political points.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Here's the really stupid thing: there was absolutely nothing wrong with the firings.

They should have just said (more diplomatically) "these people work for me. They're political appointments. I can fire them anytime I want for pretty much any reason I want. So bugger off.

And had they done that, there wouldn't be hearings this week. But when the DOJ says things like they fired Carol Lam over her performance, specifically her performance regarding immigration, and then we learn that she received a letter of commendation in 2007 for this specific work, something doesn't add up.

From the transcript:

FEINSTEIN: … September 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. It’s sent to Carol Lam. And it is a letter of commendation, and I will just read a few sections.

To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.

In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.

In validation of enforcement initiatives, your staff aggressively prosecuted enrollees in the Sentry program who engaged in smuggling to support a zero-tolerance posture. They have focused on cases of fraud, special-interest aliens, prosecution of criminal aliens and supported our sustained disrupt operations.

The prosecution’s unit presented 416 alien smuggling cases, which represents a 33 percent increase over the 314 cases presented in ‘05. The prosecutions unit identified and pursued the prosecution of several recidivist alien smugglers and presented 30 non-threshold alien smuggling cases for prosecution, resulting in a 100 percent conviction rate. This represents a 329 percent increase over the seven non-threshold cases presented in 2005.

Additionally, a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lam as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases. It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases. Now, if I might go on, who, Mr. Sampson, was Dusty Foggo or is Dusty Foggo?

SAMPSON: I understand from news reports, Senator, and from general knowledge, that he was an employee at the CIA.

FEINSTEIN: And who is Mr. Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t know. I understand, again from news reports, that he’s affiliated somehow with Mr. Foggo.

FEINSTEIN: And are you aware that on May 10th Carol Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying she would be seeking a search warrant of the CIA investigation into Dusty Foggo and Brent Wilkes?

SAMPSON: I don’t remember ever seeing such a notice.

FEINSTEIN: But the next day you wrote the e-mail which says, The real problem we have right now — right now — with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day after her four-year term expires, that that relates to her immigration record.

SAMPSON: The real problem that I was referring to in that e-mail was her office’s failure to being sufficient immigration cases.

FEINSTEIN: OK.

If she was fired for actual poor performance, or even just because she serves at the pleasure of the President, that is one thing. If she was fired because she was seeking a search warrant on someone they didn't want her to investigate, I find that far more troubling.