Confusing the issue - on the politically motivated sacking of US Attorneys

[JohnWxy]

When Republican machinations and corruption begin to get scrutinized one of the techniques they use is to flood the issue with all kinds of complicating and plausible explanations to distract attention from the simple, pure evil of their acts.

They are now trying to make it seems as if the sacking of the 8 US Attorneys was just merely a badly bungled personell issue mostly based upon lack of prosecution of illegal immigration cases.

They gave Kyle Sampson the task of "making or developing (yeah, that's better) alist of attorney's to be fired. This guy had no authority to sack anybody. this is a very transparent device to shield the decision makers (as to who goes on the list and who gets fired) from view. Poor ole Kyle goes around to various people seeking their input on whether the list of names if acceptable. Certain people give him a yes or no on various names. But how did the names first get on the list?
My guess is Karl Rove sent the word through that liaison lady who was to go on the list. Later the list could be pared or added to as various people tossed up names for the hatchet job.

OF course, they said the decision to fire was based on performance - then why was the White House involved? Can't DoJ run their own shop? If the WH was displeased about lack of aggressive enough prosecution of immigration cases THAT is what would have been communicated to Justice - allowing the justice dept. to decide the individuals who didn't meet the standard (with proper consideration of the individual cases involved - some cases are more prosecutable or win-able than others).

Where is the documentation that supervisors of ALL 100+ US Attorney's were canvassed for performance ratings/ appraisals (with, if necesary special attention to immigration prosecutions)?
OF course, there is no such documentation because that was not the process. The decisions were made at the highest level (probably Rove after telling the puppet.) and passed down as commands (with names of those to go.).

The immmigration prosecutions is just a cover story. The real priority they were concerned with was the priority to NOT prosecute Republican Corruption (of course to Republicans, corruption in performance of Government duties is a meaningless concept. they don't know what you are talking about!)

Especially infuriating is the liquidation of Carol Lam. This was necessary because she had informed her bosses at Justice she was investigation Congressman Jerry Lewis, another stalwart Republican degenerate, violating the public trust for the betterment of his Party and himself, I'm sure). ONe thing about Republican corruption it is directed at undermining the lawful and ethical operation of governmnent. Dems when they go over the ethical wall, it's usually for money, or sex .. or both. REpublicans do it with an animus to the whole idea of democratic government(governmentof the people, by the people and for the people). ( "Common people getting equal treatment - what bullshit!").

This was not a "keystone kops" affair as one Senator was heard to say. The White House is much craftier than that. They used Sampson and the lack of documentation to shield the guilty parties. This was not about performance, not about immigration. It was about sacking those who were doing their jobs too well, who were prosecuting Republican corruption. it is NOT the president's prerogative to protect members of his party from prosecution for crimes they have commited.

IF he is doing that he should be impeached. That's why the Justice Dept. liaison to the White House , Monica Goodling, is threatening to invoke the fifth amendment if supoenoed. Go ahead and call her and let her take the fifth. I'd like to ask her if she thinks the Government serves at the behest of the people or not. Will she take the fifth on that question?