Rather Than Investigating, Reuters Implies Resignation Tied to 'Scandal'


The storyline. That's the thing. Feed the storyline.

The media has been just enthralled with the idea that the removal of political appointees, and their replacement with other political appointees, somehow constitutes a grand scandal, since it's a Republican adminstration that did it. The storyline was promoted again in a Reuters piece on Friday.

An assistant attorney general at the Justice Department announced her resignation on Friday, becoming the seventh official to quit the department since the Democratic-led Congress launched an investigation in March into the firing of nine federal prosecutors. Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general for legal policy, said she would step down on July 9. No reason was given.

Sounds pretty suspicious, doesn't it? Pretty sinister? Just more fuel on the fire that is the scandal of the President exercising his power to appoint and remove federal prosecutors.

But maybe, if they'd actual done some investigation and research, they could have reported it differently. At NationalReview.com, Ed Whelan has some relevant information:

To anyone who knows Rachel, that news would hardly come as a big surprise. With the exception of a one-year Supreme Court clerkship, she’s toiled tirelessly in the Bush Administration since January 2001, first in the Office of White House Counsel, then in OLP. She became head of OLP in July 2005, just in time for the exhausting work of preparing Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for their confirmation hearings. I recall hearing from Rachel a year or so ago that she wasn’t planning to stay in the Administration for the remainder of President Bush’s second term. The timing of her decision to step down was plainly dictated by the fact that she’s due to give birth to her first child in August.

Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good smear, right?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Baby

See the Left is upset, she's having a baby, not aborting!  Darn, another Conservative to be born!

Why now?

Why would you expect Reuters to start actual reporting now? All they are used to doing lately is regurgitating terrorist press releases and the like.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic

propaganda

The news report seems intended to buck up the spirits of democrats.

"...becoming the seventh official to quit the department since the Democratic-led Congress launched an investigation in March.."

Note the implied cause and effect.

The stormtroopers are getting impatient - they want a body count; Reuters knows this, and is trying its best to give the appearance of one.

The fact is, the democrat party can't even get the gonads to pass a non-binding toothless anti-war resolution, let alone impeachment. There'll be no body count.

What smear?  DOJ released th

What smear?  DOJ released the resignation statement on a late Friday afternoon, the optimal time for no follow-up answers. 

Rueters reported she was the 7th official to resign  (true) and that in the DOJ statement   No reason was given for  her resignation (also true). 

Logic

Using your same logic, did it say anywhere in the statement that she resigned under any type of pressure, or any other implied reason.  So why was this even news!

PawpawN -  Its news because

PawpawN -  Its news because there are not very many DOJ officials left who were involved in the USAttorney Purge. 

While Brand is the 7th to resign, she  was on Gonzales' Leadership/Purge team and was named as a possible replacement for USA Margaret Chiari in Michigan.

I just love the way you have

I just love the way you have to truncate the passage in order to defend it.  Seventh official to resign since when?  Why, since the Democrats started their witch hunt in the wake of the firings of nine federal prosecutors, of course.  That is the principal focus of the piece, and as we've become so accustomed, it's built on a premise of sheer BS.  Try again

the way leftists work

This is how lefties operate. Capitalize on any current event, take credit for the ones that can be used to give democrats the appearance of efficacy. When an event occurs that enrages passions or racial tension, trace the origin to Bush at any cost. Goebbels would have been proud.

Apparently, ding, you forgot

Apparently, ding, you forgot where all this crap started. This is tied into the shameless performance by Patrick Leahy on Meet the Press, and the unwillingness of Tim Russert to stop him. Leahy was discussing a number of issues, but they all come down to the same, core problem. Before the election, the Democrats promised to hound the administration with investigations and hearings. Then, Scooter Libby was convicted, not for any crime itself, but for discrepancies in what he told the FBI and a grand jury about the Valerie Plame affair. The obvious lesson that Republicans learned is not to open your mouth, because everything you say will be used against you, and construed against you, and twisted against you, by the Democrats. So when the Democrats issue broad subpoenas asking for everything under the sun, and to put everyone under oath, the administration refuses, because they know these are just perjury traps.

Does any of that get on Meet the Press? No. Leahy blames everything on the idea that the president thinks he is above the law. Russert never challenges that assumption. Of course, there is no Republican on the program to contradict Leahy’s distortions. That's standard practice on Meet the Press, that they get around by calling it an "exclusive." Then, like the distortion mentioned in Lloyd’s article above, Leahy says, “Look at the Department of Justice, look what has happened here. You have as an attorney general somebody—nobody has confidence in him. Republicans don’t; Democrats don’t. Most of the key members of the Department of Justice are resigning. In fact, just about a week ago one resigned rather than come and have to testify under oath.” The refusal to testify under oath was because the Senate was conducting a witch-hunt, not because the attorney general had no respect for the law.

Russert never challenges that. Russert asks Leahy how he will proceed with the subpoenas, not with the central premise of why they’re issued in the first place. Russert even served up the "Nixon" softball. He asks Leahy why he accused Bush of being “Nixonian,” which gives Leahy the chance to link Bush to Nixon.

Utterly shameless.

And what's worse is the admin

And what's worse is the administration's fecklessness in stopping it. I know that one of the resignations is directly based on the idea that the resignees feel left to twist in the wind.

KC Muville - Pat Leahy had ab

KC Muville - Pat Leahy had about as much to do with Scooter Libby's lying to both the FBI and Grand Jury as Saddam had to do with al Qaeda in Iraq - zilch! 

You obviously didn't follow m

You obviously didn't follow my argument. The reason for most of the resignations from the Justice Department was because they didn't want to be caught in a perjury trap, not because they were fleeing a scandal. They know it's a perjury trap because Libby was caught in one. Both you and Patrick Leahy are engaging in deliberate disingenuousness, because you're both trying to paint the resignations as proof that the administration rejects the rule of law.

KC Mulville - I'm not sure ho

KC Mulville - I'm not sure how the facts support your argument when some officials have testified without resigning and some officials have testified but resigned (anyway)

Classic case was Monica Goodl

Classic case was Monica Goodling. She testified, but sought immunity ... precisely because she didn't want to be caught in a perjury trap. Others in the department have chosen similarly. She has clearly shown the willingness to follow the law, unlike what is being portrayed about the DoJ and Bush Administration.

They're in a particular bind because once the whole department is under scrutiny, they're not allowed to collude together and solidify their stories. However, none of them acted under the belief that what they were doing was questionable. They're all in the position of contradicting each others' stories, but not because anyone's lying. To portray these resignations as evidence there was a scandal and a disrespect for the rule of law is simply unfair.

KC Mulville - Goodling testif

KC Mulville - Goodling testified that she "crossed the line" into illegal conduct.  She sought immunity because did not want to incriminate herself - it had absolutely nothing to do with perjury.

Untrue. She did say that she

Untrue. She did say that she crossed the line, but you finished her sentence for her unfairly.

Even now, it has not been legally established that considering politics in the firings was illegal. (Inappropriate, maybe, but not a crime.) The law, in fact, reads that the president has the right to dismiss an attorney at any time. But the Democrats were arguing that it was illegal.

That put Goodling in an impossible position. She would have to either (a) deny she considered politics, which would be perjury; or (b) confess to an action that the oppositon party would later judge a crime. You can't ask someone to confess to an action that you intend to label a crime ... but only after the confession. That's a trap either way.

That's why she sought immunity. She wasn't admitting guilt to a crime.

KC Mulville - Goodling was in

KC Mulville - Goodling was involved in more than just the USA purge.  Goodling also was involved in the hiring of career lawyers at the DOJ.   And contrary to your assertion, civil service laws prohibit politicizing when hiring/firing  career staff (yes, even the President has to abide by civil service laws wrt career staff)  .  It is with reference to the career lawyers that Goodling admits she "crossed the line" with her illegal politicizing.

Nice try. Again, you saw only

Nice try. Again, you saw only what you wanted, and ignored the rest, including the context. This thread began with Reuters’ unfair insinuation that a recent resignation was part of a growing scandal. Instead, the resignation was for a pregnancy. I added that Patrick Leahy on Meet the Press was making a similar smear, only he blamed it on a pervasive contempt for the law. “Most of the key members of the Department of Justice are resigning. In fact, just about a week ago one resigned rather than come and have to testify under oath.” I argued that the refusals to speak under oath had little to do with their own guilt or innocence; rather, they perceived that they were being set up in a trap. You countered (as contradiction) that some people have testified already, and I cited Goodling as an example. I argue that Goodling is hardly an example of contempt for the law. The fact that she sought immunity wasn’t an implicit confession of guilt. She didn’t think she broke the law. So here’s the testimony:

  • NADLER: To assert Fifth Amendment privilege, you're in effect asserting that you're aware of crimes that may have been committed. And you're saying that you don't want to be implicated. What crimes are you aware of that you feared your testimony might get in (inaudible) be asked about? 
  • GOODLING: I don't believe that I committed any crime. 
  • NADLER: I didn't ask if you committed. I said, what crimes were you aware of, or possible crimes you were aware of that caused you to be concerned enough to seek or to claim the Fifth Amendment? 
  • GOODLING: I asserted the Fifth Amendment based on the fact that these are very ambiguous circumstances in which to testify. And I believed that the deputy attorney general had made an allegation that I had deliberately withheld information from him. And I believed that that was a concern. And I wanted... 
  • NADLER: OK. So in other words, that his allegation might be construed by some as a crime was your concern? 
  • GOODLING: That was the basis for my... (Nadler then interrupts her to ask another question)

This testimony clearly shows that Goodling’s motive for seeking immunity was because she felt she was in an ambiguous situation, not that she was trying to avoid punishment for a crime she knew she committed. It’s right there.

Perjury traps?  So lying und

Perjury traps?  So lying under oath is fine for the right according to them.  If you put Gonzales, Rove, Cheney and Bush all under oath and let the questioning roll it would all be just a big "perjury trap".  This is a perfect example of how the right thinks that they're invulnerable. The right made perjury out to be a capitol crime in the Clinton Whitehouse,  yet with Bush it is standard operating procedure.  Why do you think they're all trying to claim executive privilege?  It's because they have something to hide!  And these are matters not only tied to voter fraud, but to national security.

Can someone please give Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him?

Perjury traps?  So lying und

Perjury traps?  So lying under oath is fine for the right according to them.  If you put Gonzales, Rove, Cheney and Bush all under oath and let the questioning roll it would all be just a big "perjury trap".  This is a perfect example of how the right thinks that they're invulnerable. The right made perjury out to be a capitol crime in the Clinton Whitehouse,  yet with Bush it is standard operating procedure.  Why do you think they're all trying to claim executive privilege?  It's because they have something to hide!  And these are matters not only tied to voter fraud, but to national security.

Can someone please give Bush a fellacio so we can impeach him?

If you've already assumed th

If you've already assumed that they're liars, why waste time? But then, while we're at it, let's have the Justice Department issue subpoenas against the staff of every Senator. And when they object to the obvious harrassment, we'll just ask what they're hiding? If they have nothing to hide, let's put everything out in the open. And if they won't reveal every conversation they've ever had, exactly as every other staffer remembers it, we'll treat that as absolute proof they were lying.

As long as there's just cause

As long as there's just cause, I have no problem with that.  If you want to do a political improprieties dragnet,  I'm guessing you'll catch more republicans than democrats.

It always comes to private-wa

It always comes to private-waving, doesn't it? You partisan losers are funny.

My party is less-corrupt than yours!

Pathetic, junior, and about 3 year behind the times.

Rueters reported she was the

Rueters reported she was the 7th official to resign (true)
Exactly. You've pointed out the problem while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge it. When they spotlight the "true" fact that she's the 7th official to resign since the Democrat's witch-hunt investigation began, they implicitly link her to it. Clearly, there's no need for that - it's just an insinuation with no factual basis and no evidence of a factual basis.

LyfLines - Lyford's other blog...

Lyford Beverage  -  She is

Lyford Beverage  -  She is linked to the USA Purge via the Leadership Team and DOJ document dumps, no insinuation is necessary 

Even if that's true, this so-

Even if that's true, this so-called "purge"  is perfectly within the rights and privileges of the Executive Branch, so there is no scandal anyway.  To report it as if it is a scandal is just more evidence of typical MSM Leftist bias.

Speaking as an indirect tar

Speaking as an indirect target of one of their investigations (see various previous rants) while they studiously-ignore upcoming scandals like this, I disagree. I think they have misplaced priorities, and Monica Goodling admits they've been political. That's a scandal to those of us who pay a lot of taxes, and would be even if these morons weren't wasting tax money on a bogus-ass case against my company despite the facts. When subprime mortgage BS finally hits the fan, they'll express surprise that they were caught off-guard, and insist that it means they need ever-greater funding. Lather, rinse, repeat.
JMR

sarcasmo - Bongs, gambling, e

sarcasmo - Bongs, gambling, etc.  may be misplaced prioroties but that's what Ashcroft (and the Bush Administration) set as the priorities.  But we both know it was refusing to intimidate voters that got the uSAs purged.

And the start of the subprime fiasco can be traced back to Alan Greenspan excessive Fed rate cuts to pretend the economy could handle Bush's tax cuts - look Ma,  I'm rich - my house equity tells me so!

Slick also put the drugwar

Slick also put the drugwar as a huge priority, making record arrests. I disagree on the cause of the purge, though. It could have been anything -- including the porn-factor -- but because they're all at-will employees it could have been nothing. In fact, "nothing" would have been a relatively good reason to have given, in hindsight, compared to the reasons we've seen.

As for massive fiscal irresponsibility, it's been a hallmark of every madly-dollar-printing administration since Tricky closed the gold window for good in 1972, and everyone knows it even if Ron Paul's the only politician willing to tell the truth about the matter. It's a bit ironic that one of the reason politicians so-blindly trusted Alan Greenspan is that he wrote stuff like this in his youth.
JMR

mattm - Sorry, but voter int

mattm - Sorry, but voter intimidation is illegal.  And that  (with the exception of Carol Lam) is why the USAs were purged - they would not prosecute false voter fraud allegations.

Er...Not exactly, but pract

Er...Not exactly, but practically nobody except yours truly & AVN's blog noticed the hypocrite-factor, despite the bonus hilarity-factor of these people selling/renting the exact same porn they were busy spending my taxes prosecuting others for selling/renting. And people wonder why I respect the news media and the Department of "Justice" so much these days....
JMR

sarcasmo - There is the real

sarcasmo - There is the real reason and the CYA reason.  The real reason has always been not persuing bogus voter fraud cases.

Given Democrats' behavior (

Given Democrats' behavior (ok, criminality) in the past regarding elections, I doubt all voter fraud cases are "bogus," but as I'm experiencing now, a case's bogosity can depend on your point of view.
JMR

sarcasmo - how's this as a me

sarcasmo - how's this as a measuring stick?  Republican appointed USAs (plural) declines to prosecute voter fraud against Deomocrats because he/she/they can't find evidence of it notwithstanding intervention by the USA's home state Republican Congress critters and White House tweakers?

Maybe, Ding, the measuring

Maybe, Ding, the measuring stick is the pervasive nature of Democrat voter fraud criminality? Just a hunch...
JMR

1 cloak trumps 8 links, app

1 cloak trumps 8 links, apparently...
JMR

sarcsmo - Link 1 is dealing w

sarcsmo -

Link 1 is dealing with election 2000 which conviently fails to mention the voter fraud of absentee ballots  ( but in any event , election 2000  has less to with the USA purge than the Republican robo phone jamming in New Hampshire does)

Link 2 - now were up to election 2004 in Ohio - Ken Mehlman discussing a "found" Democratic notebook.  But Wait! There was something about Ohio that world net daily did not mention - oh, yes,  the Diebold CEO guareenteed to "give" the election to Bush? (well, at least those precincts who used Diebold voting machines) 

Link 3 - back to election 2000 with world net daily - sheesh!

Link 4 - now we are in 2005 for a alledged California Assemblyman contest - whoa - get the Feds on that one!

Ok, enough links provinding a one sided trip down memory lane. 

Let's get back to the current topic. 

Did you listen to the USAs testimony?  Did you hear any of them testify that they were "pressured" or "inimidated" to bring charge against Democrats before the 2006 election? Are the USAs lying?

"The chief of staff to D

"The chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has told congressional investigators that phone calls he placed to four fired U.S. attorneys - calls that three of the prosecutors say involved threats about testifying before Congress - were made at McNulty's direction."--Nat'l Journal

No pressure at all.

No, I don't think they're

No, I don't think they're lying, but as the history you so-obviously resent me repeatedly-linking-to tells us, their superiors had a rich history of Democrat criminality to worry about continuing. And around here there's no bigger attacker of Diebold's massive information security problems and appearances of Republican criminal impropriety than your's truly -- I've proudly driven various conservatives here at least as crazy with that issue as I'm driving you with this one. If there weren't this vast history of Democrat voter fraud going back to entire Chicago cemetaries voting against Tricky Dick the year before I was even BORN, fer Chrissakes, you might have a point, but criminality seems to be a long tradition, like it or not. I'm happy with a US attorney's office that actually worries about it once in a while, and I know where they could find plenty of wasted resources to redirect against such fraud if they were actually interested.
JMR

JMR

Criminality in the DOJ, no ma

Criminality in the DOJ, no matter what the republican "tradition" is, is unexceptable, especially when it threatens our democracy.  Subpoenas need to be served without immunity or be thwarted by claiming executive privelige.  If this administration has nothing to hide, they will answer to people. If they will not cooperate,  then we the people need to excercise our second amendment rights.

sarcasmo -   Yes, there wa

sarcasmo -   Yes, there was voter fraud in Chicago, AND there was Republican voter fraud in southern Illinois (and Nixon knew it which is why he declined a recount).  There was also Republican voter fraud in Hawaii. 

I hope your point is that all voter fraud should be investigated ( but since you only mention Democratic voter fraud, who knows!)

Here's an example of the DOJ using its clout for political purposes.  In Pennsylvania, the USA (MaryBeth Buchanan) "investigated" Casey' s campaign manger on old charges (which were dropped after the election) but that same USA did NOT  investigate Santorum's sham of living in PA and taking local PA taxes to pay for his kids schooling in Viriginia.  But MaryBeth "got" the "message" and did what she had to do to keep from getting canned. (She should not have investigated either one - the Democrats was bogus and Santorum was better left to the locals)

As for your rich history - why didn't the DOJ investigate New Hampshire robo calling?  Or the elctronic machine in Ohio?  Republicans also have a rich history of voting fraud but Bush's DOJ was only going after the Democrats - that's what the purge was alll about

If I only mentioned the Dem

If I only mentioned the Democrat fraud, which I'll admit was plentiful, then why did I drive conservatives here crazy about Diebold? Was that Democrat voter fraud in disguise as Republican influence, or something??
JMR

sarcasmo - I have no idea wha

sarcasmo - I have no idea what you have said to other on different topics.  I do know that you have mentioned only Democratic voter fraud to me in this thread.

And if Diebold is all you can offer in the way of Republican voter fraud, then you are being dishonest (but don't worry, you won't lose you NewsBuster mojo). 

I mentioned Diebold as both

I mentioned Diebold (both in this thread and elsewhere) as both an appearance and computer-security problem, because it is/was both. The subject here was the rich history of Democrat voter fraud, not the bipartisan history of criminality, but I'm well equipped to discuss either or both. The idea that you're getting an unfair shake from me is about as blinkered as various conservatives "original" idea that if they hysterically claim that I'm "obsessed" with their holy, tax and spend drugwar, that's a substitute for intellectual argument. The tactic ain't workin' for you any better than it ever-has for them...Faux News may CLAIM to be fair and balanced, but I live it every day, right here in front of you people, like it or not.
JMR

sarcasmo - The issue of the

sarcasmo - The issue of the USAs targeting only Democrats because Democrats have a "rich history" of voter fraud is what is  getting an unfair shake from you. Republicans also have a "rich history" of voter fraud. 

 How many USAs targeted Republican voter fraud? Surely, the USA's were aware of the "rich history" of Republican voter fraud.  

How many USAs who did target Democrats where "fired"?  How many USAs who did not target Democrats were "fired"?

------------------------------

Got to go.  I want to hear about poor Libby being spared his punishment

I agree they have a vote fr

I agree they have a vote fraud problem (both major parties commit fraud) but I sinceredly-doubt you can give me the kind of Republican link-fest I treated you to above with the Democrats, which is my point. This is why I was giving you Democrats the fair shake you deserved just like I give the Republicans here, but no more. Both sides, yours & theirs, want asskissing, and both get denied continually because as far as I'm concerned they can both go kiss mine. So, if you dare, find and cite that "rich history" of Republican voter fraud I'm supposedly ignoring -- remembering I've already covered Diebold, much to the consternation of various conservatives here, so they don't count.
JMR

Whether it was within their r

Whether it was within their rights or not isn't the question.  When asked why these attorney's were fired they lied to press and claimed it was "poor performance"  when they all just received outstanding performance reviews.

Beware 7/11

Is it true one of the Doctors arrested in the UK was from India?

I'm just sayin'  7/11

Lysdexics untie!