Why Are ANY Of The Bushevik US Attys Still In Power?

>Remember the US Attorney scandal? It's hard, I know, but try...It was a couple of years ago, and so may have passed from your recollection under the remorseless barrage of other horrors attending the slow, poisonous decline of the Busheviks--to say nothing of the latest homely/pre-pubescent singing sensations to sweep the nation.

A refresher: Various GOPuke Grand Panjandrums and High Functionaries called upon the Bushevik "Justice" Department to dismiss a number of US Attorneys in some seven (or 10, depending on who's being counted) venues and jursidictions for their evident and gallingly insufficient attention to the political needs of the incumbent GOPukes and the local parties to have brickbats to fling at the Dims in coming elections. Prosecutions were needed, and these seven (or 10) were apparently not producing them (the well-known, long-standing official prohibitions against bringing such prosecutions in the immediate proximity to and election notwithstanding).

These several USAttys--including New Mexico's David Iglesias--were judged by their GOPuke (political) superiors to have had insufficient zeal for politicizing their offices. Complaints flowed to Karl Rove--notably from two of New Mexico's most prominent legislators, "Pajama" Pete Domenici and "Leather" Heather Wilson, Domenici's lap-top and heir presumptive--to "Alfredo "Fredo" Gonzalez at the Do"J" that certain USAttys--including Iglesias--weren't "pulling their share of the loads" for the political purposes of fostering and sustaining the eternal GOPuke majority, and they had to go.

And go they did.

Seven (some say 10) were summarily dismissed for a variety of ginned-up, spurious reasons.

That left 83, or so, USAttys whose tenure was unaffected by the shake-up. And of those, as far as I know, very many if not most of them are still in the employ of the Obama/Holder USDoJ.

Perhaps under other circumstances, retaining the services of some remnants of the previous administration's appointments might make sense. But not now! Remember, these were people who HELD their jobs when others were being fired for not being political enough in their prosecutions! These are 'legal officials' who have demonstrated by retaining their jobs that they are willing to do anything they're told to do. These are people--officers f the Court, for chrissake!-- who are demonstrably lacking in honor, principle, and shriven of every scintilla of legal ethical perspective.

What, anyone with the tiniest sliver of conscience must ask, did these people DO to merit retention in the vast, deep, vile, murderous criminal enterprise known as the Bushevik "Justice" department? They followed orders, just like their colleagues in the CIA, and the FBI, and HSA, and (willingly or grudgingly, it is irrelevant) broke the law.

An apt example of the breed is provided by one of those still practicing USAtty craft in the new administration after demonstrating utmost fealty and devotion to the previous regime by railroading the governor of Alabama into prison on trumped up charges. That one, especially loathsome example is the execrable, feculent, reeking, foul creature called Leura Canary, of the Middle Alababma jurisdiction.

Thom Hartmann has taken up the cudgel to try to get Holder to dismiss Canary who, if memory serves, is the wife of one of Karl Rove's closest personal friends. He has invited listeners to phone Holder's DoJ to "request" that Canary be dismissed, forthwith. Hartmann believes Holder is "basically a nice guy," and that callers

"...ask Holder to remove Leura Canary from her position now. We should ask that all the Bush-appointed U.S. attorneys should be removed from office. And we should ask for the charges against Don Siegelman should be dropped. He said that Eric Holder is a good guy and that we should be polite and respectful when we call. He gave out the phone number: 202-514-2001. Thom said that Don Siegelman’s case is the one that can most substantially lead to the prosecution of Karl Rove,"

according to a post on Mark Crispin Miller's NewsFromTheUnderground blog. You can find background on the Siegalman case here, also here, and there. I don't know that "request" is the term I'd use. I'd "demand." Public officials who object to citizens' "demands" are in the wrong fucking business. And I would also note that "politesse" does not preclude a certain degree of snark...

Holder risks looking like a butt-wipe of the Rightard fuckwitz if he can recommend setting aside Ted Stevens' conviction but makes no effort to do exactly same for Siegelman. I have as yet seen no reason to trust Holder (or much of the Obamanista contingent) on matters of justice.