Iglesias' side of the family doesn't have the famous Yglesias mispelling gene.

There are times when I really regret that flogging has been removed from the American system of justice. This would be one of those times.

2: it's still there.

I'd bet that if the party labels were reversed, this story would be portrayed as, "Democratic Congressmen stifled in their heroic attempt to request obstinate and incompetent federal prosecutor to look into well-known case of Republican corruption."

4: Well, we could go back to the last time the Democrats pulled this, except that *it doesn't exist*.

5 s/b "Pastry!"

I admit that I've only been following the US Attorneys scandals by, you know, seeing how often TPM has a post on it, but this seems like one of those really-important-but-unsexy things that it's going to be hard to get the outrage going about.

following the US Attorneys scandals by, you know, seeing how often TPM has a post on it

Curses! You've discovered my top-secret blogging method.

I doubt this story would register for anyone but the most obsessive if there weren't so many prosecutors fired in a short timespan for suspicious reasons.

Looks like it may have been Heather Wilson. But not this one.

4 -- similarly I bet if the party labels were reversed in the case of -- zzzzz.....

4 isn't Cokie Roberts on Steroids under a new name, is it?

I would not be surprised if Wilson's behind this.

10 and 11: Wow. I had thought that the post was amazingly one-sided -- faced with evidence of Democratic corruption/bribery and Republican congresspeople who wanted to investigate, the post gets all outraged over the fact that the Republican congresspeople may allegedly have called a federal prosecutor, while saying nary a word about the Democratic corruption/bribery that set the whole thing off. But after the compelling and insightful responses in 10 and 11, I have to consider myself refuted.

I would ask if you were an idiot, but it would be a rhetorical question. You have completely misstated the case. The probe was *already ongoing*. What (probably) Wilson and Domenici wanted was for the prosecutor to hurry up and indict before the investigation was finished, in order to time it with the election.

But I'm pretty sure you already know that, and are just being willfully obtuse.

Also, John Doe should be informed that there have been many other firings of U.S. Attorneys in a completely unprecedented and transparently partisan way.

14:
Are you actually expecting logic and reasoning? Or, actual knowledge about this topic?

Just do like the media does: make it a problem for both parties, omitting the actual facts.

When Republicans get caught, say "THE DEMS DO IT TOO!!" without actual evidence.

"We're no worse than you are!" is the standard Republican defense, regardless of the charge. They're playing for a tie.

"Sure, some of us are child-molesters! But what about [Democratic child molester to be inserted here if possible, otherwise The Clenis]???!

14: Au contraire, you're the one being wilfully obtuse. I didn't suggest that the Republican congressmen's alleged actions were fine and dandy. I'm just asking for at least a pretense of being evenhanded here. If someone writes a post saying, "Ohmigosh, it's so outrageous and illegal that a couple of Republicans allegedly wanted to speed up an investigation into Democratic corruption," then at least include a parenthetical ("by the way, Democratic corruption and bribery is a bad thing too").

15: Does Google not work where you live? You've never heard of the fact that Clinton fired 99% of the U.S. Attorneys when he came into office so that he could replace them with his own partisans?

The real question here is not whether Clinton appointed US Attorneys in the same manner that every President since Washington has -- it's whether you brought cake, or really any baked goods at all.

Did you?

15, without taking a stand about what Clinton did (I don't know and am not looking it up right now), I'm quite certain he didn't appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval who can hold their posts indefintely.

In 20 15 s/b 18.

the fact that Clinton fired 99% of the U.S. Attorneys

Upon entering office, yes. It is perfectly normal and wholly expected for an incoming administration to do that. Doing it mid-term is not, and funny enough, it's largely attorneys prosecuting Republican corruption. What a coincidence! Also, washerdreyer's 20 is germane, as explained here.

I'm just asking for

I don't much care what you're asking for. Also, you need to come up with some baked goods but quickly.

You don't get it. For the second time, I'm not saying that everything the Republicans did is beyond reproach. I'm saying that anyone who is not a partisan hack might at least gesture in the direction of acknowledging that Democratic corruption is a bad thing too.

20: I'm quite certain he didn't appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval who can hold their posts indefintely.

Which occurred pursuant to a law that the Senate (as well as the House) passed. Your point is?

22: Doing it mid-term is not, and funny enough, it's largely attorneys prosecuting Republican corruption.

I don't think "largely" means what you think it means. There are 7 (or maybe 11) USAs who were fired. The Mahablog post you link shows that one of them prosecuted one Republican congressman. One out of 7 (or maybe 11) is not "largely."

But where's the cake? And is this Charlie again, or are you a new nitwit?

But then, as comment 19 shows, there must be some sort of special code that people around here use. Maybe "largely" is used in Unfogged-speak to mean "1 out of 7."

That still isn't cake.

Sorry, don't get it. I take it this is some sort of way to avoid being serious?

No, that's your comments. We take pastry and other baked goods very seriously around these parts.

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to your inanities, but it's at least 3 of 7, not 1 of 7.

Carol Lam - the Cunningham/Foggo/Wilkes case.
Daniel Bogden - overseeing the FBI investigation into the bribing of Nevada's governor when he was in Congress.
Paul Charlton - investigating charges involving land deals and influence peddling against Rep. Rick Renzi.

And of course Iglesias, in resisting pressure to indict a Democrat before the election for partisan advantage rather than because his investigation justified it. So 4 out of 7.

I believe that corruption is bad.

I made a delicious chocolate soufflé last night.

4/7 that we know about. Do we know why the others were pushed out? Did they also refuse partisan prosecutions? Only the Shadow knows....

If it will make you happy, John Doe: if the two previous New Mexico state treasurers under investigation are guilty of corruption, then the system will deal with them accordingly and that's just fine by me. However, what goes on in the lower reaches of New Mexico's state government has precisely no relevance to my life here in North Carolina. What goes on in the federal government does.

29: Let's assume that all of this is true. So what? These statistics are completely meaningless without some notion of how many USAs nationwide are investigating any Republican official in their jurisdictions. If 3 or 4 out of 7 USAs are investigating a Republican official, or have done so at some point, then you'd expect to find that same statistic here. (Alternatively, if, say, 2 out of 7 nationwide are investigating Republicans, then in such a small sample size, the difference could be due to chance.)

Not that I expect anyone is interested in the actual statistics here. All I see is jeering at Republicans, fingers-in-the-ears re: Democratic corruption, and adolescent jokes.

Then why are you still here?

All I see is jeering at Republicans, fingers-in-the-ears re: Democratic corruption, and adolescent jokes.

Damn straight. You know what I don't see? Any baked goods at all. Are you incapable of baking or something?

I'm quite sure Montoya and Vigil are guilty as sin.

See? Our token New Mexican does not have his fingers in his ears. The rest of us simply don't give a shit about former state treasurers we've never heard of previously, from states in which we've never resided, and that doesn't change with their political affiliation.

If someone writes a post saying, "Ohmigosh, it's so outrageous and illegal that a couple of Republicans allegedly wanted to speed up an investigation into Democratic corruption," then at least include a parenthetical ("by the way, Democratic corruption and bribery is a bad thing too").

That's not bipartisanship, it's just bad writing.

But admittedly, there are limited circumstances when it can be good writing.