Left Wing Lunacy

Oh my, the document gap. That's about the closest thing to a physical non-manifestation of a straw man you'll ever see. The morons on the Left examining the released emails in the DOJ non-story have taken note:

The dismissal of eight United States attorneys has elicited a long and ever-growing list of theories by Democrats on Capitol Hill about ulterior motives and suspicious coincidences. Now there is a new one: the document gap.

Democrats on Capitol Hill were privately urging reporters on Wednesday to press the Bush administration to explain why in the thousands of pages of e-mail messages and documents turned over to investigators, there is almost nothing from Nov. 16 to Dec. 7, the day seven of the firings occurred.

Oooooo, scarrrr-ry:

A little more than a half-hour later, Ms. Miers replied: “Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time.”

It is not known whether Ms. Miers was referring to Mr. Bush.

White House travel records show that Mr. Bush was traveling for most of the next two weeks. Mr. Sampson did not receive authorization for the firings until Dec. 4.

And another moonbat conspiracy theory crashes and burns. How dare Bush not fill up two weeks with pointless emails just to give the Lib-tards another thousand or so to obsess over.

LOL The best part of this silliness is knowing how so many idiots on the Left have spent two days reading every inconsequential line of basically boring ass emails involving the dismissal of eight political hacks. Someone tell TP that if you have two sets of emails from the infamous Gap - there really isn't much of a gap now, is there? Freaking retards.

I looked at a few when they came out. Isn't this grand:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 9.
From: Chiara, Margaret M (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07. 2006 8:00 AM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

... I am already actively but discretely pursuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov’t financial security, as stated in my previous e -mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WOMI

... While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working toward for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative. Margaret

Shorter Chiara: Please don't take away the public teat and make me get a job. What nerve. "Federal gov't financial security"? Was she working at DOJ, or in the Welfare division? Too many government workers actually think they're entitled to that which many tax payers don't have.

Back to the NY Times:

“Shades of Rose Mary Woods? An 18-day gap?” said a posting by the blog’s owner, Joshua Micah Marshall, referring to President Richard M. Nixon’s secretary, who found herself on the spot after the discovery that 18 1/2 minutes of crucial White House tapes had been erased.

Shades of Nixon???? LMAO Looks like Ms. Chiara isn't the only one who needs to get a job. Is it BDS or mental retardation that makes the Left look so lame? WIth the way the Democrats in Congress are acting, I've lost all patience with the Left. And I still maintain they will pay a price for their foolishness come 2008.

Comments

[Fred]

Brrreeeeeeeeepp,. Wrong, Hi. As I understand it the bill you sited has nothing to do with firing USAs. In fact, Congress can't fire them. Only the President or his delegate can fire them. Back to HS civics with you.

[tk]

Hi, the congress has nothing to do with this matter. As I said he can let them go for any reason, period. Gonzales was the ass who caused this by saying it was for poor performance. All he had to say was the President wanted them gone. He doesn't have to explain why, they are political appointments. If you don't agree,lets have the executive branch monitor who congress hires and fires. There would be tons of e-mails to go through.

[Hard Right]

And there is DA, an excellent arguement FOR abortion. As usual you are afraid to debate me.

[Hi]

Ooops, I forgot where I was. Rightwingnutville where NO WMDs mean WMDs, where Covert Agent means Not a Covert Agent, where Lying means Not Lying, where Firing Attorneys for Political Reasons are Not Firing Attorneys for Political Reasons.

Try sticking to the facts at hand.
Gonzales lied about the reasons the Attorneys were fired.
Poor performance has been ruled out.
So, was it political?
If so, why doesn't Bush have the stones to say so?
If not, then was it something worse, something bad enough worth a constitutional fight to hide.

[Hard Right]

They were fired for a lack of performance. They failed to perform the job as was expected of them. That is "poor performance". Is that so hard for you inbred leftists to understand? Apparently.

[tk]

Hi....If he can't fire them because it could influence investigations, and investigations are always ongoing, he nor any president could ever fire any of them. Get real.

[Hard Right]

No, poor performance hasn't been ruled out. It has been proven. Hi, do you think repeating the same lie over and over makes it true? Apparently so. You guys REALLY need to take your lithium and Zyprexa.

DUNG has definitely upchucked these leftwing idiots onto this site. I swear, someone peed in your leftist gene pool.

[3reddogs]

What a surprise ... you apparently see nothing wrong with the president using the U.S. Attorneys and the DOJ to go after political opponents. So what if "at the pleasure of the president" has crossed the line and it's now an abuse of power issue, right? As for me, I think ANY administration that tries to suppress the opposition by orchestrating spurious Federal investigations should be investigated and, if found guilty, impeached. If you disagree with that, maybe you should all give serious thought to moving to a third-world country when Bush leaves office ... you'll feel right at home.

The numbers don't lie on this. Of the 375 investigations of public officials conducted by the Bush Justice Department, 298 -- or almost 80 percent -- were done against Democratic public officials. Only 67 investigations were performed on Republicans, while 10 probes were done on people affiliated with the Independent, Green or other parties. Happily, at least one Senator, Dick Durbin, is aware of the numbers. (He referenced the Shields-Cragan report on the floor of the Senate earlier this week. ) Quite frankly, the Democrats in Congress would be idiots not to pursue this, not just because their party has been targeted but because of the message it would send to future presidents if they DON'T continue their investigation. Yes, U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president but, until now, there's at least been an expectation that, once appointed, they'd at least give the illusion that they'd be impartial and that their activities would serve their communities' needs . If Bush and Gonzales have nothing to hide, let them and their staffers testify in public and under oath. Executive privilege shouldn't apply when evidence of executive abuse of power exists. PERIOD.

By all means please feel free to insult everyone's intelligence by proclaiming that 80% of the public officials that were investigated were Democrats because Democrats are so much more corrupt than Republicans. (And, for heaven's sake, why remind everyone of Bob Ney, Randy Cunningham and Tom DeLay when it's so much more convenient to bring up that money in William Jefferson's freezer, right?)

[Hard Right]

Lam was targeted to be fired MONTHS before she investigated Duke or the scandal. But it's political? Tell me another fairytale you mental patients.

[tk]

Hard Right...sorry but I disagree with you on this one. Poor performance to me means that they doing the job the President wanted, but were doing it poorly. Not the case, they would not do what he wanted, so good-by, case closed.

[Zifnab]

"That is exactly what Clinton did, yet you lefties had no problem with it."

Link plz? When did he fire attorneys during an investigation? All the attorneys he let go were assigned as special prosecutors for their cases.

[Hard Right]

I understand where you are coming from TK. Without going into too much detail, I also have some familiarity with the fed govt and employee job reviews. As I've said before, don't put too much stock into those ratings.

Red, you mean like how Clinton used the FBI and IRS against his enemies?

[H]

Hard Right:
The attorneys received favorable performance reviews from the DOJ,(save one) and Bush&Co have already admitted that poor performance was NOT the reason, so I'm not sure what you're talking about...

TK: My concern is whether Bush&Co corruptly “obstructed, influenced, or impeded any official proceeding, or attempted to do so"...it's a crime and worthy of Congressional investigation, especially absent any clear explantion by Bush&Co why the attorneys were fired.

[tk]

Hi...If our standard is something might have happened when no evident is present we might as well shut the government down. Rigth now maybe not a bad idea.

[Hi]

TK: "If our standard is something might have happened when no evidence is present..."

And no evidence is present because Bush&Co, who have already been caught in a lie, have told us so?

[Zifnab]

"Red, you mean like how Clinton used the FBI and IRS against his enemies?"

Linkz? Anybody? Or are you talking about how Bill O'Reily didn't pay his taxes, got an audit, and then threw a hissyfit on-air?

[Hard Right]

H, I'd say we are talking apples and oranges. The performance reviews aren't the same thing as not prosecuting the cases they were supposed to. So when they say it wasn't for performance, they are talking about the reviews. When they said poor performance they meant not prosecuting the cases they were supposed to.

[3reddogs]

According to "Hard Right", "Clinton used the FBI and IRS against his enemies."

I want to be sure I understand this. You righties spent years and millions investigating Clinton -- you even tried to impeach him because he lied about a blow job. Adding insult to injury, YOUR party controlled Congress back then, not the Democrats. You now seem to be saying that Clinton was guilty of the same kind of abuse of power as Bush because Clinton used the FBI and the IRS against his enemies. Help me out here. If Clinton really was doing this, why in the world did the Republican majority choose not to do anything about it? Why in the world wasn't THAT used as grounds for impeachment?

I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

[southdakotaboy]

We on the right need to admit someting to ourselves: The Dems are trying to stage a coup d'etat. They will do anything towards this goal. Hence this whole made up scandle. Bush needs to sit down with some of his Genreals and figure out how to decapitate this thing with as small of fuss as possible.

[fiskhus jim]

Um...how to put this delicately? Well, here goes: it's your "mental retardation" that is the unfortunate issue.

After all, it is every American citizen's constitutional duty to question every single move made by a President (any president, regardless of party loyalty).

The unfortunate issue here is that you truly do not understand (hence: "mental retardation") the obligations of being a citizen under the God-given Constitution of this Great Republic. You are, to put it simply, only suited to be the loyal subject of a King, autopcrat or "Dear Leader" because you only want to follow along blindly and without thought or effort.

[Von Cracker]

All hot air and wishful thinking (aka - no documentation and/or overwhelming circumstantial evidence proving your point).

"Oh please, I want, no, I need to be right about the Republican and the White House. Otherwise, I'd be just another Riehl World Hack!" Riehl's conscience, every night before beddy-bye.

VC

[3reddogs]

"The Dems are trying to stage a coup d'etat."

Well isn't that what citizens do when a dictator needs to be deposed?

[Hard Right]

Red, as usual you miss the point. Don't claim that what Bush is doing as being horrible when your man did far worse--and YOU WERE OK WITH IT! Now run back to DUNG.

[Raging_Dave]

The attorneys are political appointments. The President appoints them. As such, he can fire them without so much as a "by your leave". Anyone who refuses to understand that is nothing more than a partisan hack who doesn't merit any more attention from the grown ups. Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys and gave them ten days to get out.

He could do that. He was president. And he then filled those positions with people he chose. He could do that. He was president.

Well guess what, kiddies? Bush could go in tomorrow, fire every last US attorney, and nobody, not even the shrieking children in Congress, could do a damn thing about it. He's president. The attorneys serve at his pleasure, not Congress's.

Keep up your subpeonas, your investigations, your shrieking hysterics, and your BDS. I'll be the one sitting over here laughing at you.

[ET]

Here is an opinion piece that captures my thoughts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/democrats_resort_to_trying_dea.html

[Zifnab]

"We on the right need to admit someting to ourselves: The Dems are trying to stage a coup d'etat. They will do anything towards this goal. Hence this whole made up scandle. Bush needs to sit down with some of his Genreals and figure out how to decapitate this thing with as small of fuss as possible."

Tinfoil! We need more tinfoil for our hats! Only then will the evil Democratic brain-wave machines be prevented from melting our proud Republican minds and turning us against our strong, smrt President!

hehehe. You're the guy who goes to AA meetings and says, "I have something to confess. You've got a problem."

[bloodrage bob]

couldn't be happier about upcoming hearings, show trials, etc. give the congress something meaningless to do! make sure it gets lots of breathless press coverage, set the cameras and bright lights up, so the pols will know which way to look as they preen & pontificate....set the whole town abuzz! put everything else on the back burner for months & months, because *this* is their shot at some serious TV time.

sound, fury, zero significance. excellent! just the recipe for keeping the children out of trouble.

[Hard Right]

"Well isn't that what citizens do when a dictator needs to be deposed?"

As Zif said, "Tinfoil! We need more tinfoil for our hats!" Yes you lefties do.

Clinton "politicized" the US Att. positions. For you to TRY and turn this nothing into something is disgusting and monstrously hypocritical-typical of the mentally ill moonbats. I find it funny that the left continuously accuses innocent Reps of doing what the Dems actually did when they ran the White House and Congress.

[benrand]

Can you guys wrap Joe Wilson into this, I am getting nostalgic for a good Ole Joe Wilson batch of righteous anger at Bushco.

Think of it as cross-marketing, synergy if you will. I tmgiht help this story get more traction.

[3reddogs]

Hard Right:

No, I'm not missing the point (and I think that my ORIGINAL point was correct... Republicans see nothing wrong with using Federal prosecutors to suppress the opposition.) I don't recall hearing or seeing any proof that Clinton used the FBI and the IRS in a similar fashion ... if there was any proof, that would have been grounds for impeachment, just as it was with Nixon. The numbers I provided are a matter of public record and are available at http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html. Shall I wait while you provide some statistical support for your allegations? (And don't you guys get tired of pointing the finger at Clinton every time another Bush scandal hits the fan? The only people this has any traction with are the kool-aid drinkers who would applaud no matter WHAT George Bush said or did and, have you noticed, your number is shrinking.)

Note to "Raging Dave" who says "The attorneys are political appointments. The President appoints them. As such, he can fire them without so much as a "by your leave".

Excuse me, but this isn't a dictatorship. If it turns out that any of those 8 attorneys were fired because of who or what they were investigating, it's called felony obstruction of justice. (And all of Bush's infamous signing statements combined can't erase the fact that that's a crime in this country.)

[Fred]

snoop3reddoggydog. I've had no takers so far on answering the simple question posed in the third comment from the top above. You seem like the kind of dog or person who would consider giving a brief and honest answer to it. Want to give it a shot?

[Zifnab]

"Clinton "politicized" the US Att. positions. For you to TRY and turn this nothing into something is disgusting and monstrously hypocritical-typical of the mentally ill moonbats."

Linkz? Plz?
Seriously, other than yourself, do you have anybody backing these talking points? This "Clinton did it too" thing can only run so far when you're just tossing out allegations.

If the Republicans spent a few months investigating Christmas Card lists, you think they might have done some work on the recklessly irresponsible Clinton USA firings. Except they didn't, because no court in the country would have backed them up.

Maybe this is all rooted in the Republican notion that "Government doesn't work". I don't know. But somehow you guys seem perpetually convinced that when Republican Congressmen are balking at Gonezo, when a jury of peers convicts Libby of perjury, when the right-wing has been absolutely rank with money-laundering and kickback scandals over the past 4 years, its everybody but the Republicans who are doing something wrong.

I'm still amazed that no one has come to the defense of poor Duke Cunningham or persecuted Bob Ney. Where's the tears for the vilified Tom DeLay or the innocent Mark Foley? If you're going to play the game, take the ball and run with it. ALL Republicans are innocent of ALL crimes because IOKIARDI.

[jim]

I thought conservatives are supposed to be about accountability and personal responsibility.

I'd like to ask you a few questions:

Is it possible for a Republican president to do something wrong?

When will something that Bush has done, actually be his fault?

Aren't you getting tired of making excuses for a grown-up man?

[Fred]

No, you are not amazed, Ziffy. Law breakers should go to jail or be fined, that's Conservative 101.

[tk]

Jim...I guess you never heard of President Nixon.

bush has said mistakes were make and he takes responsibility for them.

No I don't get tired of making excuses because I don't. I am a grown man and can deal with facts something you seem to be unable to do. Your questions are simply childish.

[Hard Right]

Zif and Red, I provide links when debating intelligent, rational people. You and the other moonbats here do not qualify under either category. Look it up yourselves.

Red, none of those attorneys were fired to "obstruct justice". To hear the loons it's a slam dunk that they did and it goes all the way to the President.

As far as using them to surpress the opposition, your claims are absurd. If you think those numbers mean that's what they are doing then rant away BDS sufferer.

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/22/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[Raging_Dave]

3reddogs - the US attorney positions are not elected positions. They are political appointments, as in THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS THEM. And since he appoints them, they serve at his leisure. He can hire them, fire them, tell them to go pound sand, and there's not a damn thing anyone in Congress can do about it. It happened under Clinton. It happened under Bush. It'll happen under the next president that takes office.

If you don't like that, then try to change the rules. But throwing a temper tantrum over something that is perfectly legal only makes you look like a whiny child.

[psmarc93]

In a letter accompanying Monday's document dump, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that, while the administration was providing documents regarding Justice Department deliberations about the firings, it was "not providing other documents generated within the Executive Branch for the purpose of responding to congressional (and media) inquiries about the resignations." Most Americans, even most Republicans, find the use of the judiciary as a political tool unethical. Most Americans find the Attorney General and the DOJ lying about different aspects of the firings unethical and pretty slimy. There are certain questions about the legality of the firing, true -- but in the mind of the American people, the stonewalling of the WH insures that the damage to the image of the Attorney General, the DOJ and the White House is already massive. Now with a gap in emails casts further suspicions -- especially since the DOJ says it won't release relevent docs.
Most Americans probably agree with the advice of the late President Ford, "when there's nothing to hide, hide nothing."

[benrand]

"Most Americans find the Attorney General and the DOJ lying about different aspects of the firings unethical and pretty slimy."

We had 8 years of Billy Jeff, no one seems to have cared, so why all this prejudice?

One must wonder why Butch Reno was never shitcanned...

[Hard Right]

Red, you failed to mention those investigations are local cases (non-statewide and non-Congressional)-conducted by US Attorneys.

In statewide and federal cases there were 66 investigations.
Dems:36
Rep :30

BTW, what were the numbers under Clinton?

[tk]

"When there is nothing to hide, hide nothing."

Get a life. He was talking about dealing with decent, honest people. Not in this case. As for the case of not providing material to congress, the President has absolutely no responsibility to provide anything. You lefties have nothing left in the plan book. By the way, in this country; not the communist one you miss; we have a thing called probable cause. So put up some criminal intent or shut up. All you have now is slander, your weapon of choice.

[jim]

Jim...I guess you never heard of President Nixon.

I have. Have you?

Nixon is a great example, actually. He was pointed out as the crook he was for years, but conservatives denied, made excuses, and called liberals and progressives traitors for their efforts. Then it all came out. And the GOP as well as the country would have been better off, even, if they had faced reality earlier. But the GOP and the conservatives who supported it just kept looking away, rather than face the facts of Nixon's devious, deceitful and vindictive (lack of) character.

bush has said mistakes were make and he takes responsibility for them.

What mistakes has Bush said that he made? As recently as the 2004 debates with Kerry, all he could come up with were some of his hiring choices.

Let's say he's actually admitted some mistakes since then. I guarantee you that in the very same statement he blames them on someone else. And his administration follows his lead.

Note Gonzales following this habit - he "Takes full responsibiltiy" and then several seconds later implies that he really didn't know about it so it's not his fault, and anyway it's no big deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776.html?nav=rss_politics

Also notice Gonzalez' sworn testimony before Congress of a couple of months ago, that he would never fire anyone for political purposes.

Wouldn't this indicate to you that Gonzalez may be a liar?

Wouldn't you agree that liars who lie to Congress about their actions deserve to be let go from the White House?

Yes or no?

No I don't get tired of making excuses because I don't. I am a grown man and can deal with facts something you seem to be unable to do. Your questions are simply childish.

You are a grown man, perhaps. My point is that you are not treating Bush like one. You are treating him like someone who is not accountable for what he's done.

And this attitude is risking permanent damage to our country.

Consider this for a second: your worst nightmare happens, and Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Hillary gets in, and from now on ANY TIME any of the US Attorneys come across any scent of corruption in a Democratic politician, that attorney must either drop the case or be fired.

Is that a good thing for this country?

Some would respond that Bill Clinton did the same when he was President. Now Clinton fired a lot of attorneys en masse, once, not selectively like the Bush admin, and Clinton also let his aides testify under oath over 40 times - but let's say Clinton DID do the same thing as Bush.

Does that mean Bush is right to do it?

Does that mean it's GOOD that Bush is the new Clinton?

That's what I mean, when I'm talking about accountability.

[jim]

3reddogs - the US attorney positions are not elected positions. They are political appointments, as in THE PRESIDENT APPOINTS THEM. And since he appoints them, they serve at his leisure. He can hire them, fire them, tell them to go pound sand, and there's not a damn thing anyone in Congress can do about it.

So let's say someone comes by and drops a bag of gold on a President's desk, and says, "Make my niece an attorney general."

Can the President then do that? Not quite. There are ethical, moral and legal limitations to everyone's actions in this country. Including most especially our President.

But let's say for a second that you're absolutely right, and there's nothing illegal about rigging the Department of Justice so that your party members escape prosecution.

Do you think that *ethically* this is a good thing for our country? Do you think that it's *morally* a good thing for our future as a nation?

Yes or no?

[jim]

"Get a life. He was talking about dealing with decent, honest people. Not in this case."

Interesting. So Bush has something to fear from Congress, because they are *not* nice decent people, they are Democrats. Is that what you're saying?

"By the way, in this country; not the communist one you miss; we have a thing called probable cause. So put up some criminal intent or shut up. All you have now is slander, your weapon of choice."

Interesting that you just slandered the Democrat-led Senate. But that's a side issue.

When there's a crime, there's an investigation. It's not slander to *investigate*. It's not slander to say you are suspicious of someone's motives, and want to find out more.

Do you think that the Bush administration is above answering any questions?

And I'm curious - what do you think about the Bush administration being okay with asking questions - just not under oath? What do they have to fear about being under oath, in your opinion, since they're going to tell the truth anyway?

[Zifnab]

"BTW, what were the numbers under Clinton?"

Can't tell you that, but I can tell you how Clinton felt about his aides speaking to Congress under oath.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/20/white-house-testify/

According to the Congressional Research Service, under President Clinton, 31 of his top aides testified on 47 different occasions. The aides who testified included some of Clinton’s closest advisors:

Harold Ickes, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff - 7/28/94

George Stephanopoulos, Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy - 8/4/94

John Podesta, Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary - 8/5/94

Bruce R. Lindsey, Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President - 1/16/96

Samuel Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs - 9/11/97

Beth Nolan, Counsel to the President - 5/4/00

In contrast, between 2000 and 2004, Bush allowed only one of his closest advisers, then-Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, to appear in front of Congress. He has also refused three invitations from Congress for his aides to testify, a first since President Richard Nixon in 1972. Clinton did not refuse any.

[jim]

And just to head off further questions - a potential crime, if dangerous enough to our country, is worthy of investigation.

I would consider the rigging of our justice department to benefit one party over another, to be worthy of some investigation.

Do you think the potential rigging of our justice department *shouldn't* be investigated?

[tk]

Jim...You asked if we ever knew of a corrupt republican president. I mention Nixon. You now go a tirade about denial. Republicans went to the white house to tell Nixon he had to go. Facts don't seem to matter to you.

You said Bush never takes responsibility i pointed out that he has. Now you go back to 2004. Then you say, well he may have, but look at Gonzales. Nice transition but it only points out your inability to sustain an argument.

I am a grown man and I said before, I am open to logical, reasoned facts, which you will not provide. A hint of corruption, is that really the standard you want for this country.

As for Hillary. Look to the Vince Foster cover-up in regards his death and then tell me about "a hint of corruption."

[tk]

jim... do you know how many innocent people would be in our jails today if we used your standard of "potential" criminal acts. You sir are dangerous.

[Hi]

TK: The Foster suicide was investigated several times and found there was no crime to coverup. It follows the same conclusions of $70 million Whitewater investigation which discovered no wrong doings by the Clintons. But I'll bet those 'logical, well reasoned' facts won't change your grown up mind.

Another fact: Clinton's popularity rose during the impeachment trial.
Let's see how well Bushy does with the Attorney scandal....