NPR correspondent nails the Attorney firings on the head.

[burythehatchet]

It's a KERFUFFLE. That's right, this morning on NPR a correspondent, reporting on McNulty's resignation, stated that he may have quit because of the attorny firing "KERFUFFLE".

Please make sure you support NPR next time they come a askin' for money. mmmkay?





Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: kerfuffle
Part of Speech: n
Definition: disorder, commotion; also written , ,

[Buzz Clik]

1. Wow! A whole thread dedicated to a single word you heard on the radio? Fantastic!

I contribute to my NPR affiliate twice yearly, and I will continue to do so.

Thanks for encouraging others to do likewise.

[Throwing Stones]

12. I think the OP's point was the power of words in general

NPR has, sadly, become as lame as the MSM in their reporting on a lot of stories. Using what could be argued a derisive term to dismiss a flood of potential crimes is seriously poor journalism.

[Buzz Clik]

13. "Seriously poor journalism." Interesting.

There is no proof that any crime was committed. In fact, the adminstration was completely within their authority to fire them for any reason or no reason. Sorry, but even out of context, the word "kerfuffle" is entirely appropriate to describe these firings. It would have been hideous journalism to imply it was something else.

[burythehatchet]

15. There is no "proof" because there is obstruction of justice

or is that too complex a framework to make sense?

[Buzz Clik]

18. And it's up to NPR to declare that this mess is something beyond what can be proved?

The whole complaint against NPR is that they flatly refuse in their news programs to take a political stance.

I am always amused by those who see this as biased when, in reality, it is totally unbiased.

[damntexdem]

17. Yes, obstruction of justice, as well as other high crimes, are no longer criminal ...

when perpetrated by this administration.

I would love to see a triple-impeachment 'kerfluffle': Gonzo, Darth Cheney, and then Dubya.

[Buzz Clik]

19. And there it is. You wanted NPR to declare that Cheney and Bush were part of this?

It's not even provable that Gonzales was part of it. We all know in our hearts and heads that Gonzo is lying and was hugely involved, but there is no proof. Period.

Demanding that NPR elevate this mess beyond what it is is silly.

[burythehatchet]

24. here, take a whack!

[Throwing Stones]

26. step away from the kool-aid

you're apparently close to overdosing.

First of all, you've overstated the administration's authority "to fire them for any reason or no reason". AUSA's cannot be fired or otherwise have their investigations interfered with to protect potential targets, so your "no reason" argument sadly fails. Furthermore, there is more than enough evidence to suggest either mis- or mal-feasceance.

I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that alleged misfeascence or malfeasceance rises above the level of a "kerfuffle".

[Supersedeas]

22. Exactly -- reporting has become the art of 'catchy' labels -- to be read but not understood

[patrice]

2. Definitely diminutive.

Dismissive.

I've stopped giving NPR money, but have been thinking lately, that I'm not ready to turn it over to the RW. I wish there was a way to give money to support their Local programming only.

[lynnertic]

6. I'm sure you can earmark your donation.

[burythehatchet]

9. Same here, I used to donate twice a year

but I haven't given them a dime since Cokie revealed her true colors.

[patrice]

11. Oh Cokie IS totally one of the main reasons I stopped giving.

She has NEVER said anything I hadn't already heard or thought of myself, usually several times over, before it came out of her mouth. STALE and LIFELESS personality and that doesn't even bring up her biases.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Ain't that the truth! One cannot have someone express points of view contrary to ours!

Just think how much better NPR would be if they would hire only left-wing extremists who styled themselves after Fox and CNN by being ridiculously opinionated, screaming at those they interview if they happen to disagree.

It really pisses me off when NPR presents the news objectively and allows the listeners to form their own opinions. Such bullshit!!!!

[burythehatchet]

20. Dude, find yourself a thread where you won't get so jacked up.

or stay, because you're sooo close to changing many opinions.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Great argument.

You might note that I provided ample counterpoints that you have cleverly ignored.

[burythehatchet]

23. congratulations on spelling "counterpoint" correctly

now go to a dictionary and find out what it means.

[Buzz Clik]

25. Three posts from you with no substance.

A picture.
An invitation to read a dictionary.
An insult.

And that's it. You have nothing to bring to the table.

Works for me.

[Throwing Stones]

27. there's nothing objective about dismissing this investigation as a "kerfuffle"

If Cokie wasn't such a tool, she might try framing the story in a context that hasn't been pre-approved by other "insightful" insiders like dean broder.

Maybe I'm partial to this investigation because I'm also an attorney, but I think that a lot of the public may not appreciate a couple of things about the firings: first, this kind of shit is unprecedented; second, an AG that can't keep his stories straight is incredibly troubling on so many levels; third, AUSA's cannot be fired for just "any reason"; fourth, every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a lawyer and they're not taking kindly to the bush misadminstration's disregard for the first three points. Lastly, you'd have to be a moron of Cokie Roberts proportion to not see the deeper implications (and impeachable offenses) of the AUSA firings.

[Buzz Clik]

28. An attorney? That is so cool. Now you can provide all the necessary legal facts:

I thought it was odd that someone would jump on this cold thread, but it's because you are a legal expert. Fantastic.

So, here we go:

1. What law was broken in the firing of these attorneys, and who broke that law?
2. Why has literally everyone involved been lying about this? You say that these US attorneys cannot be fired for "any reason", but everyone on both sides of the argument have never claimed that. The pervasive argument is that these attorneys refused to cave in to pressure about specific cases, and that crosses all kinds of lines. Seriously -- not even the fired attorneys claimed that the act of their firing was illegal. What insights do you have that all these attorneys do not?
3. Other US attorneys have been fired before, but you claim that "this kind of shit is unprecedented." Why are these cases different from those fired in the past? (And we're talking about mid-term and second term firings, not the wholesale replacements that occur at the beginning of a new administration.)

And finally, you claimed that dean broder (sic) pre-approved this comment by Cokie. That's an interesting revelation. Care to back it up?

[Throwing Stones]

32. need me to prove that the sky is blue, too?

1. The law that may have been broken in the firings themselves is 18 U.S.C. Section 1512(c), which reads:
"(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

That is a very broad prohibition against any type of interference of a criminal investigation by anyone. See also Adam Cohen's editorial in the NYTime$ at http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60710F93D540C7A8DDDAA0894DF404482


Do I need to give you all of the circumstantial evidence about the Carol Lam firing? Note that I have not said that a law was broken, but that there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence that the WH and DOJ fired Lam as a way of interfering with her investigation of Foggo, Wilkes et al. to warrant further investigation.


Since the firings, the half-truths, mis-statements and potentially outright lies given both in public and in hearings may themselves be crimes, including perjury and further obstruction of justice.

2. The meme that AUSA's can be fired for any or no reason has been claimed over and over again by both sides - Speaking to the NYTimes, for example, "Rory Little, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration who is on an American Bar Association task force on prosecutorial ethics" stated "(i)t has always been a patronage position, ... Can the president fire a U.S. attorney for any reason at all? The answer is yes."
What Little and others are ignoring is that AUSA's cannot be fired for a "bad" reason - see number one above.

3. I believe you are wrong if you are asserting that second term presidents generally replace all 93 AUSAs, which is what I was referring to as unprecedented. Rove et al initially considered firing all 93, which has never been done by a second term president. Yes, all presidents do it at the beginning of their initial term, but as Sen Leahy said, the political affiliation of AUSAs serves as an onramp to the job, not as a toll both whereby AUSAs have to continually give political payback to their benefactors. The fact they pared the list down to 9 (or more) still doesn't take away from the fact that there is plenty of evidence that the DOJ and WH fired (or forced to resign) attorneys who were not pursuing a partisan agenda, such as the bs voter fraud cases.

[Buzz Clik]

35. At last! Substance on this thread. woohoo.

Alright -- it seems that you and I are chasing semantics to some degree. My claim is that the act of firing is not against rules or in violation of any law; you seem to agree. The illegal part is the using the US attorney positions for political gain in some way -- and that includes the threat of firing if they aren't loyal Bushies. It's not a small distinction.

(On point three, you misunderstood my intent. I agree with your statement.)

So, back to NPR: Do they understate the gravity of the situation by calling it a "kerfuffle"? Yep. Is it horrible journalism, incompetence, or some sign of collusion with the GOP? Not in my opinion.

Would it help a lot if the OP gave us a link or a quote or some description of the context? Hell yes. Did I request that? Hell yes -- and I was rewarded with a smartass remark for my trouble.

I'll let it go at this point. I basically agree with everything you've said except your distress over the use of the word.

[Dhalgren]

3. I thought that her use of that word was a way to make the growing

and festering scandal at the Justice Dept. seem like a waste of time. It was a way for her to, in essence, belittle the whole septic mess. It was a serious disappointment, but not an unusual one...

[ginnyinWI]

4. I'm sticking with my local public radio station.

Sure, NPR isn't perfect--but if we cut off everything that isn't perfect, we are left with no media at all. You just have to get news from a lot of sources so you can glean the truth.

[blm]

5. And THAT is exactly how corpmedia diminishes BushInc's crimes of office. Soon, he'll

be getting the same revisionist treatment that Reagan and his father have enjoyed.

[patrice]

7. There WILL be a whole "think tank" and "re$earch" indu$try centered

around hi$ pRe$idential library, whom we will be $eeing and hearing all over the place, indu$triou$ly era$ing all negative trace$ from "our" "mind$". And NPR will be a part of it.

When he said that a few weeks ago about "They're still writing about President #1, so I don't think #43 has much to worry about" was maddening not only for revealing that he feels he can do what he wants without consequences, but also because it IS true.

[burythehatchet]

8. It's like watching a nation die in slow motion.

Perhaps ignorance is bliss after all.

[blm]

10. You nailed it - watching the nation die slowly.

Between fascism and the worsening environment it will be sooner than we ever expected.

[whistle]

14. So the point of using the word was what exactly? It sounds like

...NPR reporter wished to minimize the impact of these DOJ firings by reducing the event to an unfamiliar term which when looked up would suggest that "only disorder and commotion" was the result. There certainly would be far richer words that could have been used to describe what these firings have meant:

Look here <snip>
ThesaurusLegend:

1. kerfuffle - a disorderly outburst or tumult; "they were amazed by the furious disturbance they had caused"

Synonyms
commotion, hoo-ha, hoo-hah, hurly burly, stir, to-do, disruption, disturbance, flutter

Related Words

disorder - a disturbance of the peace or of public order
turmoil, upheaval, convulsion - a violent disturbance; "the convulsions of the stock market"

earthquake - a disturbance that is extremely disruptive; "selling the company caused an earthquake among the employees"

incident - a public disturbance; "the police investigated an incident at the bus station"

tempest, storm - a violent commotion or disturbance; "the storms that had characterized their relationship had died away"; "it was only a tempest in a teapot"

storm center, storm centre - a center of trouble or disturbance

garboil, tumult, tumultuousness, uproar - a state of commotion and noise and confusion

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kerfuffle

[Buzz Clik]

29. So, after nearly 24 hours -- and no one has stated who said this or when.

Care to give us: 1) what program; 2) what correspondent; and 3) what time it was said?

It's pretty clear you won't be giving us the context of the comment, but at the moment no one has even demonstrated with any certainty that the comment was even made.

[burythehatchet]

30. ...

www.monster.com

www.hotjobs.com

[Buzz Clik]

31. heh heh heh.

You.

Have.

Nothing.

As I suspected. I'm sure those who supported you in this thread are feeling a bit betrayed. For me, however, it's sweet vindication.

[itcfish]

33. Buzz Click

How much does Free Republic pay you? Do they offer you health benefits?

[Buzz Clik]

34. And the degradation of this thread is complete.

So, I'm a Freeper because I don't think NPR calling the firings of US attorneys a "kerfuffle" qualifies as horrible journalism or an indication that they are a mouthpiece for the GOP.

Instead of acting like an ass, perhaps you can answer any one of the unaswered questions on this thread. Though, I have a feeling you'll go with your best talent...