But not before the National Review got in a few more of their lies:
The story of the eight fired U.S. attorneys has been relentlessly overhyped. We do not know that any of them was fired because the administration put its political interests ahead of his or her prosecutorial judgment. Sen. Dick Durbin’s recent insinuation that the attorneys who were not fired had kept their jobs by compromising their prosecutions was outrageous.
Oh please! I guess these prosecutors were consistently poor performers, but no one at Justice could bother to tell them that. So why does the National Review want Gonzalez to go?
What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense.
In other words, Gonzales is not effective enough in covering up the continuing corruption from this White House. Leave it to the nitwits at the National Review to demand more effective liars.
Update: Byron York gets a little too clever as he tries to slime Carol Lam:
If that indeed happened, it would be reasonable to guess that there might be some clues in the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails and other documents pertaining to the U.S. attorneys matter released by the Justice Department. But that’s not the case. In fact, the e-mails show a much different dynamic at work. The picture that emerges from the evidence in the Lam case is of a Justice Department at profound policy odds with the U.S. attorney, preparing to take action against her, but at the same time ignoring or brushing off outsiders who criticized Lam on the very grounds that troubled Department officials.
But isn’t this the whole point of Selective Disclosure? I suspected that the White House withheld the damning emails but released the after the fact excuse emails from the period from November 15 to December 4 for a reason. That reason being to get their water carriers at the National Review to write such utter horse manure as the slime and defend garbage exhibited by York’s latest. Thank Byron – for proving me right!