Some evidence on the "Gonzales 8"

Tully's been busy in comments to an earlier thread explaining about the difference between evidence and argument. In a thorough post today, Patterico provides an excellent example of the former. Patterico went through the actual e-mails released by the White House and Justice Department (you can do it too, you know... you don't have to take his or our word for it, read them yourself, thanks to the Washington Post), and found that the history of the e-mails meshes quite well with the explanations given for the firing, with but a few exceptions.

For example, he finds an Appointment Summary which listed former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam as being on the chopping block dated February 24, 2005. Critics have accused Gonzales for firing Lam because of the investigation into Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The problem? The Cunningham scandal didn't start until June 2005, four months after DoJ started to consider removing Lam. That's evidence.

As another example, Patterico found an e-mail about former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton. Critics argue that concern over Charlton's approach to immigration prosecutions is a mere pretext. But an e-mail from one staffer describes a recent meeting he had had, with others, with Charlton. In the meeting, when asked about his approach to immigration prosecutions, Charlton told them that he did not prosecute illegal aliens until they had been rearrested 13 times after their first catch-and-release deportation, with a few exceptions.

Patterico does note a few causes for concern found in the e-mail, a reference to acting in "good faith," with the phrase in quotes just like that... never a smart thing to write down that way. But that e-mail deals with a plan to keep an "interim" appointment on until the end of the Administration by "running the clock out" while misleading Congress. Certainly a wrong thing to do, and the guy who wrote that e-mail has already resigned. But on the whole, Patterico says that the evidence appears to support the proposition that these removals were made in accordance with the proper exercise of the President's responsibility to supervise and set policy for the executive branch.