Skip to main content

View Diary: Max Baucus' Mistress' Interesting Past (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That isn't the issue. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, mike101

    The relationship was known when he nominated her. The problem is that she wasn't qualified for the job but he nominated her anyway.

    "Styles upon styles upon styles is what I have. You wanna diss the Phifer but you still don't know the half." - A Tribe Called Quest

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:46 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I Read Her Resume (0+ / 0-)

      and she looked more qualified than Sara Palin, which is not saying that much, but she did look qualified to me.  

      •  A federal appeallate court (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jaywillie, mike101, rja

        as well as every judge before that who reviewed her cases, found that she withheld exculpatory evidence and engaged in misconduct with a witness.

        That qualifies you to be chief law enforcement official in your book?

        "Styles upon styles upon styles is what I have. You wanna diss the Phifer but you still don't know the half." - A Tribe Called Quest

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 09:20:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah, I don't get how folks can read that review (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clio2, brooklynbadboy, rja

          from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and not see that that would have brought down her nomination and was reason enough not to nominate her.

          I mean, hiding exculpatory evidence that might undermine the expert testimony from the medical examiner you're having a relationship with at the time?  Yeah, that's pretty bad.  That's not something you can just whitewash.

      •  The Sarah Palin standard (0+ / 0-)

        is a mightly low one, though, don't you think? Hardly should be considered precedential?

    •  The relationship was *known*? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brooklynbadboy

      So the whole "scandal" here is that you believe Baucus did inadequate vetting of a nominee? That's it? Not that he was carrying on a secret affair and trying to do some kind of underhanded thing of concealing his true motives for the nomination?

      Sure, it does look like a piss-poor job of vetting, from your description, but that's not a scandal worthy of all this sturm-und-drang.

      Please visit: http://www.jkmediasource.org

      by Noisy Democrat on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 10:24:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. For this reason: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rja

        the magnitude of the office in question. Had he hooked her up with some sort of position at the Bureau of Land Management or possibly a think tank or university professorship, i'd be dismissive of the whole story.

        But the United States Attorney is a very important job calling for people of the highest ethical order and standards. It is a position where your job is to beat the heavy axe of federal law. FBI agents are under your authority. You can sieze property. It isn't the same as being an assistant district attorney. This is why there is a Senate confirmation process for these offices. We've seen under the Bush Administration what happens when you let cronies become U.S. Attorneys.

        Lets not forget: if Max Baucus is ever accused of misconduct involving public corruption in Montana of any sort, it is the U.S. Attorney in Montana who will be responsible.

        "Styles upon styles upon styles is what I have. You wanna diss the Phifer but you still don't know the half." - A Tribe Called Quest

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Dec 05, 2009 at 11:05:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That the affair was known (0+ / 0-)

        is hardly proof that no influence came into play.

        Pretend you are about to hire a new staffer in your own place of work.

        The boss sends over six resumes for your special consideration. You look at one of those six names and see that the applicant is someone you and your colleagues know to be sleeping with the boss.

        So...How do you read that choice on the part of your boss? How does a prudent subordinate act?

        (Suggestion: You know what your boss would like you to do, and there is no way to win -- do what he wants, and you're involved in corruption. Hire somebody else, you tick the boss off. Two ways to save your ass: Find a way to dump the final decision on somebody else, preferably a committee so that responsibility can be diffused. Or, better if you can pull it off, go to a personal mentor who has the rank to take your boss aside and have a little heart-to-heart..."Joe, you don't want to do this to yourself," kind of thing. Which I suspect happened here.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (119)
  • Community (51)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Environment (33)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Education (20)
  • GOP (20)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • Economy (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site