Bush behind U.S. attorney firing

[gabosaurus]

If you don't do my bidding, you will ALL have to walk the plank!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

[glockmail]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

[avatar4321]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

And unlike President Bush, President Clinton was under investigation at the time for Whitewater... Hmmm wonder why he wanted his own guys in then...

The Attorney's are appointed by the President. They serve at his pleasure. Sounds like President Bush was tired of his attorneys ignoring significant cases such as the voter fraud case in New Mexico.

So its a good thing he is cleaning out attorneys not doing their job.

[Nukeman]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

How quickly they forget what good ole Bubba did. They are so stupid they bitch about stuff they dont evern research. They (liberals) lsove to oint the fingers of hypocricy at others while all along the same old skeleton is in their very own closet.

What a bunch of whiney losers.

Gabby come up with something original that only conservatives have done than youcan bitch for real...

Dumbass:poke: :laugh2:

[glockmail]

And unlike President Bush, President Clinton was under investigation at the time for Whitewater... Hmmm wonder why he wanted his own guys in then...

The Attorney's are appointed by the President. They serve at his pleasure. Sounds like President Bush was tired of his attorneys ignoring significant cases such as the voter fraud case in New Mexico.

So its a good thing he is cleaning out attorneys not doing their job.

Even if Clinton didn't do it, they are POLITICAL APPOINTEES. :cool:

[Yurt]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

*liberal crickets*

[Yurt]

*liberal crickets*

LiberalNation, I know you are on the Board and have seen this.....


*LN crickets*


:fu:

[stephanie]

The Democrats today, are lying throurgh their ass...How anyone can vote them?????

National Review, Sept 1, 1998 by Robert H. Bork


In the history of the Republic, the names of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will be forever linked, a prospect that ought to appall Miss Reno. That is entirely due to her efforts to preserve the President from his own follies, to use a polite word. Bill Clinton heads what is probably the most corrupt Administration ever, while Miss Reno has been called the worst of all Clinton's Cabinet appointments. From his point of view, of course, she may be the best, which comes to much the same thing.

Miss Reno's only visible qualifications for the post of attorney general were two: she is a woman and she had been a prosecutor. The first characteristic was indisputable, although, in any non-feminized era, it would have been irrelevant. The second seemed heartening, but it did not prepare her for Washington. Coming from obscurity, she must have been caught off guard by the rampant corruption into which she was thrust. So varied and unceasing have been this Administration's infractions of law that Miss Reno resembles a desperate tennis player, running from side to side of the court and from net to baseline in a frantic effort to hold down the score. Unfortunately for her White House coach, she is becoming winded and wobbly-legged.

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...50/ai_21123146

[OCA]

Don't know what the big deal is, people do a shitty job they get fired, simple as that. Because he's the pres he can't fire anybody?

[lily]

LiberalNation, I know you are on the Board and have seen this.....


*LN crickets*


:fu:

Not, LN.......but maybe I can help you?

Yes, this administration can fire any attorney he wants, but he can't do it for political reasons.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596412,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

U.S. Attorneys in the Line of Fire
Monday, Mar. 05, 2007 By ADAM ZAGORIN/WASHINGTON




In a countdown to high-profile hearings in the House and Senate, Republicans
and Democrats are preparing to do battle today over whether the firing of
eight Republican U.S. attorneys last year by the Bush Administration was
politically motivated. The Justice Department's number two official claimed
last year that poor "performance" was behind the firings, a contention
disputed by the dismissed officials. One of the group, David Iglesias of New
Mexico, alleged over the weekend that he had been called by two members of
Congress last year, and that both had pressured him to conduct a criminal
investigation of Democrats before the 2006 election. The implicaton was
clear: because Iglesias rebuffed the lawmakers' suggestion, he was fired.
(Iglesias, a Navy Reserve member, was one of the models for the Tom Cruise
character in the 1992 movie A Few Good Men.) Several of his fellow U.S.
attorneys, who were also pushed out, had been investigating Republican
lawmakers prior to their ouster.

In a statement Tuesday, Rep. Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, denied
pressuring Iglesias. She said she had called Iglesias because of an
allegation received from a constituent that he was intentionally delaying
corruption prosecutions. Wilson said Iglesias denied that allegation,
explaining that he was understaffed and had limited personnel to manage
corruption cases. She added that she had no input into the decision to fire
Iglesias.

Also in response to Iglesias' report, Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico
Republican, acknowledged on Monday that he had contacted Iglesias in October
2006 to ask about his investigation into an alleged Democratic kickback
scheme. But Domenici also said that he never threatened or pressured
Iglesias, though he had long sought his dismissal. The Justice Department
confirmed this week that Domenici had called Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and his principal deputy four times to complain about Iglesias'
behavior, inquiring whether he was "up to the job." As the furor has
intensified, a Washington watchdog group this week called for a Senate
investigation of whether Domenici violated congressional ethics rules, which
forbid members from intervening in prosecutions and trials.

Adding to the furor, a report by McClatchy Newspapers - quickly denied by
the Justice Department - alleged that a senior DOJ official informed one of
the fired U.S. attorneys that if any of them continued to criticize the
Administration, previously undisclosed details about the reasons for the
firings could made public. McClatchy attributed the account to two of the
ousted prosecutors, but did not name them, and also quoted the DOJ official
as saying, "I had no conversation in which I discussed with any U.S.
attorney what they should or should not say to the media regarding their
removal."

A resignation on Monday had already increased the questions surrounding the
case. Michael Battle, the Justice Department official who made the telephone
calls to dismiss six of the eight prosecutors in early December, said he was
leaving his job. The Department of Justice issued a statement that described
his sudden departure as long planned, having nothing to do with the
controversial terminations he had to carry out. Battle, the DOJ said, had
played no role in the White House-approved decision to get rid of the
federal prosecutors, but had merely made the calls.

Democrats immediately questioned that version of events. "Even months after
the firings, we still haven't gotten straight answers from the Department of
Justice, which changed its own story... and admitted the firings weren't
based on job performance," declared Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the
Judiciary subcommittee that is holding one of today's hearings. "The wheels
are coming off the Bush Administration's increasingly hollow defense of its
decision."

To find out what happened in the firings, four of the dismissed U.S.
attorneys will appear before the Senate, and six before the House, along
with a senior DOJ official who will most likely defend his department's
actions. Carol Lam, a prosecutor from California, will read a joint
statement on behalf of her fellow witnesses, thanking President Bush and
defending the integrity and competence of the dismissed officials. Then the
witnesses will answer questions.

In response to the controversy, bills are pending in both the House and
Senate that would seek to insulate U.S. attorneys from political influence
by restoring a system of checks and balances that would limit the period
within which U.S. attorneys could be appointed without Senate confirmation.

[stephanie]

Oh for crying out loud....:slap:

[Yurt]

Not, LN.......but maybe I can help you?

Yes, this administration can fire any attorney he wants, but he can't do it for political reasons.

Do support Clinton's right to do so? Did you even read the thread? I am tired of this stupid posts by some libs here. Respond to the thread and the posts. Your post did neither.

If you are sincere about debating, try debating, not trash talking.

[lily]

Oh for crying out loud....:slap:

Well, that added a lot to the debate.

[manu1959]

If you don't do my bidding, you will ALL have to walk the plank!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.
Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.


firing people for not doing what the libs wanted and now you are pissed?.....there is no pleasing you is there

[manu1959]

Well, that added a lot to the debate.

and you?

[lily]

Do support Clinton's right to do so? Did you even read the thread? I am tired of this stupid posts by some libs here. Respond to the thread and the posts. Your post did neither.

If you are sincere about debating, try debating, not trash talking.

I had to check to see if I was in the right thread. Yeah, US attorney firing. I posted an article about that and you complain that I'm not responding?

Strange.

[CockySOB]

I'm sorry, but what's the big deal?

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/index.html

United States Attorneys Mission Statement

The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. There are 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. One United States Attorney is assigned to each of the judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands where a single United States Attorney serves in both districts. Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.

[lily]

I already answered that back on page one cocky......yes United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. ......but you can't fire them for political reasons.

[stephanie]

Bull, bull, bull...

You just completely ignored the article I posted about Clinton and Reno, just so you can continue spreading your stories.....pathetic

[lily]

Stephanie, how is my posting a cited article from Time spreading my own stories? I mean your article about Clinton and Reno was fascinating and all, but it does not address the point that you can't fire attorneys because they are not going after your political enemy fast enough for you.

I know it's hard after all these years of no checks and balances, but that's not the way this government is suppose to run.

[stephanie]

Stephanie, how is my posting a cited article from Time spreading my own stories? I mean your article about Clinton and Reno was fascinating and all, but it does not address the point that you can't fire attornies for political reasons.

What do you call what they did??
Then did they do it for political reasons??
Where they wrong??

[avatar4321]

I already answered that back on page one cocky......yes United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. ......but you can't fire them for political reasons.

The President can fire any appointment for any reason. That's one of the perks of being President.

[avatar4321]

Stephanie, how is my posting a cited article from Time spreading my own stories? I mean your article about Clinton and Reno was fascinating and all, but it does not address the point that you can't fire attorneys because they are not going after your political enemy fast enough for you.

I know it's hard after all these years of no checks and balances, but that's not the way this government is suppose to run.

But it was perfectly alright for Clinton to fire All the prosecutors because they were investigating him?

[stephanie]

But it was perfectly alright for Clinton to fire All the prosecutors because they were investigating him?

It sure seems that way...

They know what their doing...

Their out now on a full court press to try and destroy everybody around President Bush, even if they have to lie about it......

What gets me is why aren't the Republicans and the President not speaking up about all this??? I think that's pathetic on their part......

[stephanie]

March 13, 2007
About those fired U.S. Attorneys

The alleged scandal over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has made it to the front page of the Washington Post as today's top headline. Let's take a look at the Post's story and the "scandal."

The Post breathlessly informs us that the "Firings Had Genesis in White House." Reading on, we learn that President Bush told Attorney General Gonzales he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud invesitgations. Voter fraud is a serious offense, and both political parties say they oppose it. So it seems perfectly proper for the president to pass along a complaint that some prosecutors weren't pursuing such investigations. The question would then become how Gonzales followed-up and whether he did so fairly. More on this in a moment.

The Post also says that Harriet Miers recommended that all U.S. Attorneys be fired. Gonzales wisely rejected this blunderbuss recommendation. It's worth noting, though, that such a mass firing would not have been unprecedented. President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.

This time, eight prosecutors lost their jobs. It's not implausible to think that out of 93 U.S. Attorneys, eight might be good candidates for replacement. But let's take a quick look at some of the specifics. According to the Post, three of them had low ratings -- Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Carol Lam in San Diego, and Bud Cummins in Little Rock. Cummins was replaced by Tim Griffin, whose career Karl Rove apparently wanted to advance. There's nothing novel in appointing a rising star with good connections to the job of U.S. Attorney. I've seen no evidence that Griffin was unqualified and, as noted, Cummins had received a poor rating.

Two of the fired prosecutors -- Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque -- received strong evaluations. But according to the Post, Ryan's firing "has generated few complaints because of widespread managment and morale problems in his office."

The focus instead is on Iglesias because, in addition to the strong evaluation, he was not on the original list of prosecutors recommended for removal by Gonzales' aide Kyle Sampson. Rather, he apparently was added as a candidate for removal in response to complaints from New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

Is the firing of Iglesias a genuine scandal? As David Frum notes, it depends on the facts: was there a serious problem of voter fraud in the state, was Iglesias sluggish in dealing with it, and did the administration act even-handedly by insisting that its U.S. Attorneys adequately deal with serious allegations of voter fraud lodged by both political parties?

Until we see good evidence that the answer to one or more of these questions is "no," the firing of Iglesias is not scandalous.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt, a liberal blogger and criminal lawyer whose work I respect, argues that

The travesty of the current U.S. Attorney firing scandal is not that U.S. Attorneys are being replaced. That is expected after an election, such as the one in 2004. It's that it's happening in 2007. . .In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified.
But Merritt doesn't really explain why this is so. She agrees that U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President." So why shouldn't a U.S. Attorney be replaced at any time if he or she is not performing well overall, or if his office is plagued by morale problems, or if she is not enforcing the immigration laws, or if he is not dealing adequately with substantial allegations of voter fraud? That's the way it works for all other presidential appointees; why not U.S. Attorneys?

The issue should be the merits of the individual decisions, not the violation of some presumption that U.S. Attorneys will only be removed at a designated point in the political cycle.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/print/017018.php

[stephanie]

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
By DAVID JOHNSTON,

Published: March 24, 1993
Time magazine

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision” in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

Says He Won’t Resist

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General’s move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno’s actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

“This case has been conducted with integrity,” Mr. Stephens said, “and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations.”

Nonetheless, lawyers who have followed the investigation have said that Mr. Stephens has been concerned that the Democratic Administration might try to upset his investigation.

Has Denied Wrongdoing

Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton’s efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.

Mr. Stephens and his prosecutors began the investigation that led them to review Mr. Rostenkowski’s activities in mid-1991, focusing initially on low-level employees at the House post office who absconded with money. There have been several guilty pleas as prosecutors have worked their way up the ranks at the mailing operation.

Mr. Rostenkowski has been under scrutiny since last year, when his office records were subpoenaed in an inquiry into whether someone in his office used his expense account fraudulently to obtain cash from the post office. Since then, some of his aides have testified to a grand jury and investigators have examined his use of campaign funds. Denies Any Connection

In announcing her order at her first news conference as Attorney General, Ms. Reno denied there was any connection between her action and the Rostenkowski case and said Mr. Stephens had been treated like other United States Attorneys.”

Ms. Reno said United States Attorneys “are absolutely integral to the whole success of the Department of Justice,” and her aides said today that she did not intend to immediately remove any whose presence was required to complete an investigation.

One official suggested that even Mr. Stephens might be asked to stay on until a successor is named, saying Ms. Reno had made no decisions about who she may choose on an interim basis.

All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General. Battles of the Past

Ms. Reno is under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the Justice Department. She was Mr. Clinton’s third choice for Attorney General and arrived after most of the department’s senior positions were already filled by the White House.

The comments of Ms. Reno and Mr. Stephens evoked the pitched battles of the past, when independent United States Attorneys resisted removal by new administrations.

In 1969, for instance Robert Morgenthau, now the Manhattan District Attorney, resisted efforts by the Nixon Administration to replace him as United States Attorney in New York until he was given what he called an “ultimatum” by President Richard M. Nixon to leave office.

In 1978, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell removed David W. Marston as United States Attorney in Philadelphia, provoking charges, never proved, that a lawmaker under scrutiny by Mr. Marston’s office had urged President Jimmy Carter to remove the prosecutor.

Four-Year Terms

United States Attorneys are appointed to serve four-year terms at the pleasure of the President. It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated the request for resignations or whether it was pressed on her by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a “joint decision.”

Ms. Reno said she wanted the resignations “so that the U.S. Attorneys presently in position will know where they stand and that we can begin to build a team.”

Some Administration officials dismissed Mr. Stephens’s veiled assertions about the Attorney General’s motives as “absurd,” as one put it, saying that what was surprising was that it had taken so long before the Justice Department could begin putting its own appointees in place. Abortion Clinic Violence

On other topics, Ms. Reno said she would work with Democrats in Congress to prepare legislation to give Federal agencies a larger role in protecting abortion clinics.

Her comments came after she had ordered a review of current law, which she said was inadequate “to prevent or to help prevent physical interference with access to abortion clinics.”

She also ruled out a Federal inquiry into the death of Dr. David Gunn, a physician who was shot to death as he entered an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., apparently by a man who said he was an anti-abortion activist. “Florida law on this subject is more effective than Federal law,” said Ms. Reno, a former Florida prosecutor.

Ms. Reno also said she had not decided whether to replace William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who has been found to have violated ethics rules.
http://sweetness-light.com/

[CSM]

Not, LN.......but maybe I can help you?

Yes, this administration can fire any attorney he wants, but he can't do it for political reasons.

Um, actually, he can fire them for any reason, including he doesn't like the color of the guys tie.

[CSM]

What amazes me is that libs and dems get all offended when you call them hypocrits. I guess that is because they are so arrogant too.

[LiberalNation]

The President can fire any appointment for any reason. That's one of the perks of being President.

Well apparently not. Even Gonzalas admits it was handled wrong.

[LiberalNation]

Who cares about Clinton. So you think Clinton was bad, then why do you think Clinton did it should be an excuse for your guy.

We are not talking history, we are talking today and what Bush did and whether it was a proper action.

[CockySOB]

I already answered that back on page one cocky......yes United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. ......but you can't fire them for political reasons.

Sorry Lily, but yes, POTUS CAN fire his US Attorneys for any reason, and the firing part does not require any "advisement" or "consent" of Congress. Period.

Now if you have some citation from the US Codes which contradicts this, feel free to present it. But so far you have provided ZERO legal evidence to support your allegation that POTUS cannot fire his US Attorneys for [insert reason here].

The others have noted that WJC fired all the US Attorneys in 1993 as a means of showing precedent for such an action. WJC had the right to do this, just as GWB had the right to dismiss the US Attorneys he did.

So please, if you have a legal citation which supports your position, present it.

[avatar4321]

Well apparently not. Even Gonzalas admits it was handled wrong.

Wow... if that isn't selective hearing I don't know what is.

It was handled wrong because everyone wasn't informed about all the details of what was going on which lead to some confusion.

Gonzales specifically said the action taken was correct. Of course it is, because the President can fire whomever he wants.

[avatar4321]

Who cares about Clinton. So you think Clinton was bad, then why do you think Clinton did it should be an excuse for your guy.

We are not talking history, we are talking today and what Bush did and whether it was a proper action.

Hypocrisy of those who are calling for resignations is extremely relevant to the the thread. To say othewise simply because it hurts your argument is dishonest.

And we are talking about President Bush's actions today. He is the President. and can fire whomever he chooses whenever he chooses. That's part of the power of being President.

President Clinton fired EVERY SINGLE ATTORNEY and there was clearly it was perfectly legal despite there being serious ethical considerations from investigating him.

There are no ethical concerns in this case. There is absolutely no scandal here. It's clearly legal and within the discretion of the President.

In essence, there is absolutely no story here because every President has been able to fire attorneys at his leisure.

[GW in Ohio]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

Actually, glockie, that caused a shitstorm.

You should have caught that....Rush was all over it.

[CockySOB]

Actually, glockie, that caused a shitstorm.

You should have caught that....Rush was all over it.

And Rush is important... why? Sorry, just because a talking head gets flustered does NOT make the issue important. Sometimes talking heads find something important, but most often they're out just for their own ratings by pandering to a particular audience mindset. Rush can be entertaining at times, just as O'Reilly and Hannity can be, but that doesn't make their views gospel, now does it?

[5stringJeff]

I already answered that back on page one cocky......yes United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate. ......but you can't fire them for political reasons.

Wrong. The President can fire them for whatever reason he wants. He is the Chief Executive, and they serve at his pleasure.

[GW in Ohio]

Wrong. The President can fire them for whatever reason he wants. He is the Chief Executive, and they serve at his pleasure.

You do know, Jeff, that these attorneys made their way onto Bush's shit list after they helped prosecute some well-known Republicans and didn't pursue prosecutions against Democrats vigorously enough to suit this administration.

You are aware that this has caused a bit of a flap and that AG Gonzalez is under pressure to resign because of it.

Right?

[5stringJeff]

You do know, Jeff, that these attorneys made their way onto Bush's shit list after they helped prosecute some well-known Republicans and didn't pursue prosecutions against Democrats vigorously enough to suit this administration.

You are aware that this has caused a bit of a flap and that AG Gonzalez is under pressure to resign because of it.

Right?

All of this, while it may be true, has no bearing on the fact that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire them, it's his call. All I keep hearing about on the news is how Congress is pissed because these people were fired. Guess what? Congress has no say in such affairs.

[Birdzeye]

All of this, while it may be true, has no bearing on the fact that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire them, it's his call. All I keep hearing about on the news is how Congress is pissed because these people were fired. Guess what? Congress has no say in such affairs.

Right. However, if the POTUS fires US attorneys because they weren't aggressive enough at going after members of the opposition party (as it appears to be the case here), I'd say that the POTUS deserves to be criticized and even pilloried for doing that.

[Birdzeye]

This seems relevant to the issue of the recent firings of US Attorneys:


The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials: When Rhetorical Vision Participation Runs Amok

Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan
18 February 2007

Our ongoing study of the Bush Justice Department (to be published in 2008) investigates the implications of the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department's blended religious -fundamentalist and neo-conservative rhetorical vision. The study views the impact of the Justice Department's vision on the fight against public corruption and reveals the non-proportionate political profiling of elected Democratic officials.

We presented the preliminary data through August 2004 at the Southern Speech Communication Annual meeting in April 2005 in Baton Rouge and as a refereed panel paper with data through December 2004 at the November 2005 annual meeting of the National Communication Association.
We compare political profiling to racial profiling by presenting the results (January 2001 through December 2006) of the U.S. Attorneys' federal investigation and/or indictment of 375 elected officials. The distribution of party affiliation of the sample is compared to the available normative data (50% Dem, 41% GOP, and 9% Ind.).

Data* indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven (7) times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.

--

The current Bush Republican Administration appears to be the first to have engaged in political profiling.


http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html

[CockySOB]

You do know, Jeff, that these attorneys made their way onto Bush's shit list after they helped prosecute some well-known Republicans and didn't pursue prosecutions against Democrats vigorously enough to suit this administration.

You are aware that this has caused a bit of a flap and that AG Gonzalez is under pressure to resign because of it.

Right?

Well, to be honest don't you mean that there is an allegation that these eight former US Attorneys were dismissed for political reasons?

But the problem comes back to the fact that POTUS has the right and the authority to dismiss the US Attorneys serving under his office for any reason whatsoever. Although most of the posters have focused on how WJC dismissed all of the US Attorneys when he took office, Reagan did the same thing when he was elected. In fact, it is typical for POTUS to remove the US Attorneys simply because of political affiliation. In this case, the eight in question were described as not performing up to the expectations of POTUS which is why they were dismissed.

Now what the Congress is trying to do with this "investigation" is to usurp the power of the Executive Branch and POTUS to control the top-level executive member of each of the 93 US Districts.

[CSM]

Well, to be honest don't you mean that there is an allegation that these eight former US Attorneys were dismissed for political reasons?

But the problem comes back to the fact that POTUS has the right and the authority to dismiss the US Attorneys serving under his office for any reason whatsoever. Although most of the posters have focused on how WJC dismissed all of the US Attorneys when he took office, Reagan did the same thing when he was elected. In fact, it is typical for POTUS to remove the US Attorneys simply because of political affiliation. In this case, the eight in question were described as not performing up to the expectations of POTUS which is why they were dismissed.

Now what the Congress is trying to do with this "investigation" is to usurp the power of the Executive Branch and POTUS to control the top-level executive member of each of the 93 US Districts.


You are exactly correct.

[CockySOB]

You are exactly correct.

Yeah, but sometimes you have to drag these horses to water again and again and again before they finally take a sip....

[Mr. P]

Maybe already stated, I didn’t read the whole thread….

Bush bashers need to get over a few being fired and research.


By FIRING all U.S. Attorneys shortly after becoming president -- something no other president had ever done before -- Bill Clinton did it to cover his ass from investigations.

[CSM]

Yeah, but sometimes you have to drag these horses to water again and again and again before they finally take a sip....

Well, if they won't drink after the first time....drown em!

[musicman]

The Democrat Party has to look back a long way to connect with having any meaningful, lasting success in the American political arena. They can perhaps be understood if they believe that their template for the acquisition of power is as it was in the 1970's: war, scandal, war, scandal, war, scandal, war....

Obviously, they feel that their path to relevance involves bloodying the White House and the Republican Party as much - and as often - as possible. INCESSANTLY, in fact.

If they were wise, they'd take care not to overplay their hand. Their propoganda organ - the MSM/DNC - was the only game in town thirty-three years ago. This is no longer the case. The American electorate are now able, and quite inclined, to give both sides a fair hearing. Moreover, we are not the stupid bumpkins we're thought to be in rarefied Hollywood and Upper Manhattan circles. Soon, all of this is going to start sounding like vicious partisan noise.

But, Democrats are not wise - as they have amply demonstrated throughout our lifetimes. This is the agenda for the next two years - and it's going to cost them.

[musicman]

Pour it on, guys! I want to see a fresh attack every day! Crank up that decibel level, and tune those voices up past "hysterical shriek"! Make sure that America awaits your next breathless revelation with the same giddy eagerness they have for a toothache! You're doing fine - don't stop now!

[glockmail]

Actually, glockie, that caused a shitstorm.

You should have caught that....Rush was all over it. It didn't raise an eybrow at the NYT, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN...... Now these loonies are jumping up and down, pissing themselves.

[lily]

Sorry Lily, but yes, POTUS CAN fire his US Attorneys for any reason, and the firing part does not require any "advisement" or "consent" of Congress. Period.

Now if you have some citation from the US Codes which contradicts this, feel free to present it. But so far you have provided ZERO legal evidence to support your allegation that POTUS cannot fire his US Attorneys for [insert reason here].

The others have noted that WJC fired all the US Attorneys in 1993 as a means of showing precedent for such an action. WJC had the right to do this, just as GWB had the right to dismiss the US Attorneys he did.

So please, if you have a legal citation which supports your position, present it.

Cocky, sorry I didn't get bak to this yesterday, I was busy. I'll take your post to reply to, since everyone seems to be making the same argument. No where have I stated that the president doesn't have the righ to fire these attorneys. What I am arguing is that he doesn't have the right to fire them for political reasons, such as was pointed out in my article and by another poster. He can't fire them because they were pursuing Republicans and not Democrats. I'd like to also add two more comments. He can not appoint other attorneys with out congress' approval and I'm not calling for Gonzales to step down, I am asking you to see this for what it is.

Yes Clinton fired ALL 93 attorneys as did many other presidents, if you can show me where any other president fired attorneys for politcal reasons, then tried to replace them without congress approval then I'll agree with you, but I don't think you can.

[CockySOB]

Cocky, sorry I didn't get bak to this yesterday, I was busy. I'll take your post to reply to, since everyone seems to be making the same argument. No where have I stated that the president doesn't have the righ to fire these attorneys. What I am arguing is that he doesn't have the right to fire them for political reasons, such as was pointed out in my article and by another poster. He can't fire them because they were pursuing Republicans and not Democrats. I'd like to also add two more comments. He can not appoint other attorneys with out congress' approval and I'm not calling for Gonzales to step down, I am asking you to see this for what it is.

Yes Clinton fired ALL 93 attorneys as did many other presidents, if you can show me where any other president fired attorneys for politcal reasons, then tried to replace them without congress approval then I'll agree with you, but I don't think you can.

No problem Lily, after all, the real world takes precedence.

The fact is that practically ALL US Attorney dismissals are for political reasons. When the new POTUS dismisses all the then-current US Attorneys, they do so for a political reason, and not for any performance-based concerns. Reagan, Bush(41), and Clinton all dismissed their predecessor's appointees. (Clinton actually kept one at the request of one of the Democratic Senators, but I can't recall which one off-hand.)

In fact, after GWB was re-elected to his second term it was suggested that all 93 US Attorneys be dismissed. AG Gonzales didn't want to dismiss anyone unless there were already replacements ready for appointment and confirmation by Congress, which is apparently why the process was delayed until these eight were dismissed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html

Now if any of the dismissed former US Attorneys thought their dismissal was wrong/illegal, they would have a basis for a civil case for wrongful dismissal yet I haven't heard of any such action. BTW, if the eight in question truly feel they were harassed on the job, then they should be going the civil route rather than talking to Congress. The reason they are not is IMO because they realize they don't have a legally actionable case.

[lily]

They used the an office of the government against US citizens. You don't see the wrong in that? Yes they all serve at the pleasure of the president, but first and foremost they serve the people of the United States. Him letting his cheif of staff go, is just another person falling on their sword to protect a higher up.........and I mean higher up that Gonzales, but lower than Bush.

As I've stated more than once, and you know how I hate to repeat myself, but firing the entire staff is one thing, it's political in the sense that they were serving the president before, there is no presidence for this type of firing and replacement.

[Dilloduck]

They used the an office of the government against US citizens. You don't see the wrong in that? Yes they all serve at the pleasure of the president, but first and foremost they serve the people of the United States. Him letting his cheif of staff go, is just another person falling on their sword to protect a higher up.........and I mean higher up that Gonzales, but lower than Bush.

As I've stated more than once, and you know how I hate to repeat myself, but firing the entire staff is one thing, it's political in the sense that they were serving the president before, there is no presidence for this type of firing and replacement.

We all know why the democrats are "appalled" at the firings. It will throw a chink in thier plan to launch a huge POLITICALLY PARTISAN assault on the adminisitration. Such a lofty goal for such an esteemed body.

[CSM]

They used the an office of the government against US citizens. You don't see the wrong in that? Yes they all serve at the pleasure of the president, but first and foremost they serve the people of the United States. Him letting his cheif of staff go, is just another person falling on their sword to protect a higher up.........and I mean higher up that Gonzales, but lower than Bush.

As I've stated more than once, and you know how I hate to repeat myself, but firing the entire staff is one thing, it's political in the sense that they were serving the president before, there is no presidence for this type of firing and replacement.


You are not listening or being willfully ignorant. There is plenty of precedent to include actions by Reagan and Clinton. As for replacement...there still has to be Congressional consent....you act like its a done deal.

[CockySOB]

They used the an office of the government against US citizens. You don't see the wrong in that? Yes they all serve at the pleasure of the president, but first and foremost they serve the people of the United States. Him letting his cheif of staff go, is just another person falling on their sword to protect a higher up.........and I mean higher up that Gonzales, but lower than Bush.

As I've stated more than once, and you know how I hate to repeat myself, but firing the entire staff is one thing, it's political in the sense that they were serving the president before, there is no presidence for this type of firing and replacement.

Here are the words of one of the attorneys who was asked to resign, John McKay. (source (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562075_mckay08m.html))
"I was told to resign by the end of January," McKay confirmed Wednesday. "I asked what the reason was, and they told me there was none.

"Ultimately, I serve at the pleasure of the president," McKay said. "I accept that now and I accepted that then, and that's why I resigned."

And let me ask, what is the difference between asking your predecessor's appointees to resign, and asking your own appointees to resign? Most of the US Attorneys have had solid tenures at the post, and even US Attorneys who have prosecuted distinguished cases have been replaced for solely political reasons upon change of Presidency. So why the uproar right now about these firings/forced resignations? Could it be political adversaries of the POTUS trying to make a mountain out of a non-existent molehill? That'd be my guess.

Frankly, the DOJ employee who resigned (Kyle Sampson) should have resigned. He told Congress that the eight had been asked to resign because of performance issues, when in fact I haven't seen any performance problems. He acted inappropriately and "screwed the pooch" which would result in a forced resignation in just about ANY career path. But Sampson's FUBAR does not invalidate the POTUS' explicit right to dismiss US Attorneys at will.

[CockySOB]

We all know why the democrats are "appalled" at the firings. It will throw a chink in thier plan to launch a huge POLITICALLY PARTISAN assault on the adminisitration. Such a lofty goal for such an esteemed body.

Actually, the firings gave them another way to try to attack POTUS, once again without legal cause. This is more of the same-old emotional and sensational tactics the Democrats believe will bring them back to power. Nothing more, nothing less.

The former US Attorneys who were asked to resign all seemed to have generally satisfactory if not exceptional job performance reviews. Whatever reasons they were asked to resign for as in fact, irrelevant. They served at the pleasure of the POTUS, and if he sees fit to replace them, so be it.

[avatar4321]

We all know why the democrats are "appalled" at the firings. It will throw a chink in thier plan to launch a huge POLITICALLY PARTISAN assault on the adminisitration. Such a lofty goal for such an esteemed body.

I love how Democrats try to pretend they arent partisan. Hell they cause most of the partisan battles.

[glockmail]

.....

As I've stated more than once, and you know how I hate to repeat myself, but firing the entire staff is one thing, it's political in the sense that they were serving the president before, there is no presidence for this type of firing and replacement.

Lemme git this straight: its OK for Clinton to fire 94 people, but not OK for Bush to fire 8. Is that your postion?

[TheStripey1]

And unlike President Bush, President Clinton was under investigation at the time for Whitewater... Hmmm wonder why he wanted his own guys in then...

The Attorney's are appointed by the President. They serve at his pleasure. Sounds like President Bush was tired of his attorneys ignoring significant cases such as the voter fraud case in New Mexico.

So its a good thing he is cleaning out attorneys not doing their job.

or perhaps not liking them to prosecute his cronies who got caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

But I guess, to a conservative, a corrupt republican is ok...

[TheStripey1]

Well, that added a lot to the debate.


get used to it, lily, as I think you'll find that that sort of post is common here...

[TheStripey1]

Bull, bull, bull...

You just completely ignored the article I posted about Clinton and Reno, just so you can continue spreading your stories.....pathetic

typical republican response to anything... no... everything...

well, Clinton did it toooooo

[CockySOB]

Stripey1, care to comment on my posts on the topic? Or do you need help understanding the big words?

I only ask because you haven't made an intelligent comment on the topic yet, although you feel quite at home slinging mud.

[CSM]

In all the pages of debate on many message boards, the one thing no one has been able to answer specifically is "What has been done in this situation that is ILLEGAL?" What charges are being investigated...not what do people think, not what has this administration done compared to others, not"what do you think of Republicans/Democrats"....what has been done that is ILLEGAL?

Anyone?

[TheStripey1]

What do you call what they did??
Then did they do it for political reasons??
Where they wrong??

clinton fired them all when he came into office... that's not the same thing as firing them because they didn't tow the party line... firing them DURING a presidential term is UNprecedented...

that's the difference... but I'm not surprized that you don't recognize it...

[TheStripey1]

What do you call what they did??
Then did they do it for political reasons??
Where they wrong??

obtw, nice avatar stiffy...

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

The President can fire any appointment for any reason. That's one of the perks of being President.

you mean like for incompetence? Too bad he doesn't exercise that right more often, considering how many incompetent people he has appointed during his term in office.

[TheStripey1]

But it was perfectly alright for Clinton to fire All the prosecutors because they were investigating him?

As I recall, they weren't investigating him when he came into office... but I'd love to see the link that backs up your statement...

got one?

[TheStripey1]

It sure seems that way...

They know what their doing...

Their out now on a full court press to try and destroy everybody around President Bush, even if they have to lie about it......

What gets me is why aren't the Republicans and the President not speaking up about all this??? I think that's pathetic on their part......

Senator John Sununu spoke up yesterday... Didn't you see him? He demands that AG AG resign...

[TheStripey1]

Um, actually, he can fire them for any reason, including he doesn't like the color of the guys tie.

too bad he doesn't have higher standards...

[TheStripey1]

What amazes me is that libs and dems get all offended when you call them hypocrits. I guess that is because they are so arrogant too.


like you republicans don't...

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

And Rush is important... why? Sorry, just because a talking head gets flustered does NOT make the issue important. Sometimes talking heads find something important, but most often they're out just for their own ratings by pandering to a particular audience mindset. Rush can be entertaining at times, just as O'Reilly and Hannity can be, but that doesn't make their views gospel, now does it?

It does to the dittoheads... but I'm not saying you are a dittohead... unless of course, you are... so...

are you?

[CSM]

too bad he doesn't have higher standards...

Yeah...too bad for those attorneys I guess.

[CSM]

like you republicans don't...

:dance:

Nope.

[TheStripey1]

Bill Clinton did it to cover his ass from investigations.

Got a link to this allegation?

[CSM]

Senator John Sununu spoke up yesterday... Didn't you see him? He demands that AG AG resign...

Sununu is an idiot.

[TheStripey1]

We all know why the democrats are "appalled" at the firings. It will throw a chink in thier plan to launch a huge POLITICALLY PARTISAN assault on the adminisitration. Such a lofty goal for such an esteemed body.


I suppose you think corruption at the highest level of government to be ok, but I don't. It doesn't matter which party is in power. It's wrong.

I think it's time for a THIRD PARTY!

[TheStripey1]

You are not listening or being willfully ignorant. There is plenty of precedent to include actions by Reagan and Clinton. As for replacement...there still has to be Congressional consent....you act like its a done deal.

welll... there's that pesky Patriot Act... someone slipped a provision into it last year that allows the administration to appoint ANYONE they want, without congressional approval...

[CockySOB]

It does to the dittoheads... but I'm not saying you are a dittohead... unless of course, you are... so...

are you?

It should be obvious that I don't simply regurgitate talking points if you've actually bothered to read my posts. I think most of the talking heads are simply entertainers who focus on their own niche markets. Sometimes they've found something I didn't know, but most often they all twist facts to suit their audience demographics - it's all sensationalism these days.

Please though, read my posts and get back to me about this "US Attorneys" thing will ya? As long as you can conduct an intelligent conversation, I'll be open to discussing and debating with you. Who knows, we might BOTH be able to learn a thing or two.

[TheStripey1]

The former US Attorneys who were asked to resign all seemed to have generally satisfactory if not exceptional job performance reviews. Whatever reasons they were asked to resign for as in fact, irrelevant. They served at the pleasure of the POTUS, and if he sees fit to replace them, so be it.

If they were doing a good job, why were they fired? Because they weren't incompetent? Were they showing up the rest of those that kept their jobs?

What's the point of doing a good job, then?

[TheStripey1]

I love how Democrats try to pretend they arent partisan. Hell they cause most of the partisan battles.

It's all about balancing out the right wingers' partisanship... that's why I do it...

why do you do it?

[TheStripey1]

Stripey1, care to comment on my posts on the topic? Or do you need help understanding the big words?

I only ask because you haven't made an intelligent comment on the topic yet, although you feel quite at home slinging mud.

read further, cocky, I'm sure you'll find something you understand... but if not... I can help you...

:finger3:

there... that help any?

[TheStripey1]

In all the pages of debate on many message boards, the one thing no one has been able to answer specifically is "What has been done in this situation that is ILLEGAL?" What charges are being investigated...not what do people think, not what has this administration done compared to others, not"what do you think of Republicans/Democrats"....what has been done that is ILLEGAL?

Anyone?

How about they were fired for political reasons?

[TheStripey1]

Yeah...too bad for those attorneys I guess.

and for AG AG...

[CockySOB]

welll... there's that pesky Patriot Act... someone slipped a provision into it last year that allows the administration to appoint ANYONE they want, without congressional approval...

That someone was William Moschella, a deputy attorney general for the DoJ.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16904559.htm

Interesting reading. Although POTUS can appoint an interim US Attorney without Congressional approval, I believe that a full-time appointment still requires Congressional confirmation. Moreover, this would seem to be almost a moot point because GWB cannot serve another term, and as such even with a full-time appointment, the next POTUS would likely dismiss all the US Attorneys in favor of his own appointees. So the scope of such a change is naturally limited by the term of POTUS.

[TheStripey1]

Sununu is an idiot.

why? because he called for Gonzales to resign?

[CSM]

How about they were fired for political reasons?

that is not ILLEGAL...Try again

[CSM]

why? because he called for Gonzales to resign?

Nope...just because I say so....

[CockySOB]

How about they were fired for political reasons?

That is not illegal in any way shape or form. I'll ask you the same question I asked of Lily earlier. Please cite the section of the US Codes which prohibits the POTUS from dismissing the US Attorneys at will. All POTUS has to do is get confirmation for his appointees to US Attorney from Congress providing those appointments are full-time. Interim appointments do not require Congressional confirmation, but are limited to 120 days in length.

[TheStripey1]

It should be obvious that I don't simply regurgitate talking points if you've actually bothered to read my posts. I think most of the talking heads are simply entertainers who focus on their own niche markets. Sometimes they've found something I didn't know, but most often they all twist facts to suit their audience demographics - it's all sensationalism these days.

Please though, read my posts and get back to me about this "US Attorneys" thing will ya? As long as you can conduct an intelligent conversation, I'll be open to discussing and debating with you. Who knows, we might BOTH be able to learn a thing or two.


I'm open... and I have been responding to the posts I want to respond to... as I read them... start to finish, top to bottom... but I will go back and look for yours... after I get to the end...

fair enuff?

[TheStripey1]

That someone was William Moschella, a deputy attorney general for the DoJ.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/16904559.htm

Interesting reading. Although POTUS can appoint an interim US Attorney without Congressional approval, I believe that a full-time appointment still requires Congressional confirmation. Moreover, this would seem to be almost a moot point because GWB cannot serve another term, and as such even with a full-time appointment, the next POTUS would likely dismiss all the US Attorneys in favor of his own appointees. So the scope of such a change is naturally limited by the term of POTUS.


Doesn't that strike you as odd that they would put that provision into the act and then do this?

[TheStripey1]

Nope...just because I say so....


laffs... ok... is he your senator?

[CockySOB]

If they were doing a good job, why were they fired? Because they weren't incompetent? Were they showing up the rest of those that kept their jobs?

What's the point of doing a good job, then?

Irrelevant as you'd understand had you actually bothered reading the posts herein before spamming the board with one-line sound bites from the anti-GWB crowd.

When we see a change in Executive administrations, why are the prior US Attorneys dismissed from their posts as a matter of custom? Certainly not because of performance reasons as the overwhelming majority of these former US Attorneys have performed their duties at least adequately if not exceptionally. No, they are dismissed for political reasons, pure and simple.

So perhaps your real "problem" is one of partisanship. It seems that way to me so far.

[CSM]

laffs... ok... is he your senator?

Yup

[CockySOB]

Doesn't that strike you as odd that they would put that provision into the act and then do this?

Not really, since the interim US Attorney is limited to 120 days, all that removing Congressional confirmation of those interim positions does is streamline the process and make it easier fro Congress to focus on confirming the full-time appointee instead.

If anything, this clears up a minor bottleneck in the system IMO. And that goes for whether the POTUS is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even (gasp) Socialist. As long as the interim term is maintained at 120 days, I don't see a major problem. I would attach a rider that specifies that at most two interim US Attorneys could be used while a full-time appointee was confirmed by Congress.

[CockySOB]

I'm open... and I have been responding to the posts I want to respond to... as I read them... start to finish, top to bottom... but I will go back and look for yours... after I get to the end...

fair enuff?

Cool. I look forward to your thoughts.

:coffee:

[lily]

When we see a change in Executive administrations, why are the prior US Attorneys dismissed from their posts as a matter of custom? Certainly not because of performance reasons as the overwhelming majority of these former US Attorneys have performed their duties at least adequately if not exceptionally. No, they are dismissed for political reasons, pure and simple.

So perhaps your real "problem" is one of partisanship. It seems that way to me so far.

Ok....fair enough......they are dismissed for politial reasons, the past presidents have been of different parties......but (and you know with me, there alwyas is one) these attorneys were replaced for partisanship.....political partisanship.

Cripes, Cocky the story changes daily from the White House, it's hard to keep track of the spin being put on this. As I asked before, if this is "normal" it shouldn't be too hard to find a link to any other president that has done this. I'm not arguing firing the whole damned bunch.......I'm arguing firing 8 attorneys in the middle of a lame duck term, when they got glowing performance reports.


Not really, since the interim US Attorney is limited to 120 days, all that removing Congressional confirmation of those interim positions does is streamline the process and make it easier fro Congress to focus on confirming the full-time appointee instead.

Well maybe in the past...........but not under this administration:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17571977/page/2/

Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using
a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in
March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements
without Senate confirmation.

"I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we
really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select
candidates and get them appointed," Sampson wrote in a Sept. 17, 2006, memo
to Miers. "It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs
out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately.

"I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new
statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments." By
avoiding Senate confirmation, Sampson added, "we can give far less deference
to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed
and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the
White House."

Miers thanked Sampson for the idea. "Kyle thanks for this. I have not
forgotten I need to follow up on the info. But things have been crazy," she
wrote.

One e-mail from Miers's deputy, William Kelley, on the day of the Dec. 7
firings said Domenici's chief of staff "is happy as a clam" about Iglesias.
Sampson wrote in an e-mail a week later: "Domenici is going to send over
names tomorrow (not even waiting for Iglesias's body to cool)."

Talking about bypassing Democratic senators
The documents also provide new details about the case of Griffin, a former
Rove aide and Republican National Committee researcher who was named interim
U.S. attorney in Little Rock in December.

E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic
senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the
appointment, as early as last August. By mid-December, Sampson was
suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put
Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term.

"There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever
exercise it then what's the point of having it?" Sampson wrote to a White
House aide. "(I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test
drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to
Harriet, Karl, etc.)."

Sorry if I missed answering any of the other questions, but if I go back, I loose my entire post..........and we both know how important it is.....right?

[lily]

Originally Posted by CSM
In all the pages of debate on many message boards, the one thing no one has
been able to answer specifically is "What has been done in this situation
that is ILLEGAL?" What charges are being investigated...not what do people
think, not what has this administration done compared to others, not"what do
you think of Republicans/Democrats"....what has been done that is ILLEGAL?

Anyone?

Nothing was done illegally......that's not what this is about.

[CockySOB]

Nothing was done illegally......that's not what this is about.

Uh-huh. Then what's the ruckus? Why the uproar if this was nothing more than a POTUS replacing some of his appointees? Is this all about the fact he's doing it mid-term? Granted this kind of mid-term dismissal is extremely infrequent (three instances in the last 25 years), but it is neither unheard of, nor illegal.

And while we discuss this non-issue, we should recall WHO made this into a "news-worthy" event - some Democrats. Yes, some RINOs have jumped on the bandwagon, but again, what's the issue here and why is it worthy of anything other than mild curiosity? Because you smell conspiracy with anything related to "Bush?"

Sorry Lily, but compared to other things y'all could be going after GWB for, this isn't even a grain of sand compared to the normal mole-hills the left typically turns into mountains.

[CockySOB]

On the other hand, I guess the left really, REALLY needs something "dastardly" to couteract the fact that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed made his big confession. Which brings up another question, why aren't y'all whining about prisoner torture and illegal wars and the like?

[trobinett]

Not, LN.......but maybe I can help you?

Yes, this administration can fire any attorney he wants, but he can't do it for political reasons.

WTF are you saying?

The President can fire a person in HIS administration for NO reason. He is employed at the administrations will, and can be released for "no cause", period, end of discussion.

You libs are absolutely fucking dense.

Show us, where ANYONE in the ADMINISTRATION said the attorney's were being fired for "political reasons", show us, or shut the fuck up.:cheers2:

[CockySOB]

WTF are you saying?

The President can fire a person in HIS administration for NO reason. He is employed at the administrations will, and can be released for "no cause", period, end of discussion.

You libs are absolutely fucking dense.

Show us, where ANYONE in the ADMINISTRATION said the attorney's were being fired for "political reasons", show us, or shut the fuck up.:cheers2:

She backtracked on this later in the thread by admitting that there was nothing illegal about the dismissals. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt having known her for a while. She may be liberal, but she's OK in my book.

[Gunny]

If you don't do my bidding, you will ALL have to walk the plank!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201818.html

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Gonzales approved the idea of firing a smaller group of U.S. attorneys shortly after taking office in February 2005. The aide in charge of the dismissals -- his chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson -- resigned yesterday, officials said, after acknowledging that he did not tell key Justice officials about the extent of his communications with the White House, leading them to provide incomplete information to Congress.

If you don't do a President's bidding, you won't be in that administration. Big deal.

Have you completely forgetten, was just too yong to know, or only read the liberal talking points on Monicagate?

It all stemmed from Clinton trying to dump Linda Tripp and relegate her to a pigeonhole. She didn't want to go, and had the ammo to fight it.

But it's hardly anything new.

[glockmail]

The Liberals must be extremely desparate, as this is is such a non story. When Clinton instructed Janet Reno to fire all 94 US Attorneys upon coming into office in 1993, no one said a word.

WTF is this still going on? It's a non-frigging story.

Bush and Gonzales should give the press this: :fu:

They don't have the balls to stand up to these loser damnocrats. WTF?

[lily]

Uh-huh. Then what's the ruckus? Why the uproar if this was nothing more than a POTUS replacing some of his appointees? Is this all about the fact he's doing it mid-term? Granted this kind of mid-term dismissal is extremely infrequent (three instances in the last 25 years), but it is neither unheard of, nor illegal.

I'm curious, who were they and for what reason?


And while we discuss this non-issue, we should recall WHO made this into a "news-worthy" event - some Democrats. Yes, some RINOs have jumped on the bandwagon, but again, what's the issue here and why is it worthy of anything other than mild curiosity? Because you smell conspiracy with anything related to "Bush?"

Cocky, I think you know me better than that. Let me ask you, if this is such a non issue, why the evasion? Why did Sampson step down? Why did Gonzalez apologize? Why did Bush take time out of his get out of Dodge tour to demand answers himself?


Sorry Lily, but compared to other things y'all could be going after GWB for, this isn't even a grain of sand compared to the normal mole-hills the left typically turns into mountains.

Cocky........while I will agree with you there are more important things, give the Democrats some time. They've only been in office for 2 months. I'd much rather find out how we got into this war, but then I don't run congress. It is an issue, not a big one, but an issue non the less.


She backtracked on this later in the thread by admitting that there was nothing illegal about the dismissals. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt having known her for a while. She may be liberal, but she's OK in my book.

Backtrack........ok, if you say so. I call it clairification. Also, thank you for answering. I refuse to answer people that don't know how to speak. This forum is big enough, I can ignore insults and debate with people that can do so in a civil manner. I am, after all the minority here and I want to make a good impression.:)


On the other hand, I guess the left really, REALLY needs something "dastardly" to couteract the fact that Khalid Sheikh Muhammed made his big confession. Which brings up another question, why aren't y'all whining about prisoner torture and illegal wars and the like?

Is that considered changing the subject or hyjacking a thread? I'd like to answer, but from the looks of things, I'd be the one that gets blamed for it.

[CockySOB]

It's all good Lily. Here's a link (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/182) with information on the congressional Research Service which shows that
The CRS found that of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed in a president's initial term since 1981, 54 left voluntarily before completing a full four-year term. Of those, no more than three had been forced out under circumstances similar to the current situation.
48 of the 54 U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and three resigned after "questionable conduct" (our favorite was Kendall Coffey, who quit "amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case.")
So this kind of dismissal, while uncommon is no unprecedented, despite claims to the contrary.

As to Sampson's mistake which earned him a ticket out of the DoJ and out of government employment, it seems fairly cut and dried to me. Sampson made a false claim to Congress about the former US Attorneys in question, and it was a major mistake (as both AG and GWB have indicated). Hell, if one of your employees made potentially defamatory statements about one of your customers, you'd fire him and admit that his statements were incorrect and a mistake. You'd also exhibit some pronounced embarrassment because that employee was representing YOU when he made those statements.

As to "backtrack" or "clarification" you say po-tay-to and I'll say po-tah-to. Whatever.

[TheStripey1]

Irrelevant as you'd understand had you actually bothered reading the posts herein before spamming the board with one-line sound bites from the anti-GWB crowd.

When we see a change in Executive administrations, why are the prior US Attorneys dismissed from their posts as a matter of custom? Certainly not because of performance reasons as the overwhelming majority of these former US Attorneys have performed their duties at least adequately if not exceptionally. No, they are dismissed for political reasons, pure and simple.

So perhaps your real "problem" is one of partisanship. It seems that way to me so far.

I read the threads that interest me from the beginning, starting at the top and working my way through the entire thread... commenting on them as I see fit...

I AM STAUNCHLY ANTI-BUSH... consequently that will be my slant on most of my postings... so get used to it, CSOB... AND I'm not a democrat... laffs... I get to blast them both when I feel the urge... lately tho, I only feel the urge to blast the right... go figure...

back to the topic at paw, the problem CSOB, is that those attorneys that are routinely replaced at the change of leadership happens at the BEGINNING of a presidential term... not in the middle...

you calling ME partisan? isn't that like the kettle calling the pot, black?

whatever dude...

:dance:

[TheStripey1]

Yup

laffs again... ok, it's your right to be disgusted with him... I for one don't particularily like DiFi either...

she's a TriLat...

[TheStripey1]

Not really, since the interim US Attorney is limited to 120 days, all that removing Congressional confirmation of those interim positions does is streamline the process and make it easier fro Congress to focus on confirming the full-time appointee instead.

If anything, this clears up a minor bottleneck in the system IMO. And that goes for whether the POTUS is Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even (gasp) Socialist. As long as the interim term is maintained at 120 days, I don't see a major problem. I would attach a rider that specifies that at most two interim US Attorneys could be used while a full-time appointee was confirmed by Congress.

the furor, as I understand it, is because they have tried to circumvent congress... congress critters don't like to be circumvented... I don't blame them either...

so uhhhh, CSOB... what news sources do you read, watch, and/or listen to?

[CockySOB]

the furor, as I understand it, is because they have tried to circumvent congress... congress critters don't like to be circumvented... I don't blame them either...
I kinda understand, but as long as the full-time appointments aren't touched, it seems prudent to allow interims to assume the office sans Congressional confirmation for their 120-day term. But you are correct, Congress-critters are professional politicians and they don't like the idea of ceding power when they can try to grab more.


so uhhhh, CSOB... what news sources do you read, watch, and/or listen to?Let's see. Normally I tend to watch Google News for news leads. I watch more CSPAN/CSPAN 2 than any other news channels these days, although I do flip by CNN, MSNBC, FOX and others on occasion. Frankly I don't care much for ANY broadcast "news" these days because they all prefer to focus on sensational topics rather than the old gold standard of reporting which is objective journalism.

[LiberalNation]

ick Cspans about boring. Sorry off topic.

[CockySOB]

I read the threads that interest me from the beginning, starting at the top and working my way through the entire thread... commenting on them as I see fit...

I AM STAUNCHLY ANTI-BUSH... consequently that will be my slant on most of my postings... so get used to it, CSOB... AND I'm not a democrat... laffs... I get to blast them both when I feel the urge... lately tho, I only feel the urge to blast the right... go figure...

back to the topic at paw, the problem CSOB, is that those attorneys that are routinely replaced at the change of leadership happens at the BEGINNING of a presidential term... not in the middle...

you calling ME partisan? isn't that like the kettle calling the pot, black?

whatever dude...

:dance:

Being staunchly anti-Bush would seem to me to qualify as partisan, not so much in who you support, but in who you rail against. Just an impression I had based on your recent posts. Not really the pot/kettle thing because I tend to think ALL professional politicians are slime and worthy of disdain and ridicule. I'm equal opportunity. Perhaps you're similar?

So you're thinking this is a problem for simple fact that they were dismissed at a non-standard time in the Presidential cycle?

[CockySOB]

ick Cspans about boring. Sorry off topic.

Yeah, but part of the reason they're "boring" is because they don't tend to have the sensational topics which permeate the popular media outlets. Not off-topic at all, IMO.

[lily]

It's all good Lily. Here's a link (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/182) with information on the congressional Research Service which shows that
So this kind of dismissal, while uncommon is no unprecedented, despite claims to the contrary.

Now Cocky.....3 since 1981 compared to 8 in one month? Come on. Now let's look at the reasons, shall we? Three for questionable conduct. Yeah, biting a topless dancer would get you kicked off. But what you are forgetting is all 8 of these attorneys had excellent reviews. Now I wll also admit, that not all are complaining, but the ones that are have a valid beef.




As to Sampson's mistake which earned him a ticket out of the DoJ and out of government employment, it seems fairly cut and dried to me. Sampson made a false claim to Congress about the former US Attorneys in question, and it was a major mistake (as both AG and GWB have indicated). Hell, if one of your employees made potentially defamatory statements about one of your customers, you'd fire him and admit that his statements were incorrect and a mistake. You'd also exhibit some pronounced embarrassment because that employee was representing YOU when he made those statements.

Fair enough......now how about the rest of the questions, and let me add one more in, why does the excuse keep changing?


As to "backtrack" or "clarification" you say po-tay-to and I'll say po-tah-to. Whatever.

Is this one of those rare moments that we agree?:boobies:

[stephanie]

Democrats and our own media has NO trouble lying to us...Remember that AT ALL TIMES....

dotcosm (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-15-07 06:01 PM
Original message
Just the facts please re: US attorney firings
Please, please, I know some of you have the actual hardcore facts, can you please post them in this thread?

1) Did Clinton fire all USAs when he took office? (I believe he did)

2) Which USAs did Clinton subsequently fire, and why?

3) Did Bush 43 fire all USAs when he took office (2000)? If not, how many did he fire? Were the latest batch the only other ones since 2000?

Thank you -- I'm getting tired of hearing an assortment of versions on the media today, and just want the facts.
-------------------------------------------------
The_Casual_Observer (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-15-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who cares? It's fucking up the white house right now, what else
do you need to know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
dotcosm (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-15-07 06:05 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, I care. When I talk about this with people, I like to have the facts
No really, I do.

You don't?
--------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
The_Casual_Observer (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-15-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The fact is it concerns a bunch of bogus rw lawyers. Other than
great negative news & a lot of distraction for bush it is meaningless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x419838

[CockySOB]

CSPAN2 is carrying the Congressional debate on this right now.