firing these people between administrations is within precedent. doing it in the middle of a term is very odd. hence the extra scrutiny.

3/8/2007 10:21:59 PM

Quote :

"he fired most but not all."

I cannot find evidence to support this

Prove it to me....if there is evidence then by all means i will agree with you on this point.

3/8/2007 11:16:37 PM

The US Attorney in Seattle, John McKay, was fired after the Attorney decided there was no evidence to support a charge of voter fraud in the 2004 Governor race, where the Democrat won by a very slim margin. McKay was contacted by the Cheif of Staff of then-Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Doc Hastings (R-Wash).

the republican congressman's chief of staff called McKay and pressured him to give information about the investigation. McKay reported that

Quote :

" I said, "I'm sure you're not about to say the following to me." Then I said, "you wouldn't do that, I certainly wouldn't expect a chief of staff to a congressman to do that and you're not about to do that." I recall the conversation was ended by him very expeditiously. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/306427_prosecutors07.html "

Other fired US Attorneys include David Iglesias from New Mexico who was pressured to step up investigations into local democratic corruption allegations before the 2006 election.

Quote :

"Iglesias told senators he felt sickened when Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) hung up on him after being told that indictments in a corruption case against Democrats would not be handed up before the November elections. "He said, 'Are these going to be filed before November?' " Iglesias recalled. "I said I didn't think so. And to which he replied, 'I'm very sorry to hear that.' And then the line went dead." "I felt leaned on. I felt pressured to get these matters moving," Iglesias testified. Asked by Schumer whether such a call was unusual, Iglesias replied, "Unprecedented.""

Iglesias is a former Navy prosecutor who still serves in the Navy Reserves. Originally his firing was cited due to poor performance due to missing too many days of work. when it was revealed that the days he missed were for Reserve duty, the Justice Department changed the reason.

the fired U.S. attorney in San Diego, Carol Lam, was investigating corruption of Republicans connected related to former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who is serving an 8-year prison term for bribery and fraud.

Quote :

"As she left office, Lam handed down indictments against defense contractor Brent Wilkes and former CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo for wire fraud and bribery. http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/132999.html "

The U.S. attorney from Arkansas, Bud Cummins, got sacked and replaced by a former aide to adviser Karl Rove. He had previously said in a memo to other US Attorneys that a senior Justice Dept. official told him that "the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying [to Congress] would be seen a major escalation of the conflict, meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation."

Quote :

"Oeuvre: Sneak? The fucking bill was voted on. That's not fucking sneaky... Pelosi [blah blah blah] "

No, you are wrong. Bills are not read over word for word by congress. they have hearings where their paid legislative aides present summaries of what the bills entail, lead by party and committe leaders, they work out differences until they agree. the various leaders suggest how the members should vote.

Quote :

"But in March 2006, the Bush administration requested a last-minute change to the USA Patriot Act, without any hearings, giving the attorney general new authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate approval. Months after the law changed, the Bush administration compiled a list of at least eight U.S. attorneys it wanted to resign. Letters went out in December and January. These firings are highly unusual, particularly because they involve no allegations of misconduct. A Congressional Research Service report ... showed only five cases in 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were forced to resign. Three were for "questionable personal conduct," such as one who bit a topless dancer after losing a drug case. http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/132999.html "

When the deputy Attorney General testified to congress, he told them McKay was fired because sentences meted out by McKays office were among the lightest in the nation.

McKay countered at the hearing that federal judges, not prosecutors, are responsible for sentencing defendants.

the Deputy AG also noted that McKay was a "vigorous and strong proponent of a particular information-sharing system called LINX." He did not clarify the exact nature of the difference

McKay said he had never heard previously that LINX or sentencing concerns were the reasons for his dismissal.

"I accept what they said today," McKay said after the hearings. "I wonder what they're going to say tomorrow."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003605090_mckay07m.html






[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 1:54 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 1:44:16 AM

Some people are really, truly confused about what powers the president does and does not have.

3/9/2007 2:58:58 AM

why dont you enlighten us, o wise one.



[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:06 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 3:04:50 AM

Quote :

"These firings are highly unusual, particularly because they involve no allegations of misconduct. A Congressional Research Service report ... showed only five cases in 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were forced to resign."

Wait...so when Clinton cleaned house and fired all republican-appointed attorneys, they weren't forced to resign?

3/9/2007 3:38:40 AM

i snipped the first sentence out, i guess to focus my discussion. i probably should have left it in.

Quote :

" Typically, a new president names the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys. The U.S. Senate then confirms to serve four-year terms. But in March 2006, the Bush administration requested a last-minute change to the USA Patriot Act, without any hearings, giving the attorney general new authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate approval. "

when a new president comes in, the attorneys are not "fired" nor do they "resign". their terms are just simply over. does the new president renew their terms? if the new president is from the other party, probably not.

and the fact is, yes, the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. he can fire them mid term as he sees fit. and like said above, this has happened exactly FIVE times in the past 25 YEARS.

the questionable thing is here is that they were fired in the middle of their term by the administration which put them in the position in the first place. Even Republican supporters of the current adminstration are saying this looks really bad, and that the reasons given by the adminstration just dont add up.

and the real problem is that it comes right on the heels of yet another covert attempt by this adminstration to chip away more of the constitutional checks-and-balances between the Executive and the other two branches... all in the name of "Fightin' Terrar"

If you people cant see the problem in this you're either tools or just dimwits. Put all the power in the hands of a single Executive, and you are heading down the path to a totalitarian state. you think it's all fun and games now, with your boy George II in power. But how do you think it's going to pan out for you when a Hilary or a Barack take over the super-powerful Executive Branch?






[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 4:23 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 4:10:12 AM

^
your news story is inaccurate. they're not appointed for "indefinite terms" -- they're appointed for the remainder of the existing 4-year term, instead of the prior 120-day limit

3/9/2007 8:36:51 AM

Quote :

"Bills are not read over word for word by congress"

Quote :

"Its a shame everyone who voted on the bill must have failed to read what they were voting on Heaven forbid they actually know what bills they are signing"

3/9/2007 10:43:16 AM

^^ technically, they meant that it's "indefinite" within the context of the remainder of the four year term.

the wording was part of the way it was snuck past congress. It gave the impression that unconfirmed interim appointments were necessary in the case that a new Attorney had to be installed in an emergency without having time to wait for Congress, somehow framed in the context of the "War on Terrar". Thereby implying that a confirmation process would follow the emergency appointment.

no one has ever suggested that they would somehow be entitled to serve past the overall term of the administration who placed them. that was never the point.

the real point is that the covert addition to the Patriot Act prompted by the White House and rubber stamped by the Republican led congress, made the night before it was voted on, and its sole effect was to remove the US Congress from the nomination process regarding interim replacements.

prior to that change, Congress had to approve all interim replacements (occuring, on average, at the rate of one interim attorney every five years), just as they had to approve the appointments in the first place.

no one expected the administration was going to use it to arbitrarily fire their own attorneys for political retribution, under cover of the War on Terrar. a conformation process by the US Congress would necessarily raise the question of why were these attorneys, previously given excellent performance reviews, ever fired in the first place.


^

and whats your point? is this somehow news to you? it's only the way congress has operated for at least the past 100 years if not longer.





[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 10:46:09 AM

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: the real point is that the covert addition to the Patriot Act prompted by the White House and rubber stamped by the Republican led congress, made the night before it was voted on, and its sole effect was to remove the US Congress from the nomination process regarding interim replacements. prior to that change, Congress had to approve all interim replacements (occuring, on average, at the rate of one interim attorney every five years), just as they had to approve the appointments in the first place."

ok good, so now explain why this great, über-important part of the checks-and-balances system wasn't instituted until 20 years ago, or how this is substantially different from something like a recess appointment? 

3/9/2007 11:49:45 AM

when these are used to avoid intended oversight, i think it goes against the spirit of the constitution and is wrong.

3/9/2007 11:53:07 AM

^^There are checks and balances in places other than between congress and the presidency. like in the independent judiciary.

3/9/2007 3:40:53 PM

Quote :

"and whats your point? is this somehow news to you? it's only the way congress has operated for at least the past 100 years if not longer"

my point is that all the dumbfuck senators and respresentatives should read legislation before they sign it...your excuse is to say "well they've never read legislation in the past!" and that doesnt excuse their own incompetence for signging something they havent read...but i guess its easier to blame bush for being sneaky, instead of blaming congress for not knowing what the hell they are advocating

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 3:42:34 PM

(congress people don't sign legislation)

3/9/2007 3:43:25 PM

since technically its not legislation until both houses pass it?

3/9/2007 3:45:00 PM

^^^ ok, whatever guy. i dont want to hear anything about sneaky tactics from you for the next two years when Pelosi puts some through some crunk shit under the rader.



[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 3:45:32 PM

^^no they just vote on the stuff.

3/9/2007 3:46:23 PM

^^you wont because i dont go around whining about how much i dislike the country

so you wont have to worry about that

ps: the "dumbfuck congress" i referred to is bipartisan...but you probably think i'm a republican or something

^well at least you arent denying that they're dumbfucks for not knowing what they're signing voting on

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 3:47:18 PM

on that we agree. i think it's a shame that legislators either didn't read the bill or are just using that as an excuse for not having the balls to question the patriot act.

3/9/2007 3:49:34 PM

Read The Bills Act

http://www.grupthink.com/topic/5264

3/9/2007 3:56:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/congress.prosecutors.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Why the hell is cnn using this language

Quote :

"Democratic senators want to question Rove, who calls row a "political stink""

I think this is the first time I have seen "row" used in cnn. Of course, the BBC uses it all the time, just strange to see this on cnn.

3/13/2007 9:33:35 AM

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.

nytimes 1993

3/13/2007 9:38:48 AM

proof the media has a conservative bias! 

3/13/2007 11:40:13 AM

Quote :

"NEW: Attorney general says he accepts responsibility for firings • Senator alleges "unprecedented breach of trust, abuse of power" • Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff resigns amid furor over firing of 8 U.S. attorneys • White House: Former aide wanted to sack attorneys to make way for "fresh blood""

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.attorneys/index.html?eref=rss_politics

3/13/2007 1:59:37 PM

some of fired us attorneys to be on npr shortly.

3/13/2007 2:07:11 PM

Alberto Gonzales may be the most slimy and corrupt official (at least in regards to what his job is supposed to entail) of anyone in the white house.....

3/13/2007 2:09:15 PM

Could some of you up in arms over this please tell me why you find this is a big deal? Im being serious, not trying to be a dick.

3/13/2007 2:15:22 PM

Isn't that fairly self evident from what has been posted in the thread?

3/13/2007 2:23:24 PM

but what makes it different from what any other prez had done before? Thats what im asking.

3/13/2007 2:36:21 PM

Go back and read the thread, because if you are making that statement, it's obvious you didn't.

3/13/2007 2:41:47 PM

us attorney on the radio said that no one said anything about the firings until gonzalez & co. gave reasons to congress for the firings which were bogus.

they (us attorneys) had been told that they were being removed to make room for other republican nominees for the job.

it is a big deal because the us attorneys are some of the most powerful law enforcement officials in the country. they are appointed politically, but there is an inherent need to be as fair and unbiased as possible.

he said that it is typical for presidents to hire a new set of us attorneys when they come in (he said that clinton, bush and reagan had done this -- wasn't sure of before). he said that it was an unwritten rule for the nominees to stay put (barring bad performance) during a given president's tenure and that the reasons for that unwritten rule are being played out right now.

[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 2:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 2:56:10 PM

409, I dont see anything different other than people calling it sneaky and criminal.. when in fact it seems to be neither.

Look I think bush is a givemecrat, but I dont see why you all feel this is a big deal.

3/13/2007 3:06:10 PM

Quote :

"but what makes it different from what any other prez had done before? Thats what im asking."

What makes this different is that it removes congressional oversight. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be removed. But when naming the replacement, the replacement can serve up to 120 days and then must be congressionally confirmed.

By inserting the caveat in the Patriot Act, the president can appoint new political appointees to be US attorneys indefinitely and without having to go through confirmation. This means they can apppoint ideologically extreme partisans people or people with questionable credentials and the American public has no way of stopping it.

The president could appoint Ann Coulter to be a US Attorney if he wanted to, and there would not be a single thing anyone could do to check him. She certainly wouldn't be a US Attorney for long if Congress had to confirm her. The furor in the media today is that US Attorneys were fired because they weren't extreme enough and the new policy basically rewrote oversight of new appointees out of law.

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 3:28:44 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday acknowledged that mistakes were made in the firing of top U.S. attorneys and took responsibility following calls for his resignation. "I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability and to make improvements so that the mistakes that occurred in this instance do not occur in the future," Gonzales said during a news conference at the Justice Department."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

3/14/2007 4:23:58 PM

Sounds like nothing more than good ole take the fall politics.

3/14/2007 4:41:12 PM

scuba, thanks for the info. It helps to see another point of view.

I actually agree with the patriot act in this case. I think the measure you are up in arms about about appointing them without going through congress was in case we were attack and couldnt get an active congress in session. This has been explained in the media before, even the attorney general testified that under normal circumstances the appointees will go through congress. Where he fucked up, is when they started emailing eachother about the possibilty of making them NOT go through congress when there is absolutely no reason for them not too. For that he needs to be repremanded.

I have no problem with bush cleaning house, it happens often. Clinton fired them all, why cant W? He is legal to fire anyone he wants to without any reason. No one raised a fuss in the past. Now they are only letting go 8 from what ive just read. But the gonzalez mess, and changing his tune is a major issue, in my opinion.

3/14/2007 6:36:43 PM

the good ole' newt gingrich approach

3/14/2007 8:10:04 PM

Quote :

"EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Calls for Gonzales' ResignationSenator Tells ABC News 'Buck Should Stop Somewhere' Over Issue of Fired Attorneys By JAKE TAPPER AND CINDY SMITH March 13, 2007 — In an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" today, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, "and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign. "I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign." Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to "direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There's evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities." Clinton added there were "so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn't within the political agenda of the administration." When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December. "There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that." "

Wow. She and her husband fire all 93 US attorneys in '93, including Jay Stephens who at the time was leading the investigation into Dan Rostenkowski. Rosty was working on pushing through Clinton's horrible tax package though congress and didn't need the feds nipping at his heels. The press, ofcourse, had no comment on these firings.

But Bush cans 8 attorneys...the press is frothing and Hillary, satan's avenging angel, is now calling for Gonzales head. This is so rich.

3/14/2007 8:58:54 PM

^ thats not the point. Bush fired all the attorneys from the Clinton Administration. But when he did, the new ones were confirmed. Quit being a partisan hack and read other peoples posts before you respond. This has been addressed multiple times!

Quote :

"I actually agree with the patriot act in this case. I think the measure you are up in arms about about appointing them without going through congress was in case we were attack and couldnt get an active congress in session."

If this was about us being under attack, they would have put that provision in the bill. And if our country was under attack, the last priority of our government would be to appoint new US attorneys. This rule is meant to be used all the time, even when we are at peace. Do you think this would have made such a big stink in the national consciousness if that rather elementary point had not been addressed?

Republican Senator John Sununu calls for Alberto Gonzale's resignation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_prosecutors

Ever think that if the whole country is crying "bloody murder", there might be a good reason why?


[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 9:12 PM. Reason : )]

3/14/2007 9:05:08 PM

As has been mentioned, it is customary to replace all US attorneys at the start of a new presidency. Clinton did it. So did Reagan.

3/14/2007 9:12:07 PM

I think it would be better if the US Attorney General always came out of a dissenting party from the one in power. Someone who would watch over things and wasn't beholding to the president.

3/14/2007 9:18:13 PM

.

7/22/2010 8:17:00 AM

No criminal charges in Bush-era U.S. attorney firings
July 21, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors ended a 22-month investigation into the Bush administration's firing of federal attorneys, deciding not to bring criminal charges against former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales or others, the Justice Department said on Wednesday. The probe stemmed from allegations the Bush administration had improperly dismissed nine U.S. attorneys, allowing partisan political considerations to play a role in Justice Department decisions that affected pending cases or investigations."

Quote :

"'The position we have taken from the outset of the U.S. attorney controversy -- that no wrongdoing whatsoever by Judge Gonzales occurred -- has now been vindicated by the Justice Department's long overdue conclusion,' Terwilliger said."

Quote :

"Prosecutors also determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Gonzales, his chief of staff or other Justice Department officials obstructed justice or lied to Congress or to investigators. 'The White House, under former President George W. Bush, fully cooperated with the investigation,' he said, adding that Dannehy, other prosecutors and FBI agents questioned more than 60 individuals as part of the probe."

http://tinyurl.com/2643p64

Oh, the horror.

7/22/2010 8:32:48 AM

but... but.... but...

its Bush! It had to be evil!

7/22/2010 11:51:22 AM

Career bureaucrats fired for expressing political opinions incompatible with their superiors!

A horrific crime has been committed, the likes of which have never been seen on the face of the earth!

7/22/2010 11:54:53 AM

Yeah, those posts pretty much represent the "outrage" expressed in the OP.

7/22/2010 3:07:21 PM

*Crickets*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

7/27/2010 3:06:54 PM