Attorneygate

[GG]

Try and be strong. Oh, and avoid passing by any rope at all costs.

 

Like you could find rope strong enough for that sized mellon.

[Johnny Coli]

OH JESUS! Something uncommon happened!!!

 

Wow, the Bush administration did something and made it look terrible because they couldn't explain themselves or communicate with the public. Nothing uncommon about that.

 

 

From the McClatchy story previously linked to:

 

Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.

 

 

Yes, "uncommon" was the term I used in reference to the suggestion by several in the thread that firing US-Attys is par for the course, and everybody does it. While it may be true that this does occur when the WH and/or AG changes hands, it is not by any stretch a common occurance, as described by the CRS report, for any to be forced to resign during their terms. The CRS describes eight since 1981, not including of course the eight that were summarily purged by Rove/Gonzales.

[Johnny Coli]

Only in your world is the dismissal of 8 attorneys in mid-term a bigger issue than the wholesale dismissal of all attorneys at the start of a term.

I think the whole-sale dismissal of US-attys is a big deal. However, in the instance of this discussion we're not talking about their replacement during a change of admin hands. These attorneys were all appointed by Bush during his first term, and none had any performance issues of record.

 

Carol Lam was the US-attorney in the Dusty Foggo/Duke Cunningham case.

Iglasias was the NM attorney who was repeatedly called by Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici about pushing forward with a bogus voter-fraud case before the 2006 election.

Cummins was pushed out and replaced with former Rove aide Timothy Griffin.

 

Seven of the eight were asked to resign on the same day. That's a purge based on a political hit-list.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think you're missing the point, Coli. Even though Clinton's purge was, in your words, "normal," it doesn't change the fact that it was based on a "political hit-list" as well.

[GG]

I think the whole-sale dismissal of US-attys is a big deal. However, in the instance of this discussion we're not talking about their replacement during a change of admin hands. These attorneys were all appointed by Bush during his first term, and none had any performance issues of record.

 

Carol Lam was the US-attorney in the Dusty Foggo/Duke Cunningham case.

Iglasias was the NM attorney who was repeatedly called by Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici about pushing forward with a bogus voter-fraud case before the 2006 election.

Cummins was pushed out and replaced with former Rove aide Timothy Griffin.

 

Seven of the eight were asked to resign on the same day. That's a purge based on a political hit-list.

 

 

Uh ok. Let's sweep wholesale attorney dismissals under the rug because it is not the topic of this particular thread, even though it is highly relevant to the whole fiasco.

 

Of course the firing of the 8 was political. Who in the hell is arguing otherwise? Are you saying that the US attorneys are beyond the control of their employer, and he can't fire them even though he believes that the attorneys are not pursuing cases as vigorously or in line with the thinking of the administration?

 

Note that you describe the New Mexico case as bogus voter fraud, because the Reps are seeking charges, yet conveniently ignore the firing of the WA attorney for refusing to investigate voter fraud in that state that resulted in, surprise a Dem victory. Partisanship knows no shame. Yet you treat it as if you're above the fray.

 

The only there there is how this mess was handled.

[Johnny Coli]

Replying to both GG and JSP:

 

Not the same as Clinton (see also CRS report previously linked to):

Salon: Inside Bush's prosecutor purge

 

Incoming presidents are known to overhaul the corps of U.S. attorneys installed by prior administrations. Upon taking office, both Presidents Clinton and Bush replaced nearly all of the head prosecutors serving in the Justice Department's 94 districts nationwide. But it is rare for even one U.S. attorney to otherwise be dismissed during a president's term -- and in this case, all those dismissed by Bush were his own appointees.

 

To date not a single reasonable explanation has been given as to why they were removed. In fact, Gonzales had vehemently denied removing them for political reasons.

 

Ever since the Bush administration shocked the legal community by dismissing eight U.S. attorneys in December, Justice Department leaders have vigorously denied that the firings were politically motivated. "I would never, ever make a change in the United States attorney position for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in Senate testimony in early January.

 

What about their job performance then?

 

Indeed, several of the fired attorneys had stellar track records. Like Iglesias in New Mexico, Daniel Bogden steps down Wednesday from the helm of a U.S. attorney's office in Nevada that saw unsurpassed achievements in law enforcement during his tenure. In a phone interview Monday, Bogden cited a record number of cases targeting guns, drugs, identity theft and sexual exploitation, among other criminal issues.

 

[...]

 

Just over five months ago, on Sept. 22, 2006, the Justice Department completed a comprehensive evaluation of McKay's office, filled with high marks on both criminal and counterterrorism matters, including McKay's efforts to build greater cooperation among law enforcement agencies in both the United States and Canada. McKay "has been responsible for major advances in a cooperative cross-border effort," the report said. "All involved in these efforts pointed to U.S. Attorney McKay as the individual most responsible for the dramatic increase in cooperation."

 

So, not for politics, not for job performance, and repeated lies as to who suggested the purge in the first place (made all the more confusing by the emails that were handed over at the beginning of this week, many pointing to Karl Rove). They have been replaced with "interim" appointees who can serve at the discretion of the POTUS without congressional confirmation because of the Patriot Act. To suggest that this should be ignored simply because the current admin is lousy at PR is foolish.

[erynthered]

This article is from 2 months ago.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmM...YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk

 

 

It’s worth noting, however, that the same Democrats who will be up in arms now were mum in the 1990s. President Clinton not only fired U.S. attorneys sweepingly and without cause. He also appointed high executive-branch officials, such as Justice Department civil-rights division chief Bill Lann Lee, on an “acting” basis even though their positions called for senate confirmation. This sharp maneuver enabled those officials to serve even though it had become clear that they would never be confirmed.

 

Reporting on Lee on February 26, 1998, the New York Times noted: “Under a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act, a person may serve in an acting capacity for 120 days. But the [Clinton]Administration has argued that another Federal law supercedes the Vacancy Act and gives the Attorney General the power to make temporary law enforcement assignments of any duration.”

 

What the Clinton administration dubiously claimed was the law back then is, in fact, the law right now. Yet, for some strange reason — heaven knows what it could be — Senator Feinstein has only now decided it’s a problem. Like the public, I’m shocked.

 

 

I'm shocked too!

[Johnny Coli]

This article is from 2 months ago.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmM...YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk

I'm shocked too!

You're (well not you, Andy McCarthy) comparing a recess appointment (of an actually qualified individual) to the Civil Rights Division to what Gonzales and Rove have done here (a politically-motivated mid-term purge of eight US attorneys)? That's a pretty big reach, but one I would suspect coming from the NRO.

 

I'm astounded that one of the principle arguments FOR what this admin has done is to point back to an administration that many of you bring up on a daily basis as an example of what you despise (ie Clinton), and to further shrug off what they've done because you think they just don't communicate all that well. That's not an effective argument.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Well, I think that they should have been fired.

 

Why was Lam wasting her time going after Duke Cunningham, a loyal Republican? Just because he was taking bribes? I thought that was part of the job description. Obviously, she didn't have her priorities straight and should have been fired! If they didn't get rid of her, Jerry Lewis was going to get dragged into this mess too, another loyal Republican.

 

Also, how come Inglesias was not bringing charges against a Democrat in the weeks before the election even though he was asked to do it by Republican Rep. Wilson and Sen. Domenici? Didn't he realize that Wilson was in a tight race for her seat and could have used some indictments against Democrats to help push her over the edge? What is wrong with this guy?

 

These people are Republicans and were put in office by a Republican president. Their first priority should be to leave Republicans alone and only go after Democrats especially if that is what the Bush Administration wanted. They do serve at the pleasure of the President and should be beholden to him.

 

I don't understand what the big deal is!

[Joey Balls]

You're saying this administration's six-year history of denials, obstruction, contsant obfuscation, utter incompetence and contempt for any and all that do not buy into the Unitard Executive theory means that there really is no there there? So, for those of us who don't drink from the Drudge cesspool or parrot Rush and think we know what that smell emmanating from the White House is, we should rest comfortably knowing that "nope", Abu Gonzales and Rove weren't following up on a political hit list, it's just this admin's business-as-usual, all-in-a-day's work ineptness. The mountain of evidence suggests there isn't any evidence at all. Is that the gist of what you're saying? That certainly puts this current admin in a new light for me.

 

 

Save your breath, wait awhile, then soon maybe DC Tommyboy can tell you how this is getting more unwarrented media coverage than Clinton/Lewinsky.

 

 

Oh wait...he already has?

[erynthered]

You're (well not you, Andy McCarthy) comparing a recess appointment (of an actually qualified individual) to the Civil Rights Division to what Gonzales and Rove have done here (a politically-motivated mid-term purge of eight US attorneys)? That's a pretty big reach, but one I would suspect coming from the NRO.

 

I'm astounded that one of the principle arguments FOR what this admin has done is to point back to an administration that many of you bring up on a daily basis as an example of what you despise (ie Clinton), and to further shrug off what they've done because you think they just don't communicate all that well. That's not an effective argument.

 

 

In comparison to President Clinton's firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys, this is nothing. And there appear to be good reasons for replacing these officials, who all serve at the pleasure of the President anyway. Its the Law. The scandal here is not that 8 U.S. Attorneys were sacked, but that the White House communications operation is still not up to the task of defending its position against political attacks.

[DC Tom]

Save your breath, wait awhile, then soon maybe DC Tommyboy can tell you how this is getting more unwarrented media coverage than Clinton/Lewinsky.

Oh wait...he already has?

 

No, Clinton/Lewinsky still got more coverage. And is far stupider. At least this has SOME relevance to government...though from everything I've seen and read, its only real relevance is to partisanship.

[Joey Balls]

You're (well not you, Andy McCarthy) comparing a recess appointment (of an actually qualified individual) to the Civil Rights Division to what Gonzales and Rove have done here (a politically-motivated mid-term purge of eight US attorneys)? That's a pretty big reach, but one I would suspect coming from the NRO.

 

I'm astounded that one of the principle arguments FOR what this admin has done is to point back to an administration that many of you bring up on a daily basis as an example of what you despise (ie Clinton), and to further shrug off what they've done because you think they just don't communicate all that well. That's not an effective argument.

 

 

Yeah he has a tendency to raid the National Review Online website whenever he can. Christ he actually linked a Charles Krauthammer piece last week concerning the Rove?Libby/Cheney fiasco.

 

I mean Chuck Kraut!?!

 

I never saw the Salon piece you linked here before and it managed to clear up some things that I had mangled badly in my topic post including the fact that Buffalo attorney Battle wasn't one of the eight purged in the middle of a term by the Bush/Gonzales axis. As the article points out Battle works for the justice department now.

 

 

I stand corrected.

[Johnny Coli]

In comparison to President Clinton's firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys, this is nothing. And there appear to be good reasons for replacing these officials, who all serve at the pleasure of the President anyway. Its the Law. The scandal here is not that 8 U.S. Attorneys were sacked, but that the White House communications operation is still not up to the task of defending its position against political attacks.

The same 93 that were replaced by Bush when he came into office? You do know that the freaking replacement of 93 US-attys in 1993 by Clinton and in 2001 by Bush isn't what is being scruitinized, right? It's the eight US-attys appointed by Bush who were, by all accounts, doing a fantastic job, that were removed (seven on the same day) for political reasons only...political reasons that had to do with them either not going after democrats hard enough, or for prosecuting republicans all too well.

 

Shed no tears for an administration that operates in the grey areas of the law or completely in the dark, and hasn't had enough experience defending it's ethically dubious MO because of lack of oversight. What a shame that they finally have to answer to people who were voted into office by their constituents.

[erynthered]

The same 93 that were replaced by Bush when he came into office? You do know that the freaking replacement of 93 US-attys in 1993 by Clinton and in 2001 by Bush isn't what is being scruitinized, right? It's the eight US-attys appointed by Bush who were, by all accounts, doing a fantastic job, that were removed (seven on the same day) for political reasons only...political reasons that had to do with them either not going after democrats hard enough, or for prosecuting republicans all too well.

 

 

If a Democrat is elected president, say hypothetically Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2008, are you telling me that Mrs. Clinton will not be free to fire any United States attorney because to do so would be political?

 

As far as those fired, doing a fantastic job. Thats questionable.

 

This whole thing is, to use your own words, Foolish. Carry on.......

[MattyT]

If a Democrat is elected president, say hypothetically Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2008, are you telling me that Mrs. Clinton will not be free to fire any United States attorney because to do so would be political?

Sure she would...and if she wins ....then she will accept their resignations (which is customary) and appoint her own. As will the Republican who is elected after her....and so on.....

[Johnny Coli]

If a Democrat is elected president, say hypothetically Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2008, are you telling me that Mrs. Clinton will not be free to fire any United States attorney because to do so would be political?

 

As far as those fired, doing a fantastic job. Thats questionable.

 

This whole thing is, to use your own words, Foolish. Carry on.......

 

Nope.

 

5 ousted U.S. attorneys received positive job evaluations

Although the Bush administration has said that six U.S. attorneys were fired recently in part because of "performance related" issues, at least five of them had received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down.

 

(...)

 

Performance reviews of U.S. attorneys are conducted every three to four years by a team of experienced Justice Department officials, who interview judges, staff members, community leaders and federal agents. In some of the five cases, the reviewers made recommendations for improvements, but overall their assessments were positive, Justice Department officials said.

[GG]

Replying to both GG and JSP:

 

Not the same as Clinton (see also CRS report previously linked to):

Salon: Inside Bush's prosecutor purge

To date not a single reasonable explanation has been given as to why they were removed. In fact, Gonzales had vehemently denied removing them for political reasons.

What about their job performance then?

So, not for politics, not for job performance, and repeated lies as to who suggested the purge in the first place (made all the more confusing by the emails that were handed over at the beginning of this week, many pointing to Karl Rove). They have been replaced with "interim" appointees who can serve at the discretion of the POTUS without congressional confirmation because of the Patriot Act. To suggest that this should be ignored simply because the current admin is lousy at PR is foolish.

 

Welcome to Orwellian Political Discourse 101.

 

Does anyone seriously believe that the firings weren't politically motivated? I doubt it. Yet, you conjure up a conspiracy that because of the administration's public denials that the firings weren't politically influenced, to prove a point that they really were politically influenced is logical acrobatics worthy of a regression to the mean discussion on this board.

 

What is it about the name Rove that sets you people off? Even when he's doing his job - which is to further the policy of the administration. If they believe that US Attorneys, whether appointed by the sitting POTUS or not, are not doing a job consistent with the POTUS's liking, the attorneys can be canned, no questions asked.

 

It's discourse like this that's caused the Dems to lose the last two elections to a moron. To you, the process is more important than the event. As long as Rove's or Cheney's names are attached to an event, there must be some sinister plot to overturn the natural order of mankind, and we can only find solace in the enterprising reporters of Salon or Utne Reader to save the planet.

 

Keep turning those chairs and looking for those vast right wing conspiracies. The more you waste time on that, the better chances you give the GOP to win another election.

[erynthered]

Nope.

 

5 ousted U.S. attorneys received positive job evaluations

 

 

 

Like I said, Questionable.

 

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”

 

Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.

Like I said, Questionable.

 

For example:

 

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

[Johnny Coli]

Like I said, Questionable.

 

Like I said, Questionable.

 

For example:

How about linking to your source, eryn? That second "source" is loaded with opinion. Why not just quote the unbiased McClatchy piece I already linked to, which repeatedly quotes named sources, and isn't loaded with speculatory opinion like "something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do"?

 

The same info from an unbiased piece of journalism, not opinion.

McKay came under fire when right-wing organizations in his state claimed that he wasn't aggressively pursuing voter fraud allegations against Democrats in the 2004 governor's race. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, was eventually declared the winner by a margin of 129 votes.

 

McKay was a Bush appointee.

 

He, and the others got high marks from the Department of Justice. Apparently the people best in a position to evaluate these individuals didn't find their performance questionable.