Attorneygate

[erynthered]

I'll tell you what a waste of time really is...continuing to link to opinion pieces that erroneously claim that Clinton fired 93 and Bush only fired 8.

 

 

Since all the people here are consistently voicing there opinions on different political issues, listing others is a no-no, or a waste of time? Maybe Scott should shut down the PPP because the opinions expressed here are erroneously claiming that their opinion is indeed fact, and that if anyone disagrees with those facts, they're wrong.

 

Got it, thanks.

[Johnny Coli]

Since all the people here are consistently voicing there opinions on different political issues, listing others is a no-no, or a waste of time? Maybe Scott should shut down the PPP because the opinions expressed here are erroneously claiming that their opinion is indeed fact, and that if anyone disagrees with those facts, they're wrong.

 

Got it, thanks.

You can link to any opinion piece you want. But using an opinion piece that isn't factual as the factual basis for your argument is a waste of time. In this case, it's premise has been shot down several times in the same thread. Ergo, you're wasting your time using it. Go right ahead and keep using it, though. The response from me will be to link to one of the many articles that aren't opinion to shoot it right back down.

[erynthered]

You can link to any opinion piece you want. But using an opinion piece that isn't factual as the factual basis for your argument is a waste of time. In this case, it's premise has been shot down several times in the same thread. Ergo, you're wasting your time using it. Go right ahead and keep using it, though. The response from me will be to link to one of the many articles that aren't opinion to shoot it right back down.

 

 

Right, and there's no partisan or opinion areas in ANY of your links, ever. Yours are always the absolute truths, and never support your political beliefs or opinions. You never waste your time, sharing those with all of us, never. So if local, city, state and the Federal Government cant get it right, you can send them a link to tell them the facts, and how to do it right...err left.

 

Of course, all this is just my opinion. I may be wrong. And I can admit when I'm wrong. Though, I'm sure you have a link to tell me how wrong I am. So go ahead and shoot a link.

[Johnny Coli]

Right, and there's no partisan or opinion areas in ANY of your links, ever. Yours are always the absolute truths, and never support your political beliefs or opinions. You never waste your time, sharing those with all of us, never. So if local, city, state and the Federal Government cant get it right, you can send them a link to tell them the facts, and how to do it right...err left.

 

Of course, all this is just my opinion. I may be wrong. And I can admit when I'm wrong. Though, I'm sure you have a link to tell me how wrong I am. So go ahead and shoot a link.

The personal attack isn't going to lend any more credibility to your argument.

[KD in CA]

So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?

 

Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.

[The Big Cat]

So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?

 

Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.

 

you are wrong.

 

The lefties (heaven forbid) in Congress are doing their best to dismantle the good old boy network which is the glue that holds the GOP together.

[GG]

you are wrong.

 

The lefties (heaven forbid) in Congress are doing their best to dismantle the good old boy network which is the glue that holds the GOP together.

 

This, coming from someone in Chicago is... priceless.

[The Big Cat]

This, coming from someone in Chicago is... priceless.

 

hey man I'm an Erieite.

 

but just because I moved to Chicago 7 months ago doesn't mean I'm the face of the Daley political machine...

[erynthered]

The personal attack isn't going to lend any more credibility to your argument.

 

 

Personal attack? My God man!!

[MattyT]

So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?

 

Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.

You can't fire someone at the start of a term because you didn't hire them in the first place. At the start of an administration, the AGs submit a letter of resignation and it's up to the incoming president whether or not to accept the resignation or not. Modern tradition is that the president accepts most resignations and selects an entirely new staff especially when there is a change in party.

 

Now, when a person hires you and then lets you go, that's when you can say they're fired. And, yes, that is okay...but it is unconventional. When you do it to 8 of them simultaneously?....that is unprecedented and, frankly, worthy of investigation.

[PastaJoe]

So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?

 

Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.

 

Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.

[The Big Cat]

Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.

 

Thank you Joey Spaghetti, I tried to make the same point in fewer words but my credibility was attacked because I recently moved to Chicago-the most theatrically corrupt major city in America. haha.

[Johnny Coli]

So the upshot of all the frothing from the lefties here is that it's fine to fire all the US attorneys you want at the start of a term but not ok to fire them during your term?

 

Good grief.....I'm glad some of you guys didn't hurt yourself sitting on all this rage for the past six years.

No. The "frothing" is because eight US attys were removed, six of whom were in the middle of conducting corruption investigations.

Feinstein: Questions on firing of prosecutor in Cunningham case; via AP

Six of the eight prosecutors dismissed last year were conducting public corruption investigations at the time of their dismissals, mostly investigating Republicans, Feinstein said. A Justice Department spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment Monday.

 

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he shared Feinstein's concern about Lam's dismissal. "The sequence of events raises a question as to whether Ms. Lam was asked to resign because she was hot on the trail of criminal conduct relating to the Cunningham case," he said.

 

Most of the eight had high marks from Justice.

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

 

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions.

 

The analysis undercuts Justice Department claims that the prosecutors were dismissed because of lackluster job performance.

 

When asked, Dubya has nothing.

Bush’s Tuesday statement and brief Q and A

Q Sir, in at least a few instances, the attorneys that were dismissed were actively investigating Republicans -- in San Diego, in Arizona, in Nevada. By removing them, wouldn't that have possibly impeded or stopped those investigations? And, sir, if I may also ask about the Attorney General. He does not have support among many Republicans and Democrats. Can he still be effective?

 

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's got support with me. I support the Attorney General. I told you in Mexico I've got confidence in him; I still do. He's going to go up to Capitol Hill and he's going to explain the very questions you asked. I've heard all these allegations and rumors. And people just need to hear the truth, and they're going to go up and explain the truth.

 

Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance --

 

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

 

 

Except they're not going up to testify, because Bush won't allow them to testify under oath, in a public format, or with any writen record. So, no. The American people won't gleen any "truth" from that .

 

 

The document dump from Monday shows that there was very little documented discussion about their performance prior to their forced resignations, and a whole lot of brainstorming as to how to sell it after the fact. Also missing from Monday's doc dump is 18 days worth of emails and memos centered around the time of the firings.

 

GOP Braces For Testimony Fight

In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

 

So, eight prosecutors, some of whom were investigating republicans, all with high marks, were removed from office, the reason for that was spun after they were fired and doesn't hold up under even the weakest scruitiny. Documentation key to understanding why they might have been fired and any docs related to the WH have not been turned over (remember, this doc dump was supposed to happen last week, but the Admin refused to release them until Monday evening), nor will they be turned over. Bush won’t let any of his people testify under oath and won’t allow any transcripts, and to date no one has given a single consistent reason for why any of these persons should have lost their jobs.

 

That is why Congress (not just the Dems...perhaps you missed the 94-2 vote in the Senate yesterday to limit the AG's power?) is “frothing” over this.

[DC Tom]

No. The "frothing" is because eight US attys were removed, six of whom were in the middle of conducting corruption investigations.

Feinstein: Questions on firing of prosecutor in Cunningham case; via AP

Most of the eight had high marks from Justice.

Fired U.S. attorneys ranked above peers in prosecutions

When asked, Dubya has nothing.

Bush’s Tuesday statement and brief Q and A

Except they're not going up to testify, because Bush won't allow them to testify under oath, in a public format, or with any writen record. So, no. The American people won't gleen any "truth" from that .

The document dump from Monday shows that there was very little documented discussion about their performance prior to their forced resignations, and a whole lot of brainstorming as to how to sell it after the fact. Also missing from Monday's doc dump is 18 days worth of emails and memos centered around the time of the firings.

 

GOP Braces For Testimony Fight

So, eight prosecutors, some of whom were investigating republicans, all with high marks, were removed from office, the reason for that was spun after they were fired and doesn't hold up under even the weakest scruitiny. Documentation key to understanding why they might have been fired and any docs related to the WH have not been turned over (remember, this doc dump was supposed to happen last week, but the Admin refused to release them until Monday evening), nor will they be turned over. Bush won’t let any of his people testify under oath and won’t allow any transcripts, and to date no one has given a single consistent reason for why any of these persons should have lost their jobs.

 

That is why Congress (not just the Dems...perhaps you missed the 94-2 vote in the Senate yesterday to limit the AG's power?) is “frothing” over this.

 

Let me check...nope, still don't care.

 

I just hope our next Democratic president does the same thing, so I can watch both sides of this argument flip-flop positions and still argue they're not being partisan.

[Joey Balls]

Looks like congress is going to force the issue and subpeona Rove, the White House will kick and scream and the thing will probably wind up in the Supreme Court. Funny as hell watching Tony Snow tap dance today. It brought back fond memories of Scott McClellan. This is getting real interesting.....for a "witch hunt" anyways.

[KD in CA]

Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.

 

But if firing these attorneys is wrong unless it is based on performance, than how could it be justified to fire all of them, regardless of what Administration previously did it or at what point in their term they did it? Clearly, cleaning out scores of people and replacing them with your own appointees is all about political influence. Like there isn't any discussion of what cases will be pursued and what cases won't before those appointees are made???

 

Come on guys, find a real scandal to obsess over. It's shouldn't be that hard to find one in Bush's administration!

[Johnny Coli]

But if firing these attorneys is wrong unless it is based on performance, than how could it be justified to fire all of them, regardless of what Administration previously did it or at what point in their term they did it? Clearly, cleaning out scores of people and replacing them with your own appointees is all about political influence. Like there isn't any discussion of what cases will be pursued and what cases won't before those appointees are made???

 

Come on guys, find a real scandal to obsess over. It's shouldn't be that hard to find one in Bush's administration!

It's a big deal because previous appointees were allowed to do their jobs without the threat of removal, without prejudice and without interference/influence from the White House for the duration of their terms. In this case, eight seemingly good-to-excellent attorneys were removed for not being partisan enough.

 

It calls into question what influence partisanship plays in the cases of the ones that weren't fired for not being "loyal enough."

 

From this morning's WaPo:

Prosecutor Says Bush Appointees Interfered With Tobacco Case

Sharon Y. Eubanks said Bush loyalists in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's office began micromanaging the team's strategy in the final weeks of the 2005 trial, to the detriment of the government's claim that the industry had conspired to lie to U.S. smokers.

 

She said a supervisor demanded that she and her trial team drop recommendations that tobacco executives be removed from their corporate positions as a possible penalty. He and two others instructed her to tell key witnesses to change their testimony. And they ordered Eubanks to read verbatim a closing argument they had rewritten for her, she said.

 

...

 

Eubanks, who retired from Justice in December 2005 [after serving at Justice for 22 years], said she is coming forward now because she is concerned about what she called the "overwhelming politicization" of the department demonstrated by the controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. Lawyers from Justice's civil rights division have made similar claims about being overruled by supervisors in the past.

 

Eubanks said Congress should not limit its investigation to the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

 

"Political interference is happening at Justice across the department," she said. "When decisions are made now in the Bush attorney general's office, politics is the primary consideration. . . . The rule of law goes out the window."

 

This is a big enough deal for the president to refuse to allow people to testify under oath, in public and without any documentation of the proceedings, and without any possibility of future subpoenas. That's not making a good faith effort to get out the truth. Add the petulant/combative position by the President with the two most-parroted WH-approved talking points of "Clinton did it, too!" and "I can do what I want with these attorneys" and it doesn't pass the smell test. There are too many conflicting stories, too many missing documents, too many questions and far too much defensive posturing by the WH to consider this a frivolous issue.

 

Read the Iglesias piece in yesterday's NYT (Why I was Fired) and tell me that this is a non-issue. Remember, these are loyal Bushies who were forced out.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

[GG]

This is a big enough deal for the president to refuse to allow people to testify under oath, in public and without any documentation of the proceedings, and without any possibility of future subpoenas. That's not making a good faith effort to get out the truth. Add the petulant/combative position by the President with the two most-parroted WH-approved talking points of "Clinton did it, too!" and "I can do what I want with these attorneys" and it doesn't pass the smell test. There are too many conflicting stories, too many missing documents, too many questions and far too much defensive posturing by the WH to consider this a frivolous issue.

 

If you think this is a big deal, then change the friggin Constitution. You can't go stomping around screaming about First Amendment protections when some pissant says something offensive, yet declare that the administration is wrong in this case.

 

This is all about Constitutional separation of powers, and that is the only reason that the WH is drawing such a hard line. You can't cloak yourself around the Constitution in matters that you support, and toss out the items you don't care much for. Let me restate that, toss out the items used by the people you oppose.

[Johnny Coli]

If more than one party has lines in the water, does the fishing expedition become a tournament?

 

Republican support for attorney general erodes; Senators question his truthfulness; firing of prosecutor in GOP case is eyed

Gonzales has said he participated in no discussions and saw no memos about plans to carry out the firings on Dec. 7 that Democrats contend were politically motivated.

 

His schedule, however, shows he attended at least one hourlong meeting, on Nov. 27, where he approved a detailed plan to execute the prosecutors’ firings.

 

I guess there's no point in compelling them to testify under oath if they're just going to lie anyway.

[Joey Balls]

If you think this is a big deal, then change the friggin Constitution. You can't go stomping around screaming about First Amendment protections when some pissant says something offensive, yet declare that the administration is wrong in this case.

 

This is all about Constitutional separation of powers, and that is the only reason that the WH is drawing such a hard line. You can't cloak yourself around the Constitution in matters that you support, and toss out the items you don't care much for. Let me restate that, toss out the items used by the people you oppose.

 

 

You are right Gekko, to the extent that if you carry out your logic any further why have US attorneys at all?

 

 

Which I'm sure the administration would love....except around election time.