|
DOJ having issues of there own
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/...ss_prosecutors
[i]Cliff's notes: The Bush Administration fired 8 U.S. Attorney's for allegedly political reasons. |
Re: DOJ having issues of there own
I think this belongs in politics (and though i don't read the political forum, I'm sure there's a thread on this already).
|
This is a Phony Issue
Theses DOJ DAs work for the Attorney General.
The Attourney General works for the President. These DAs are political appointments and the president can fire them ANYTIME he wants to. When the Clinton took the Whitehouse they fired ALL the DOJ DAs. This has been going on for the the ENTIRE existence of this country.... So why are the Dems bitching about this? Or more importantly, why did the Attorney General apologize for not notifying congress? You got me. I have maintain as a politician, Bush is an idiot. As part of his "new tone" in Washington, Bush decided to keep Clintons DAs on the DOJ that wanted to remain on the job. This was STUUUU-PID. Should Bush be surprised that these partisan Dem DAs should go soft on prosecuting Dem Party operatives that were involved in vote fraud? I voted for Bush twice because Gore/Kerry were bigger morons than Bush. I can't wait till Bush is gone.... |
Bricks and Glass Houses....
Clinton fired 96 at one time and the media yawned. Bush fires 8 and people are complaining? You foaming-at-the-mouth Dems might want to keep you glass houses in order before throwing bricks...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784 Clintons fired 93 at once. Now this was unprecedented. The standard practice is to gradually replace the DOJ attorneys to insure a smooth transition when a new administration takes over. Keeping many Clinton holdovers was part of Bush's setting a "new tone" in Washington. One of Bush's dumb-ass blunders. These partisan Clinton DAs repaid Bush by going soft on Democratic operatives who were caught in vote fraud..... Forget their oaths of office. They can't be expected to prosecute Dems who commit vote fraud... |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
I'm with Felix, this seems like much ado about nothing. US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President.
That said, if he really is firing people because they pursue Republicans too aggressively, Bush has a lot to answer for. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
|
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Felix, this seems like much ado about nothing. US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. That said, if he really is firing people because they pursue Republicans too aggressively, Bush has a lot to answer for. [/ QUOTE ] They got fired for not investigating democrats suspected of voting fraud. Clinton fired all 96 to coverup the one investigating Whitewater and Vince Foster's murder. |
Points of Interests About This Phony Scandal
Points of Interests About This Phony Scandal
1. Bush is making Gonzo go to the hill with hat-in-hand to apologize for not informing Congress. If Gonzo had a pair--of-balls he would tell Bush to FO (and this does not stand for forward observer). 2. Talk Radio is the ONLY media that I have seen that educated the public that there was NOTHING to these firings. Yet the "drive-by" media is fanning the flames acting like this is a scandal. 3. Charles Schumer had been beating the drums and his willing accomplices in the mainstream media have been plasterering his face all over the news. To me this illustrates the mainstream media's bianess. The media knows that cleaning house is standard-operating-procedures. Yet they (for the most part) choose not to educate their viewers and instead act as a bullhorn for nitwits like Chuck Schumer.... 4. Bush's New Tone was a collossal failure! You can not make friends with the partisan Dem leadership. Bush was able to accomplish this as state govenor because Bob Bullock (Dem Lt Gov Texas) was a conservative Democrat so he and Bush were not far off in their views. The next Repub president needs to clean house at the CIA, FBI, DOJ, etc..... |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
Keeping many Clinton holdovers was part of Bush's setting a "new tone" in Washington. These partisan Clinton DAs repaid Bush by going soft on Democratic operatives who were caught in vote fraud..... [/ QUOTE ] Each of these fired US Attorneys was appointed by Bush in 2001, except for Kevin Ryan -- he was appointed in 2002. Some had been assitant US Attorneys before their appointment, but in each case they got that job during a republican administration. The links from the DOJ may not be around for long since these people have been fired, but each shows when the fired US Attorney was appointed. They could not have been fired for being Clinton apointees who wanted to undermine Bush for partisan reasons. <ul type="square"> [*]Ms. Margaret M. Chiara[*]John McKay[*]Paul K. Charlton[*]David Igleslias[*]Carol Lam[*]Daniel Bogden[*]Kevin Ryan[*]Bud Cummins[/list] |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title.
Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
Each of these fired US Attorneys was appointed by Bush in 2001, except for Kevin Ryan -- he was appointed in 2002. Some had been assitant US Attorneys before their appointment, but in each case they got that job during a republican administration. [/ QUOTE ] No, No, No. Don't let facts get in the way. It is all Clinton's fault!!! or Clinton did it too!!!! uhhh... Hey, look over there. Evil Doers, it is hard work. We need a young girl to come up missing someplace. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Each of these fired US Attorneys was appointed by Bush in 2001, except for Kevin Ryan -- he was appointed in 2002. Some had been assitant US Attorneys before their appointment, but in each case they got that job during a republican administration. [/ QUOTE ] No, No, No. Don't let facts get in the way. It is all Clinton's fault!!! or Clinton did it too!!!! uhhh... Hey, look over there. Evil Doers, it is hard work. We need a young girl to come up missing someplace. [/ QUOTE ] Please don't chime in unless you have something to add to the discussion. This post adds nothing. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, you can argue that any President firing US Attorneys (USA) for political reasons is a bad idea. That is a fair argument, and I'd love to hear why you think it is so bad for the rule of law. Personally, I don't see it being that big of a deal unless it is abused. The new USAs will continue to go after the same real bad guys the old USAs went after. Where they will differ is their aggressiveness with respect to certain issues that relate more to policy than criminality. It appears for example, that one of the USAs that was fired refused to investigate the alleged voting irregularities in Washington State. If the President doesn't think that his appointee is getting the job done investigating voter fraud, then he should act accordingly. Another example would have been some of the southern USAs that Kennedy replaced because they were not being aggressive enough enforcing civil rights laws in the deep south. Should he not have had the right to replace them with USAs who were more aggressive in going after the KKK, etc? Could the administration have overplayed its hand? Sure, if they let an USA go who was being overly aggressive to a friend of POTUS or something that obvious, then they would have a perception and PR problem. But that does not appear to be the problem here. In fact, I have not yet read an article in which any of the numb-nuts on the Hill have explained why they have their panties in a wad. What can't be argued is that this administration has done anything unprecedented here. As has been pointed out, this has always been the way it is at the Federal level. Most administrations do it over a long period of time to minimize the disruption it can cause. Clinton did surprise everyone by simply asking for all 90+ USAs to resign and be out of their offices within 7 days. But, he had the ability to do so. Candidly, many conservatives wondered why Bush left so many of the existing USAs in place. A good friend of mine that I went to law school with is the Acting USA in Atlanta. I can assure you that she was surprised when, as a democrat, she was not replaced. As for politics coming into play here, she is one of the top legal minds in the country who will surely be raised to the level of a Federal District/Circuit Judge at some point ... problem is that as a Democrat she has to wait for a Democratic POTUS. At this level politics is ever present. NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] Yes because firing a handful of of lackluster prosecutors that seem to be overlooking a huge amount of evidence concerning VOTER FRAUD, is sooo much worse than firing EVERY prosecutor to coverup one who is investigating a rackateering/murder conspiracy. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] More disturbing Clinton violence: http://hometown.aol.com/beachbt/bodies.htm |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
Emperor, do you honestly believe that Clinton fired 90 some US Attorneys as a cover up for a murder?
|
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice? |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice? [/ QUOTE ] They recieved high reviews for competency in the news stories i've read, thats part of the controversy, they were dismissed for political reasons, not because they were incompetent. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] But, what if it is their political point of view that is causing what the administration sees as the problem. What if what they think is "justice" doesn't square with the administration? Example, again: deep south US Attys not aggressively pursuing the Civil Rights Act ... that is for a specific number of cases (or a single Act), yet you can't argue Kennedy was wrong for bringing in his own when the others wouldn't toe the line. Again, we agree if it is a single case of abuse ... like a USA proceeding against a crony of POTUS. Even if legal, it doesn't look good. But, what is the abuse here? Is there any eveidence that these guys were let go because they were going after the wrong person? I haven't read anything like that. NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice? [/ QUOTE ] They recieved high reviews for competency in the news stories i've read, thats part of the controversy, they were dismissed for political reasons, not because they were incompetent. [/ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice? [/ QUOTE ] They recieved high reviews for competency in the news stories i've read, thats part of the controversy, they were dismissed for political reasons, not because they were incompetent. [/ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I'm objecting to the fact that they were let go because of discretionary decisions on who and who not to prosecute. Only the prosecutor is in a position to make that kind of determination after reviewing the evidence, if a prosecutor feels that a case is not warranted, he should not have political pressure applied to him to pursue it. (I'm talkign specifically of the prosecutors who were let go for their decision not to prosecute the cases of alleged voter fraud). |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president. [/ QUOTE ] No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance. That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases. NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
The reason Gonzales is taking so much heat is because he has not support from the evangelical, anti-abortion wing of the Republican party. The evangelicals would much, much prefer a John Ashcroft type and they see this "scandal" as a way of ousting Gonzales while letting the Democrats do all the dirty work.
|
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. [/ QUOTE ] So was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 DAs, including those tasked with investigating the Whitewater scandal one month after he was sworn in? My instincts tell me you have a double standard for Repubs and Dems....... |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
They could not have been fired for being Clinton apointees who wanted to undermine Bush for partisan reasons. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough.... I think Sandy Burger got a sweatheart deal after stuffing secrets down his socks. The DOJ gave him a small fine and he can't have access to national secrets until 2008...just in time to serve in a Hillary administration. This man should NEVER-EVER have access to national secrets forever and ever... Then there is William Jefferson. Caught with $90,000 of marked money in and his freezer and the DOJ still has not indicted him..... The DOJ is screwed up and Bush is too blame. One for having that numbskull Gonzo in charge and two for not cleaning house.... |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
So was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 DAs, including those tasked with investigating the Whitewater scandal one month after he was sworn in? [/ QUOTE ] I don't think fire is a good word for what Clinton did, and mass replacement does not seem to be unusual. From wikipedia: [ QUOTE ] At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. A political office is generally thought of as one where a person "serves at the pleasure of the President." If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by political appointees from the new President's party.[43] For example, President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993, and shortly after President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[44] [/ QUOTE ] In the emails to Karl Rove from 2005, the suggestion was floated to replace them all again. This would have been defensible, but instead they decided it would be disruptive, so they only fired those who failed to use the office as directed by Karl Rove (see wiki link for detailed reasons). Replacing all US Attorneys at the start of your term? Standard, not double standard. Replacing US Attorneys for failing to prosecute opponents in time for an election, or for daring to prosecute friends? Not illegal, but worthy of scrutiny and reproach. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation. [/ QUOTE ] I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty. [/ QUOTE ] I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said. [/ QUOTE ] Total agreement with both you and jman on this issue. The differentiating factor is that the traditional "cleaning house" is a political PROCESS that is carried on with no prejudice regarding the actual performance of any US attorney. Selectively firing specific US attorneys for political reasons while they are performing their task of upholding the law is totally unconscionable and should be dealt with in the harshest way available under our system of law. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president. [/ QUOTE ] No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance. That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases. NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I would much rather Bush had dismissed all the AUSA's rather than just target the ones he did. Dismissing all of them is fine, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and if the president wants to give some more people a chance, thats fine. However, setting the precedent that you are going to target prosecutor's because you don't like what kinds of people they have and have not been prosecuting is a terrible precedent. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title. [/ QUOTE ] So was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 DAs, including those tasked with investigating the Whitewater scandal one month after he was sworn in? My instincts tell me you have a double standard for Repubs and Dems....... [/ QUOTE ] See my post above for the answer to this point. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president. [/ QUOTE ] No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance. That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases. NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I would much rather Bush had dismissed all the AUSA's rather than just target the ones he did. Dismissing all of them is fine, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and if the president wants to give some more people a chance, thats fine. However, setting the precedent that you are going to target prosecutor's because you don't like what kinds of people they have and have not been prosecuting is a terrible precedent. [/ QUOTE ] You are JFK. United States Attorney in Birmingham is not being agressive enough enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Your position is that it would have been wrong for JFK to replace him. Is that your position? If not, then what is wrong with Bush replacing a small group of USAs who are not enforcing certain laws or policies? NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president. [/ QUOTE ] No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance. That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases. NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I would much rather Bush had dismissed all the AUSA's rather than just target the ones he did. Dismissing all of them is fine, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and if the president wants to give some more people a chance, thats fine. However, setting the precedent that you are going to target prosecutor's because you don't like what kinds of people they have and have not been prosecuting is a terrible precedent. [/ QUOTE ] You are JFK. United States Attorney in Birmingham is not being agressive enough enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Your position is that it would have been wrong for JFK to replace him. Is that your position? If not, then what is wrong with Bush replacing a small group of USAs who are not enforcing certain laws or policies? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] You can't see the difference between someone being replaced for failing to uphold civil rights laws and someone being replaced because they're prosecuting your political cronies and not prosecuting your political enemies? Come on..... |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
You are JFK. United States Attorney in Birmingham is not being agressive enough enforcing the Civil Rights Act. Your position is that it would have been wrong for JFK to replace him. Is that your position? If not, then what is wrong with Bush replacing a small group of USAs who are not enforcing certain laws or policies? NCAces [/ QUOTE ] It's worth noting the 'performance reasons' appear to be entirely republican vs. democrat. I would have more sympathy if, for example, a US Attorney in San Francisco refused to prosecute medical marijuana cases and was fired for that. That would still be firing due to disagreeing with the US Attorney's judgement, but it's better than "party before all". This is a bad precident. Today's outrage becomes tomorrow's standard operating procedure, and the country is the poorer for it. I can think of other cases where tradition has been broken to win a political fight and the losers have felt cheated and determined to get revenge by any means: <ul type="square">[*]The threat to eliminate the filibuster.[*]Blocking a qualified supreme court nominee for partisan reasons. Among the fallout: stealth nominees who refuse to state the obvious.[*]Death penalty abolitionists using the courts in bad faith for their "greater good", inspiring the conservatives on the court to make absurd and unwise decisions to shut them down. (Here a former clerk describes how increasing politics damaged the court.)[*]The republican congress decides to toss out all traditions that include the minority party in discussing and amending legislation. Can the democrats resist revenge?[/list] My point is the choice of political weapons should be constrained by tradition to promote trust and civility, and the total warfare approach often comes back to bite the innovator. I do think Bush is within his rights ("at the pleasure of the president"), but unwise. |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
You can't see the difference between someone being replaced for failing to uphold civil rights laws and someone being replaced because they're prosecuting your political cronies and not prosecuting your political enemies? Come on..... [/ QUOTE ] Sure I can: 1. I finally got the time to review the firings ... up to this point I was arguing more about general principals - firing all 93 at once, firing those who are not enforcing laws that the administration thinks they should - than specific incidents. 2. The Arkansas firing seems to the worst. Pure Cronyism at its worst. The Washington State firing seems to be the most legitimate ... he should have investigated some of the election fraud that took place. All the others are somewhere in between, and at best smell bad, which is not good. 3. I don't think this is the major scandal it is being made out to be, just as I wasn't nonplussed when Clinton let all 93 go at the same time. Seems to me that they way they did this is clumsy politically, and the Arkansas one stinks, but to me the other ones aren't so specifically targeted to make it too big a deal. Politically damaging, a little. Damaging to our justice system, not really. NCAces |
Re: Bricks and Glass Houses....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You can't see the difference between someone being replaced for failing to uphold civil rights laws and someone being replaced because they're prosecuting your political cronies and not prosecuting your political enemies? Come on..... [/ QUOTE ] Sure I can: 1. I finally got the time to review the firings ... up to this point I was arguing more about general principals - firing all 93 at once, firing those who are not enforcing laws that the administration thinks they should - than specific incidents. 2. The Arkansas firing seems to the worst. Pure Cronyism at its worst. The Washington State firing seems to be the most legitimate ... he should have investigated some of the election fraud that took place. All the others are somewhere in between, and at best smell bad, which is not good. 3. I don't think this is the major scandal it is being made out to be, just as I wasn't nonplussed when Clinton let all 93 go at the same time. Seems to me that they way they did this is clumsy politically, and the Arkansas one stinks, but to me the other ones aren't so specifically targeted to make it too big a deal. Politically damaging, a little. Damaging to our justice system, not really. NCAces [/ QUOTE ] I will admit that this may not be the major scandal of 2007 or anything like that, and I may take this a little more personally/seriously than is merited due to my job. I still don't like the precedent it sets though, is there any other example in history of a president dismissing AUSA's like this? (And I don't mean Clinton or JFK, I think we've established there's a big difference here). |
Bush is Such a Dope...
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think fire is a good word for what Clinton did, and mass replacement does not seem to be unusual. From wikipedia [/ QUOTE ] There is NOTHING in your wiki link. The NORMAL process is to gradually replace all 93 DOJ DAs. This insures a smooth transitions and allows these DAs to complete cases they are involved in. Court cases do not magically stop just because a new president takes office. To fire a DA in the middle of a case is not an effective management strategy. Clinton ignored this precedent and fired all 93 at once. Each was given 10 days notice to move out of their offices. The DOJ Whitewater investigation into Clinton corruption was ended. [ QUOTE ] In the emails to Karl Rove from 2005, the suggestion was floated to replace them all again. This would have been defensible, but instead they decided it would be disruptive, so they only fired those who failed to use the office as directed by Karl Rove (see wiki link for detailed reasons). [/ QUOTE ] These are political appointments. Anyone in the executive branch can throw their 2 cents in... Part of the power of the executive branch is to set priorities in cases to prosecute. Their priorities might be drugs, white collar crime, corruption, etc... DOJ lawyers that don't follow these priorities should be dismissed. Their job is to implement the adminstrations priorities with regard to law enforcement. [ QUOTE ] Replacing all US Attorneys at the start of your term? Standard, not double standard. [/ QUOTE ] Nope, you are spinning the facts.... The standard is the gradually replacement of all DOJ DAs to insure a smooth transition. Clinton's mass firings were a first. All pending cases that the DOJ were involved with at the time were thrown into turmoil. One of many examples where the Clinton administration failed to act like grownups... Now I hear that Bush is going to allow members of the executive branch to testify to a senate dog-and-pony grandstanding show. The legislative branch has ZERO authority to compel members of the executive branch to testify to them. The 911 commision tried to make this happen but Bush had the balls to tell them to either go-to-hell or come to the White House. Bush can tell the democrat senators to shove their subpoenas up their *** and the senate can't do a damn thing about it.... of course the political counter-move is to accuse the executive branch of cover-up. Most presidents play the game and send their underlings to be bullied by a bunch of nitwit senators. I can't believe how politically naive Bush is. This is a NOTHING story and Bush add fuel to the fire by publically chastises Gonzo for not informing the Senate. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] |
Re: Bush is Such a Dope...
[ QUOTE ]
There is NOTHING in your wiki link. The NORMAL process is to gradually replace all 93 DOJ DAs. [/ QUOTE ] There was this memo which shows Bush's intention to replace the 93 by June of 2001. [ QUOTE ] These are political appointments. Anyone in the executive branch can throw their 2 cents in... Part of the power of the executive branch is to set priorities in cases to prosecute. Their priorities might be drugs, white collar crime, corruption, etc... DOJ lawyers that don't follow these priorities should be dismissed. Their job is to implement the adminstrations priorities with regard to law enforcement. [/ QUOTE ] Of course political appointees can be fired at will. The appearance in this case is competence is defined by party loyalty. The administration's priority with regard to law enforcement is "get democrats" and "protect republicans", and they expect the US Attorneys to fall in line. For those like jman (a federal prosecutor?) who imagined that once appointed, a US Attorney would put the law first, this is disappointing. [ QUOTE ] Nope, you are spinning the facts.... The standard is the gradually replacement of all DOJ DAs to insure a smooth transition. Clinton's mass firings were a first. All pending cases that the DOJ were involved with at the time were thrown into turmoil. One of many examples where the Clinton administration failed to act like grownups... [/ QUOTE ] I am not trying to spin dishonestly, I suffer from a lack of facts. My googling for contemporary stories on past DOJ firing practices has failed. I have no personal memory of the Clinton firings. So, I'm stuck with wikipedia, the CRS report on in term firings, and news reports that recycle the same few facts. At least now I understand why Clinton was different. He replaced the 93 within 10 days, while Bush did within 6 months upon taking office. Six months seems better, but both sound very disruptive to me. I guess it depends on how long cases take. It's not clear to me if you are suggesting the Clinton firings were incompetence (disruption), or obstructing justice (killing Whitewater investigation). Obstruction of justice would be akin to what we have today and worth investigating. Of course it is now 2007 and not 1993 so I think I'm ready to let that go. [ QUOTE ] This is a NOTHING story [/ QUOTE ] Some prosecutors pissed off various politicians, and their boss was unwilling to protect them. A good AG would have protected his competent employees. Now it looks like the AG might get fired. The original newsworthy part was the Patriot Act easter egg that lets them make temporary apointments who can serve out the term without Senate approval (upsetting the Senate when they figured out what they'd done to themselves). Obviously money spent lobbying is a waste -- to get the UIGEA repealed we simply need to bribe one staffer. |
Re: Bush is Such a Dope...
[ QUOTE ]
This is a NOTHING story [/ QUOTE ] Thankfully, for the sake of the rule of law, neither the Congress nor the media seems to agree with you. |
Re: Bush is Such a Dope...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is a NOTHING story [/ QUOTE ] Thankfully, for the sake of the rule of law, neither the Congress nor the media seems to agree with you. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, because congressional whores and media wouldn't beat the drum of a non-story for political and financial reasons. With all due respect you've made some good points in this thread ... but this isn't one of them. The minute we look at whether politicians or media are interested in something to guage it's importance, we are in trouble. NCAces |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.