A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

If the prosecuters serve at the pleasure of the president, why does firing them create the shitstorm that it has? I realize it may have been shady, but I was under the impression that they can come and go as the president pleases?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the prosecuters serve at the pleasure of the president, why does firing them create the shitstorm that it has? I realize it may have been shady, but I was under the impression that they can come and go as the president pleases?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is essentially a red herring; no one reputable, as far as I know, denies that the prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. That's not where the criticism lies; I don't think anyone is arguing the President is outside of legal bounds. Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

So, yes, the President is certainly within his rights to fire and hire whoever he likes in this case, but I don't think that ends the discussion.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

these attorneys were Bush's own appointments, apparently fired during Bush's second term, because they did not follow his political line. it is incredibly suspicious, and while they certainly serve at the pleasure of the president, he can't ask them to do anything illegal and fire them when they say no.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

Firing attorneys - legal
Firing attorneys to impede/influence a federal investigation - illegal

Past attorneys who were fired - they had legal troubles or serious performance issues
Present attorneys who were fired - "not good bushies"

Attorneys tendering resignation upon administration change =/= firing attorneys

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

One person's "excessivly politicized" is another person's "reasonable course of action." Something being "excessively politicized" seems very vague and if that's what the Democrats in Congress want to subpoena witnesses for then I think they need to make a definitive statement on what they believe "excessively politicized" entails prior to doing so. Forcing a confrontation between the legislative branch and the executive branch over "executive priveledge" IMO needs more justification than some nebulous notion regarding the possibility of something being "excessively politicized." Have they done this yet? Then it might be worthwhile IMO to discuss whether their criteria for something being "excessively politicized" is worthwhile and valid.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
these attorneys were Bush's own appointments, apparently fired during Bush's second term, because they did not follow his political line. it is incredibly suspicious, and while they certainly serve at the pleasure of the president, he can't ask them to do anything illegal and fire them when they say no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Controversy Regarding U.S. Attorney Firings

In October of 2006, George W. Bush told Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some of the U.S. Attorneys had not pursued certain voter-fraud investigations.[16] The complaints came from Republican officials, who demanded fraud investigations into a number of Democratic campaigns. The 2006 United States general election was forthcoming (November) and Republicans were concerned about losing Congressional seats to Democrats. (The election in fact did overturn Congressional control to the Democratic party).

One of the attorney's fired was David Iglesias who had New Mexico as one of the places where he served. I live in New Mexico and I can tell you for cetain that a group tried to register my then 14 year old granddaughter to vote prior to the November elections. They were trying to register voters at a rock concert of some sort that she attended. According to my daughter they would have succeeded if she hadn't interceded. The Washington Post in a story speculated that Iglesias was fired for not bringing charges against a New Mexico state legilator, Democrat Manny Aragon, prior to the elections but that's pure speculation on the Washington Post's part IMO.

Also this story from the Washington Post claims that Dominichi wanted Iglesias to pursue voter fraud cases:

Firings Had Genesis in White House

Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on that list. Justice officials said Sampson added him in October, based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

i am sorry, but it sounds like heresay. i am not saying your daughter may not have been subject to pressure from a voting registration group. but i am confident that the prosecutors did their job and did not find enough evidence to file a formal case, and that was not acceptable to the administration.

you can argue about the voter registration people being guilty, but if the prosecutor doesn't have enough for a charge, then he doesn't have enough.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize it may have been shady ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why has shady become acceptable?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I live in New Mexico and I can tell you for cetain that a group tried to register my then 14 year old granddaughter to vote prior to the November elections. They were trying to register voters at a rock concert of some sort that she attended.

[/ QUOTE ]
Proof that online poker is rigged!

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize it may have been shady ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why has shady become acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]
I realize this is a rhetorical question, but shady things happen daily without garnering 1/100th of the attention. What I was wondering, I guess, is what determines how a president doing something completely within his power as an investigative incident.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I was wondering, I guess, is what determines how a president doing something completely within his power as an investigative incident.


[/ QUOTE ]
Because it was shady?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

One person's "excessivly politicized" is another person's "reasonable course of action." Something being "excessively politicized" seems very vague and if that's what the Democrats in Congress want to subpoena witnesses for then I think they need to make a definitive statement on what they believe "excessively politicized" entails prior to doing so. Forcing a confrontation between the legislative branch and the executive branch over "executive priveledge" IMO needs more justification than some nebulous notion regarding the possibility of something being "excessively politicized." Have they done this yet? Then it might be worthwhile IMO to discuss whether their criteria for something being "excessively politicized" is worthwhile and valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm not a Democratic member of Congress, it's important to keep in mind that 'excessively politicized' is my vernacular and not theirs. I assume that when/if this controversy reaches its height, the Democrats will claim that the seemingly political nature of the hirings and firings constitute an obstruction of justice:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/#1508057709222146495

<font color="#666666"> "If there was any crime committed here, it was probably the "corrupt" influencing of a government proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. 1505 ("Whoever corruptly . . . influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, . . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years"); and 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) ("Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.")

If, say, Karl Rove, or Harriet Miers, or someone else in the White House, tried to pressure the U.S. Attorneys to drop investigations because the targets (e.g., Duke Cunningham) were Republicans, or to press certain investigations or prosectutions because the targets were Democrats (e.g., pressure to bring "vote fraud" cases regardless of whether there was any evidence of such fraud), that would arguably be an attempt to "corruptly" influence official proceedings -- to bring improper influences to bear on whether an investigation goes forward, or whether a prosecution is initiated."</font>

So, I suspect the Democrats will challenge the Bush Administration's Executive Privilege claim not by citing 'excessive politicization' but instead by accusing the Bush Administration of obstruction of justice.

Second, I think it's a bit hypocritical for Bush Administration apologists to demand a 'strong' justification from Democrats if they choose to demand testimony and issue subpoenas. Congress is granted the Constitutional power to investigate the workings of the Executive branch simply to determine whether legislation is necessary in order prevent or deter undesirable government practices -- so in the same way President Bush can fire and hire US Attorneys as he pleases, so to can Congress issue subpoenas and demand testimony such as their whims dictate.

If you feel Democrats need a 'solid justification' to demand testimony from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, surely you can understand why Democrats believe the President ought to produce a more 'solid justification' to fire 8 US Attorneys (who were ostensibly doing their jobs well) other than "I could".

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

Everyone should keep in mind that things do not have to be crimes for Congress to investigate them. Congress is well within its authority to investigate this so that they have the appropriate information going forward to legislate to change the existing laws.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
.. a group tried to register my then 14 year old granddaughter to vote prior to the November elections. They were trying to register voters at a rock concert of some sort that she attended. According to my daughter they would have succeeded if she hadn't interceded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rock concert. Dark. Ask anybody "Are you registered to vote? Are you 18?"
And some 14 yr old, flattered to be mistaken for 18, decided it would be "cool" to register, despite the fact that she knows she is not supposed to. Luckily your daughter understands what your granddaughter does not.

Since most states require some sort of ID when you show up at a polling place (Cal does), I guess you granddaughter wouldn't have been able to vote anyway.

But this is surely proof of massive voter fraud by (I assume you are sure the group was the NM Dem Party ) the 'bad guys'.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize it may have been shady ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why has shady become acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people worship FDR for doing the same and worse on a much larger scale?

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's voting for Bush again either, so I don't see the relevance. This statement might make some sense if Bush were running in 2008.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's voting for Bush again either, so I don't see the relevance. This statement might make some sense if Bush were running in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's talk relevance then. FDR??? Can we go back to James Buchanan or Millard Fillmore for justification too? Maybe you should just stick to the standard "Clinton did it too, it is all his fault".

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, let's talk relevance then. FDR??? Can we go back to James Buchanan or Millard Fillmore for justification too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, they want to keep it at FDR so they can use the internment of the Japanese Americans as justification for Gitmo and beyond.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

There are plenty of hypotheticals here as to why they were fired, however one would assume that if they were appointed by Bush, they must have many of the same ideological beliefs. Also, in order for them to even be appointed to a position of this level, they would have to be incredibly competent and intelligent attorneys. So tell me how, after 6 years, they suddenly became incompetent? Defenitely a red flag in my book. I wouldn't put anything past Rove. That man is singlehandidly ruining our country.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead, criticism of the Bush Administration has centered around the notion that they have excessively politicized the hiring and firing of federal attorneys.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those that complain about this must really hate FDR then.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they all swore they would never vote for him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's voting for Bush again either, so I don't see the relevance. This statement might make some sense if Bush were running in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, let's talk relevance then. FDR??? Can we go back to James Buchanan or Millard Fillmore for justification too? Maybe you should just stick to the standard "Clinton did it too, it is all his fault".


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? I'm NOT justifying or protecting Bush in anyway. I don't like him at all. I'm pointing out hypocrisy. There are quite a lot of people who villify Bush who don't give a damn when Democrats do the exact same thing and it disgusts me.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

Josh Marshall states it relatively simply:

The firing of a bunch of U.S. Attorneys all at once seemed strange because in the past 25 years only ten have been dismissed at a time other than a new president coming into office, and eight of those ten had a clear, publicized verifiable cause.

People who noticed this highly irregular behavior did some digging and found that a lot of them shared the trait of having pursued corruption cases against Republican politicians.

And after it was pointed out, the Republicans have done a very bad job of lying about it.

The narrative that some people wish to pursue is that the Bush administration has been nakedly partisan in its dealings with a job that is supposed to be non-partisan in nature. Yes, you generally put in U.S. Attorneys of your own party, but you also put in people who have a solid track record in the legal profession and not partisan hacks. Some people see this as consistent with Bush's history, believing that the administration has tried to pressure political-motivated outcomes in areas such as science, national intelligence, and the judiciary.

Attorneys Carol Lam and Paul Charlton
 

Senator Diane Feinstein wrote a letter complainingd about attorney Carol Lam for NOT prosecuting illegal aliens that committed felonies in the state of California.

Gov attorney Paul Charlton was criticize for refusing to prosecute marijuana felonies unless they were over 500 lbs.

So this explains 2 of the 8.

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

"Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following," Sampson

Re: Attorney Paul Charlton
 

Charlton's office was looking into activities of former Tucson Congressman Jim Kolbe related to male congressional pages and current Flagstaff Congressman Rick Renzi's involvement with a land-swap deal. No charges have been brought in either the Renzi or Kolbe cases.

Charlton, now in private practice with Phoenix law firm Gallagher &amp; Kennedy, clashed with administration and Department of Justice officials over some cases and his desire to have more federal interrogations and confessions videotaped.

****DELETED****
 

OffTopic / Off-forum Post deleted by jman220.

Kevin Ryan
 

The LA Times reported on Mar 22, 2007 that a judge voiced several complaints about proscuter Kevin Ryan.

*Also the Diane Feinstein critcism towards Carol Lam occurred on June 15,2006 in a letter sent to Alberto Gonzales. Now that the attorney that Feinsten complained about has been fired.....now she is acting like it is a bad thing. Total hypocrite....

Re: Attorney Paul Charlton
 

[ QUOTE ]
Charlton's office was looking into activities of former Tucson Congressman Jim Kolbe related to male congressional pages and current Flagstaff Congressman Rick Renzi's involvement with a land-swap deal. No charges have been brought in either the Renzi or Kolbe cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the 911 conspiracies. The money quote is no charges were filed. Game-Set-Match

[ QUOTE ]
clashed with administration and Department of Justice officials over some cases and his desire to have more federal interrogations and confessions videotaped.

[/ QUOTE ]
So he doesn't want to follow the polcies of the Al Gonzo Justice Dept. Then he gets fired. Gee Whiz what a surprise.....this would NEVER would happen in the private sector. In the private sector you can ignore comapny policy all day long and they can't touch you.....is that not correct?

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

Yawn....any meat in the hamburger you are trying to serve me?
Evidently Diane Feinstein didn't think too much of Carol Lamb either. And Randy Cunningham is in jail where he belongs.... William Jefferson, Dem LA is still walking the streets despite the $90,000 of marked bills that were found in his freezer...

Re: Attorney Paul Charlton
 

[ QUOTE ]
The money quote is no charges were filed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yap, since he was dismissed in the middle of the investigation.

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

Okay, so we are suppose to swallow that Bush fired Lam upon recomendation of Feinstein? HAHAHAHAHA!

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so we are suppose to swallow that Bush fired Lam upon recomendation of Feinstein?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush does not owe anybody a reason for firing this attorneys. He can fire them because he doesn't like the suits they wear....

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

to be honest, FM I don't listen to anything you say because you are a total Bush/Republican homer, and you have been for years on this forum.

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

[ QUOTE ]

Bush does not owe anybody a reason for [insert anything here]

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd, I thought he was an elected official, not a dictator. Elected officials owe their voters a reason for every single one of their actions while in office.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people see this as consistent with Bush's history, believing that the administration has tried to pressure political-motivated outcomes in areas such as science, national intelligence, and the judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point - and let's not forget Iraq - as Woodward pointed out in State of Denial, qualified people who were to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq - (the first time, that is) - were pulled and replaced with loyalists who had no qualifications other then a demonstratable loyality to the president - That is part of the reason we now have more troops in Iraq then at any other time during the Iraqi conflict - incompetence spearheaded by GWB loyalists instead of reconstruction carried out by qualified and experienced leaders.

There has not been a single instance I can think of in this presidency where the interests of the American People were put ahead this administration. I can't think of a single example where they didn't live up to the motto "No good deed goes unpunished" - In every single case, they have expanded their presidental power and abused it virtually to the point of treasonous behavior that benefitted only the top 1%.

The firings were politically motivated, and lies were told to Congress first about the reasons, then about the accountability - and now we find by and large that using tactics such as claims of voter fraud and intimidation is standard Karl Rove fare and he too had a hand in the drawing up of the list and getting attorneys who didn't show sufficent partisan zeal out of their appointments early.

And they'd have probably gotten away with it, and did for a time, till they started slandering the attorneys who were let go, and then they started swinging back.

Having lost the Legislative branch, and being only two years away from losing the Executive, it would appear they are doing everything possible between now and then to stack the Judical Branch with the worst kind of legal expert - the partisan hack.

Of course, if it were up to me I'd have had GWB impeached for violating his oath to defend and uphold the constitution. But if he's willing to let his lackeys take the fall for his failure, then impeach those bastards till he has no one left to pass the blame on to -

rb

Re: ****DELETED****
 

I permabanned Mickey. Mostly because of his past career as Cyrus that most of us are aware of, but partially because of continued snippy, sarcastic replies like the one JMan deleted above. That's not the kind of thing we're going to put up with anymore.

Re: Attorney Carol Lam
 

[ QUOTE ]
to be honest, FM I don't listen to anything you say

[/ QUOTE ]
You are being quite honest as the next part of your quote shows...


[ QUOTE ]
because you are a total Bush/Republican homer, and you have been for years on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I have be quite upset towards Bush on a number of issues. I have made NUMEROUS POSTS saying I can't wait till Bush's term is over. If you had read my posts, you would know this. In your quote above, you have shown yourself to be ignorant towards my political beliefs. ESPECIALLY towards Bush. How can one engage you on a honest level when you FALSELY attribute beliefs that I do not have? Bush does a few things I like and MANY-MANY things I detest.

Perhaps you should learn to aim first before you shoot...

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of hypotheticals here as to why they were fired, however one would assume that if they were appointed by Bush, they must have many of the same ideological beliefs. Also, in order for them to even be appointed to a position of this level, they would have to be incredibly competent and intelligent attorneys. So tell me how, after 6 years, they suddenly became incompetent? Defenitely a red flag in my book. I wouldn't put anything past Rove. That man is singlehandidly ruining our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the talk of how bush and his entire administration is incompetent...and now you assume because he appointed the attorneys that they are all competent? Something here doesnt quite connect. If bush is as incompetent as most of you seem to beleive then I would think you want most or all of his appointments replaced.

Leads me to believe that you want to beleive in the media and dem phantom controversy. The bottom line is it is his right to fire them. Clinton fired 92 attorneys...Reagan 86 I believe...now its a big deal for 8 or 9?

This is a non story that the press is trying to create into a scandal.

Re: A question about the US attorneys firing...
 

[ QUOTE ]

All the talk of how bush and his entire administration is incompetent...and now you assume because he appointed the attorneys that they are all competent? Something here doesnt quite connect. If bush is as incompetent as most of you seem to beleive then I would think you want most or all of his appointments replaced.

Leads me to believe that you want to beleive in the media and dem phantom controversy. The bottom line is it is his right to fire them. Clinton fired 92 attorneys...Reagan 86 I believe...now its a big deal for 8 or 9?

This is a non story that the press is trying to create into a scandal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is going on is that Bush appears to have gone after those few US Attorneys who actually happened to show competence, honor, and regard for duty.

US Attorneys still have to undergo Senate confirmation for a limited term. The problem is that the Patriot Act changed the law so that an interim US Attorney can be appointed indefinitely without Senate confirmation, wiping out the notion of checks and balances.

Plus, the big deal is not for the mere fact of getting rid of some of them, it is for the unprecedented action of doing so at a period other the start of a presidential term. It is either obstinate political hackery or unbelievable stupidity that some pundits can't understand the different context and why it matters.