A question about the US attorneys firing...

[zer0]

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?

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[sylar]

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.

[Barcalounger]

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

[adios]

[ 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.

[sylar]

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.

[cardcounter0]

[ 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!

[AngusThermopyle]

[ 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'.

[adios]

[ 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.

[DVaut1]

[ 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".