Firing of attorneys

[ManBearPig]

i know its over by now, but what was/is the deal with the firing of the U.S. attorneys or whatever? what exactly happened?

 

[Phokus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...torneys_firing_scandal

 

[nageov3t]

Bush: lol ur fired /trump
Attorneys: y were we fired?
Bush: lol noobs
Congress: y were these guys we voted on fired?
Gonzales: they were the sux0r
Congress/Attorneys: wait, wut?
Gonzales: um, i mean, nevermind. i don't remember lol.
Congress: liar!

more or less...

 

[Craig234]

Here's what happened. The Bush administration is primarily political, not about competence.

Unlike other administrations, they decided they'd like to politicize the US Attorneys more. So, they targetted some - one for prosecuting a corrupt republican, another for not prosecuting innocent democrats, another to open a spot for a Karl Rove protege, and so on. Then they abused the power they have by getting rid of them for those inappropriate, and IMO illegal (Hatch Act) reasons.

Then, Congress asked about it and Gonzales lied. Others showed he lied. Congress is collecting more evidence, and asked for former officials to testify. The Bush administration is refusing to hand over subpoenad documents and is trying to prevent the former officials from testifying. They're also refusing to let current officials testify, and are offering a bogus 'conversation' with them, not under oath, with no written record allowed.

This politicization is a threat to the independance of the Justice Department, and therefore to the public's ability to hold the government, including elected officials, accountable.

Stay tuned.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Heen05
i know its over by now, but what was/is the deal with the firing of the U.S. attorneys or whatever? what exactly happened?

Welcome to P&N Heen05

Craig234 summed it nicely.

Thanks Craig. :thumbsup:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Here's what happened. The Bush administration is primarily political, not about competence.

Unlike other administrations, they decided they'd like to politicize the US Attorneys more. So, they targetted some - one for prosecuting a corrupt republican, another for not prosecuting innocent democrats, another to open a spot for a Karl Rove protege, and so on. Then they abused the power they have by getting rid of them for those inappropriate, and IMO illegal (Hatch Act) reasons.

Then, Congress asked about it and Gonzales lied. Others showed he lied. Congress is collecting more evidence, and asked for former officials to testify. The Bush administration is refusing to hand over subpoenad documents and is trying to prevent the former officials from testifying. They're also refusing to let current officials testify, and are offering a bogus 'conversation' with them, not under oath, with no written record allowed.

This politicization is a threat to the independance of the Justice Department, and therefore to the public's ability to hold the government, including elected officials, accountable.

Stay tuned.

If I may elaborate on this point, some Republican senators and the administration urge this would be a good way to simply show whether or not anything inappropriate took place. Sounds reasonable. However, the deal for the conversation also includes the provision that no subpoenas or investigations will issue based on what is learned at the 'conversations'. Kinda defeats the purpose, no?

 

[Deudalus]

In the end it all boils down to whether you think US Attorneys are political appointments or not.

Considering the fact that when a new President enters office, especially from a different party, every single US Attorney tenders their resignation I would consider them political appointments. Reagan canned every single one of Carter's US Attorneys. Clinton canned every single one of George HW Bush's US Attorneys.

President Carter canned one of his own US Attorneys because that attorney was investigating two Democrat representatives who were both later indicted and I don't remember there being a huge scandal over that. How do you Democrats feel about that move of Carter's?

President Bush has since canned 7 US Attorneys for not investigating Democrats and not investigating Democratic election tampering.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Bush: lol ur fired /trump
Attorneys: y were we fired?
Bush: lol noobs
Congress: y were these guys we voted on fired?
Gonzales: they were the sux0r
Congress/Attorneys: wait, wut?
Gonzales: um, i mean, nevermind. i don't remember lol.
Congress: liar!

more or less...

If that's all you think it's about, please cancel your voter registration as a public service. Better yet, read Craig234's post. Then, go out and do your homework. It may help you avoid shoving more feet in your mouth.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
Bush: lol ur fired /trump
Attorneys: y were we fired?
Bush: lol noobs
Congress: y were these guys we voted on fired?
Gonzales: they were the sux0r
Congress/Attorneys: wait, wut?
Gonzales: um, i mean, nevermind. i don't remember lol.
Congress: liar!

more or less...

If that's all you think it's about, please cancel your voter registration as a public service. Better yet, read Craig234's post. Then, go out and do your homework. It may help you avoid shoving more feet in your mouth.

if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
In the end it all boils down to whether you think US Attorneys are political appointments or not.

Considering the fact that when a new President enters office, especially from a different party, every single US Attorney tenders their resignation I would consider them political appointments. Reagan canned every single one of Carter's US Attorneys. Clinton canned every single one of George HW Bush's US Attorneys.

President Carter canned one of his own US Attorneys because that attorney was investigating two Democrat representatives who were both later indicted and I don't remember there being a huge scandal over that. How do you Democrats feel about that move of Carter's?

President Bush has since canned 7 US Attorneys for not investigating Democrats and not investigating Democratic election tampering.

Exactly. They did nothing wrong. Which is why they won't talk about it or testify about it or produce relevant documents about it. And why Gonzales recalls so much about it. And why no interviews will be under oath about it. And why millions of emails discussing it disappeared . And why Tony Snow said it was performance related, then a month later said he never said it was performance related. (Great Daily Show moment) And why a great many Republican senators have called for Gonzalez' firing/resigning. And why both houses of congress voted nearly unanimously to reinstate a provision the PATRIOT ACT had deleted allowing the permanent appointment of interim attorneys without senatorial confirmation. And that a president removing a group of his own appointed attorneys for reasons other than misconduct is unprecedented. And why over 150 members of the DOJ went to a 4th tier (lowest rated) law school called Regent University, Pat Robertson's Christian law school. And why the number 2 and 3 people at the DOJ resigned.

Because nobody did anything wrong.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Heen05
i know its over by now, but what was/is the deal with the firing of the U.S. attorneys or whatever? what exactly happened?

Here it is in a nutshell, so to speak:

US Attorneys scandal

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
In the end it all boils down to whether you think US Attorneys are political appointments or not.

Considering the fact that when a new President enters office, especially from a different party, every single US Attorney tenders their resignation I would consider them political appointments. Reagan canned every single one of Carter's US Attorneys. Clinton canned every single one of George HW Bush's US Attorneys.

President Carter canned one of his own US Attorneys because that attorney was investigating two Democrat representatives who were both later indicted and I don't remember there being a huge scandal over that. How do you Democrats feel about that move of Carter's?

President Bush has since canned 7 US Attorneys for not investigating Democrats and not investigating Democratic election tampering.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly this post by Deudalus only muddies the waters further---the issue is not if the US attorney post is a political appointee slot--its formally recognized as such in the Federal rules. And its also traditional that an incoming President fires his predecessor's US attorneys.

The issue is and remains who the appointed US attorneys work for once they are conformed by the Senate-----under Federal rules, once appointed, US attorneys are supposed to be totally independent of all political consideration---and hence work for the people of the US who pay their salaries. And the attorney firings show a case where GWB&co. and Alberto Gonzales sought to make the US attorney's work as an enforcement arm for the Republican party----and fired those already appointed US attorney's who did not dance to the Republican tune with sufficient zeal.

Two things are totally factual.

1. On occassion US attorneys get fired for incompetence or corruption. But never in US history have more than a few been fired mid-term.

2. A plethora of documents now in possession of congress strongly imply if not outright prove that the firing of the 8 US attorneys mid-term was politically motivated---and hence a clear violation of various felony laws on the books put there precisely to prevent those kinds of abuses.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
In the end it all boils down to whether you think US Attorneys are political appointments or not.

And if, as nearly everyone thinks they should somehow be insulated from politics yet they are currently appointed in a very political manner, the system is working now.

Currently, it's a compromise, where the president has partisan appointment ability, subject only to congressional approval and the court of public opinion.

Considering the fact that when a new President enters office, especially from a different party, every single US Attorney tenders their resignation I would consider them political appointments. Reagan canned every single one of Carter's US Attorneys. Clinton canned every single one of George HW Bush's US Attorneys.

President Carter canned one of his own US Attorneys because that attorney was investigating two Democrat representatives who were both later indicted and I don't remember there being a huge scandal over that. How do you Democrats feel about that move of Carter's?

Interestingly, the attorney in question is one of the exceptions to the 'get all new attorney' norm; he was a republican appointed by Ford that Carter *didn't* remove upon entering office. This was largely a result of the times, when Carter was trying to appear less partisan following the Watergate scandal. Had he followed the norm, and gotten a new attorney when he took office, it wouldn't have been an issue.

Carter actually had some more legtitimate reason for replacing the attorney he could have used, such as a lack of trial experience, and apparently was doing so.

The problem started when a democrat under investigation called Carter and wanted the attorney replaced, and Carter then expedited the replacement - and then likely lied.

To answer your question: Carter screwed it up. It appears likely he did accelerate replacing the attorney for political reasons, and lied about the story to cover it up.

Also, Carter has another problem you didn't mention. He said in the campaign that he'd change from the norm and be non-partisan on the appointments, but he was partisan.

This leaves weighing Carter's broken campaign statement to be non-partisan, and his likely expediting replacing a Ford appointment for political reasons and lying about the story, against Bush's team doing a major political review for replacing US Attorneys for inappropriate political reasons that threaten to politicize the US Attorneys, replacing 8 of them in pretty blatant unjustified cases whereas Carter merely expedited the replacement of one who was being replaced for 'legitimate' reason, and the Bush team covering up and lying about the story.

Here's a link to an article on the Carter mistakes:

Link

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

 

[bamacre]

Pardon me for being somewhat confused here. If former presidents have fired all them in the past, why is it such a big deal that Bush has done the same?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Pardon me for being somewhat confused here. If former presidents have fired all them in the past, why is it such a big deal that Bush has done the same?

It's not.

The big deal is that his people targetted eight of them mid-term *for political reasons*, which violates the trust or tradition against politicizing the attorneys once they're appointed; and that his team then lied to Congress about the reasons they'd done it, complete with an attempted coverup.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Pardon me for being somewhat confused here. If former presidents have fired all them in the past, why is it such a big deal that Bush has done the same?

Prior presidents have fired all attorneys left over from the previous administration. It is beyond rare for a president to fire one of his own appointees, barring malfeasance on their part.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

Then why did Goodling plead the fifth?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

Then why did Goodling plead the fifth?

My understanding is she plead the fifth because of, once again, giving false/incorrect information about the firings or her involvment in them to an investigatory commission, or her boss, who was about to testify in front of such a panel. She might have been brought up on charges of lying to federal investigators. It seems that's all anyone gets charged with these days. No one gets busted for the underlying crime, they just get caught lying about it. The Senate gave her immunity and then she had to testify anyway.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Deudalus
In the end it all boils down to whether you think US Attorneys are political appointments or not.

Considering the fact that when a new President enters office, especially from a different party, every single US Attorney tenders their resignation I would consider them political appointments. Reagan canned every single one of Carter's US Attorneys. Clinton canned every single one of George HW Bush's US Attorneys.

President Carter canned one of his own US Attorneys because that attorney was investigating two Democrat representatives who were both later indicted and I don't remember there being a huge scandal over that. How do you Democrats feel about that move of Carter's?

President Bush has since canned 7 US Attorneys for not investigating Democrats and not investigating Democratic election tampering.

Exactly. They did nothing wrong. Which is why they won't talk about it or testify about it or produce relevant documents about it. And why Gonzales recalls so much about it. And why no interviews will be under oath about it. And why millions of emails discussing it disappeared . And why Tony Snow said it was performance related, then a month later said he never said it was performance related. (Great Daily Show moment) And why a great many Republican senators have called for Gonzalez' firing/resigning. And why both houses of congress voted nearly unanimously to reinstate a provision the PATRIOT ACT had deleted allowing the permanent appointment of interim attorneys without senatorial confirmation. And that a president removing a group of his own appointed attorneys for reasons other than misconduct is unprecedented. And why over 150 members of the DOJ went to a 4th tier (lowest rated) law school called Regent University, Pat Robertson's Christian law school. And why the number 2 and 3 people at the DOJ resigned.

Because nobody did anything wrong.

Thanks for bringing the thunder Sirjonk. :thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

Lets be clear---Goodling did indeed testify she broke the law by asking political question of potential appointees---in her case she said she was ignorant of the laws governing
the process at the time---but she still admitted violating the law under a grant of immunity.

And Harvey is also 100% correct---if Rove or even GWB were involved in using political reasons to fire the 8 US attorney's---they would be in violation of existing clear US laws
and would be guilty of a felony. But suspecting and proving are two different things--and Alberto seems perfectly content to lie his head off---and rightly or wrongly---some are obsessed with finding that proof---and if they keep looking---and keep the pressure up---the truth will come out sooner or later.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

Then why did Goodling plead the fifth?

My understanding is she plead the fifth because of, once again, giving false/incorrect information about the firings or her involvment in them to an investigatory commission, or her boss, who was about to testify in front of such a panel. She might have been brought up on charges of lying to federal investigators. It seems that's all anyone gets charged with these days. No one gets busted for the underlying crime, they just get caught lying about it. The Senate gave her immunity and then she had to testify anyway.

by "they" I meant bush, cheney, and rove... I believe Goodling pleaded the fifth because hiring people based on their political affiliation, which she did, was in fact illegal?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
if gonzales hadn't lied, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

I was just more concise in my post than Craid234

If Gonzo The Clown hadn't lied, he, Rove, Cheney and Bush would all be behind bars for their related felonies, right now. THEN, this would pretty much be a non-issue.

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

Then why did Goodling plead the fifth?

My understanding is she plead the fifth because of, once again, giving false/incorrect information about the firings or her involvment in them to an investigatory commission, or her boss, who was about to testify in front of such a panel. She might have been brought up on charges of lying to federal investigators. It seems that's all anyone gets charged with these days. No one gets busted for the underlying crime, they just get caught lying about it. The Senate gave her immunity and then she had to testify anyway.

by "they" I meant bush, cheney, and rove... I believe Goodling pleaded the fifth because hiring people based on their political affiliation, which she did, was in fact illegal?

Yeah, good call, my bad. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/goodling-illegal/
And while hiring based on political affiliation may be illegal, the president can remove US Attorneys for no reason, or any reason, just not an illegal reason (race, sex, etc...but then why appoint them in the first place?) That's how the hiring can be called illegal, and the firing not.

Oh, and contrary to the OP, it's not over. It's just beginning (EVIL LAUGH)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...o_co/fired_prosecutors

 

[piasabird]

If a federal prosecuting attorney does not do their job according to their federal guidelines then their boss can replace them. Hell Clinton replaced all of them for no reason. I dont think the president even needs to give a reason.