Firing of attorneys

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481
they didn't do anything illegal, though.

Yes, they DID. Lying to Congress is a felony, even if the lie was not spoken under oath.

United States Code

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

• (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
  
  (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
  
  (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

• 1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
  
  (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Originally posted by: loki8481
bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

That would have been great because it would have been immediate grounds for impeachment.

 

[w3stfa11]

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.

Nice post. I'd really like to see a reply to this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: loki8481
they didn't do anything illegal, though.

Yes, they DID. Lying to Congress is a felony, even if the lie was not spoken under oath.

United States Code

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

• (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
  
  (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
  
  (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -

• 1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
  
  (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Originally posted by: loki8481
bush should have just said from the beginning, "yeah, I fired them for political reasosn. suck it up."

That would have been great because it would have been immediate grounds for impeachment.

Well that assumes its illegal for the president to remove US Attorneys for political reasons. It may be unethical to subvert the DOJ, which ought to act independently of political influence in carrying out its prosecutorial discretion, but unethical and illegal are two different beasts.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

Typical piasabird.

One at a time:

If a federal prosecuting attorney does not do their job according to their federal guidelines then their boss can replace them.

Evidence was found that the attorneys were not replaced for any problem, but for political reasons.

Hell Clinton replaced all of them for no reason.

Singling out Clinton when it's the norm for presidents to get new attorneys at their beginning of their term, as Clinton did; and Clinton didn't do it mid-term, as Bush did.

I dont think the president even needs to give a reason.

How can you have missed all the posts pointing out that *the administration lied to Congress about the reason*.

They knew they had done it for political reasons, they knew that was a violation of the tradition of not politicizing the justice department and it'd be a big political problem for them to get caught doing that, and they covered up what they had done by lying to the congress about it. They didn't just keep quiet and let the congress reach its own conclusions, which would soon find the attorneys did nothing wrong; they lied to the congress.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

they didn't do anything illegal, though.

It's now well documented that at least some of the attorneys, like Carol Lam, were fired because they were pursuing Republican criminals like Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham, and because others. like David Iglesias, refused to prosecute Democratic members of Congress and candidates and replaced by others who would toe the company line, Congress has every reason to investigate whether that constitutes Obstruction of Justice.

Is that illegal enough for you? :roll:

 

[CallMeJoe]

The other twist in this story is that while Clinton did indeed fire all of GHW Bush's leftover attorneys, they were informed that they were being replaced as soon as Congress confirmed their replacements. GW Bush & company slipped through a provision in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that allowed them to immediately, permanently replace US attorneys without Congressional approval. Had they been working under the old rules where Congress got to weigh in on the replacements, it would have been a much more open and transparent process.

 

[Deudalus]

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.

First of all Tony Snow is a spin doctor, thats what he does. He's America's Baghdad Bob and you can bet your ass that every other President past and future, Republican or Democrat, will have their own Baghdad Bob.

Secondly, let me get this straight......

Bush fired some guys that he appointed........... and its a scandal? Has Bush not given the libs enough ammunition with all the other things that he has done? I mean, I'm not a Bush fan. I'm not as blindly hateful as you guys but he is a far cry from my first choice as President thats for damn sure. But when I talk about Bush's stupidity and shortcomings I wouldn't harp on such a non-issue.

I mean be honest with yourself here, these are political appointments, pure and simple. SCOTUS appointments are political appointments. Secretary of State, Defense, and all other secretaries are political appointments. ANYTIME you are appointed by an elected official and your job is gone as soon as he leaves office, you are a political appointment.

So whats the big deal? He fired some people that he hired. I'm 100% sure that every President in history has fired at least one of his political appointments while he was in office.

Bush does enough stupid stuff for you guys to pick at him about, you don't need to make up a scandal with this of all Presidents.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

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.

First of all Tony Snow is a spin doctor, thats what he does. He's America's Baghdad Bob and you can bet your ass that every other President past and future, Republican or Democrat, will have their own Baghdad Bob.

Secondly, let me get this straight......

Bush fired some guys that he appointed........... and its a scandal? Has Bush not given the libs enough ammunition with all the other things that he has done? I mean, I'm not a Bush fan. I'm not as blindly hateful as you guys but he is a far cry from my first choice as President thats for damn sure. But when I talk about Bush's stupidity and shortcomings I wouldn't harp on such a non-issue.

I mean be honest with yourself here, these are political appointments, pure and simple. SCOTUS appointments are political appointments. Secretary of State, Defense, and all other secretaries are political appointments. ANYTIME you are appointed by an elected official and your job is gone as soon as he leaves office, you are a political appointment.

So whats the big deal? He fired some people that he hired. I'm 100% sure that every President in history has fired at least one of his political appointments while he was in office.

Bush does enough stupid stuff for you guys to pick at him about, you don't need to make up a scandal with this of all Presidents.

So, it doesn't bother you that the Justice Department embarked on a national campaign of prosecuting members of the political party adverse to the president to the tune of seven times the number of democrats investigated to every republican? http://www.epluribusmedia.org/...litical_profiling.html

And that part of the reason these attorneys were fired is because they didn't drink the kool-aid and follow partisan orders to investigate people based solely on their political party affiliation? And then when busted, the admin cronies lied, falsified evidence, obfuscated facts, shredded docs and deleted incriminating emails, covered their tracks, circled the wagons and told Congress to go screw themselves?

You're more tolerant than I am...

 

[Deudalus]

So, it doesn't bother you that the Justice Department embarked on a national campaign of prosecuting members of the political party adverse to the president to the tune of seven times the number of democrats investigated to every republican? http://www.epluribusmedia.org/...litical_profiling.html

No I have no problem with that, and let me tell you why.

People need to wake up and see what their government does. If you want the laws to change, then by all means talk to your congressman, participate, and see to it that laws get changed. Most local judges run for office. All federal judges are appointed by the President. If you don't want them to be political then by all means write your congressman and tell them that you want the laws changed.

The fact remains that no one is unbiased in the DOJ, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The only SCOTUS judge that was impartial in my opinion was Sandra Day O'Connor. Every current judge you know how they are going to vote before they vote. It is all totally political.

If you really think the DOJ isn't political you are either engaging in some very serious wishful thinking or just pretending to be ignorant on this subject so you can pretend to be outraged.

And that part of the reason these attorneys were fired is because they didn't drink the kool-aid and follow partisan orders to investigate people based solely on their political party affiliation? And then when busted, the admin cronies lied, falsified evidence, obfuscated facts, shredded docs and deleted incriminating emails, covered their tracks, circled the wagons and told Congress to go screw themselves?

You're more tolerant than I am...

And this is different than past Presidents how....................

Do you honestly think Bush is the first President in history to use DOJ appointments as political muscle? Did Bush also invent war, crystal meth, and teenage pregnancy too?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

So, it doesn't bother you that the Justice Department embarked on a national campaign of prosecuting members of the political party adverse to the president to the tune of seven times the number of democrats investigated to every republican? http://www.epluribusmedia.org/...litical_profiling.html

No I have no problem with that, and let me tell you why.

People need to wake up and see what their government does. If you want the laws to change, then by all means talk to your congressman, participate, and see to it that laws get changed. Most local judges run for office. All federal judges are appointed by the President. If you don't want them to be political then by all means write your congressman and tell them that you want the laws changed.

The fact remains that no one is unbiased in the DOJ, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The only SCOTUS judge that was impartial in my opinion was Sandra Day O'Connor. Every current judge you know how they are going to vote before they vote. It is all totally political.

If you really think the DOJ isn't political you are either engaging in some very serious wishful thinking or just pretending to be ignorant on this subject so you can pretend to be outraged.

And that part of the reason these attorneys were fired is because they didn't drink the kool-aid and follow partisan orders to investigate people based solely on their political party affiliation? And then when busted, the admin cronies lied, falsified evidence, obfuscated facts, shredded docs and deleted incriminating emails, covered their tracks, circled the wagons and told Congress to go screw themselves?

You're more tolerant than I am...

And this is different than past Presidents how....................

Do you honestly think Bush is the first President in history to use DOJ appointments as political muscle? Did Bush also invent war, crystal meth, and teenage pregnancy too?

This administration could have gotten away with it. And as others have said already the administration didn't even have to offer up excuses about the firings. But they did....

and then they got caught telling stories...lying. Couldn't even get the stories straight.

Thats all it took. Kind of par for the course considering how often this administration has screwed up.

yeah sure talk about the partisan and political realities of these offices all you want. You aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said. Just remember, if you lie, or if it appears you are lying, you are gonna get called on it. Happens on both sides of the aisle.

And that is what you are seeing now. And that is what opened up the can o worms concerning the firings.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

So, it doesn't bother you that the Justice Department embarked on a national campaign of prosecuting members of the political party adverse to the president to the tune of seven times the number of democrats investigated to every republican? http://www.epluribusmedia.org/...litical_profiling.html

No I have no problem with that, and let me tell you why.

People need to wake up and see what their government does. If you want the laws to change, then by all means talk to your congressman, participate, and see to it that laws get changed. Most local judges run for office. All federal judges are appointed by the President. If you don't want them to be political then by all means write your congressman and tell them that you want the laws changed.

The fact remains that no one is unbiased in the DOJ, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. The only SCOTUS judge that was impartial in my opinion was Sandra Day O'Connor. Every current judge you know how they are going to vote before they vote. It is all totally political.

If you really think the DOJ isn't political you are either engaging in some very serious wishful thinking or just pretending to be ignorant on this subject so you can pretend to be outraged.

And that part of the reason these attorneys were fired is because they didn't drink the kool-aid and follow partisan orders to investigate people based solely on their political party affiliation? And then when busted, the admin cronies lied, falsified evidence, obfuscated facts, shredded docs and deleted incriminating emails, covered their tracks, circled the wagons and told Congress to go screw themselves?

You're more tolerant than I am...

And this is different than past Presidents how....................

Do you honestly think Bush is the first President in history to use DOJ appointments as political muscle? Did Bush also invent war, crystal meth, and teenage pregnancy too?

It's different in EVERY WAY. That's what this "scandal" is about. No previous president has ever done this. No previous administration has run a pogrom on their opposition party the way this one is.

You keep going back to how political appointees retain their political bent once in office. Duh. That's why they are appointed. I have no problem with policy makers pursuing goals in line with their political agenda. The problem is when the agenda advanced trumps the rule of law. The prosecutor, judge and appellate judges in the Libby case were all Bush appointees, yet somehow they didn't rule in favor of every motion for Libby, they sentenced him to prison, and upheld the conviction on appeal. If they had ignored the facts and made up a reason to drop the case purely for political reasons, I assume this would also be ok with you because they were political apointees.

I grant you are correct when you say that in the pantheon of Bush screwups, this ranks far behind Iraq (and it's coverup), warrantless wiretapping (and its coverup), and outing CIA operatives (and its coverup).

And Al Gore invented teenage pregnancy, we all know that.