More information about the fired U.S. attorney's

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Clinton fired all U.S attorneys upon taking office, most of them were later re nominated i believe. But let's see what the bushies did differently.


First, they fired only prosecutors who were involved in political cases includiing the one who indicted Duke Cunningham. A U.S attorney is a political position BUT that doesn't mean you may force them to persecute your political enemies and exonerate your political allies. This alone would be enough but....

Second, THEY TRIED GETTING AROUND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR US ATTORNEYS!!! this is absolutely nuts. THey misuse the patriot act to bypass the proper procedures? A provision in the patriot act that was only designed for emergency situations?

Third, they keep changing their story and contradicting themselves every minute.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
All this somewhat goes to show what the future will be---during the Republican rubber stamp congress days a simple apology would have been enough---and be regarded by the White House as a magnanimous act----and now any pledge of taking responsibility and being accountable is taken at full face value. And I am reasonable sure congress can and will escalate the pressure to force the administration to be accountable.

And some of this is happening faster than GWB&co. had hoped---and is somewhat likely to result in similar purges as GWB&co. looks to entrench as many of their sorts into government positions while the entrenching is still possible. Six months ago this type of scandal would have never happened and there was no need to be subtle about it. And now there is a hue and cry and we come to find out that the whole affair was conducted in a super sloppy manner. The one worry now is that the White House will learn to cover their tracks much better---it may not result in survival of the fittest---but will likely result in survival of the sneaky within the White House.

Its somewhat shocking in this scandal that even Rove is outed and his fingerprints are on it---Rove has always been the past master of sneaky---and dare we hope that one day we will see Rove frog marched out of the White House?--- even then the little rats are feeling the heat, and their get out of jail free card may be denominated in who up the food chain they can rat on. The GWB ship is starting to leak---will 2007 be the year of the rat?
 

fornax

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
6,866
0
76
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Thanks, Scoop.

Man... I can't wail till Jan of '09

Looking at the present crop of Democrats and Republicans, do you really have expectations for a change? On the Democrat's side, we have two supreme opportunists (Obama and Clinton). On the Republican's side, we have an amazing bunch of brainless twits (with the possible exception of Romney and Giuliani). At least Bush provides us with amusement.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: fornax
Looking at the present crop of Democrats and Republicans, do you really have expectations for a change? On the Democrat's side, we have two supreme opportunists (Obama and Clinton).
I agree about Clinton. WTF do you have to support that statement about Obama. Hell. He's extremely bright and articulate, and was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He's easily smart enough for the job. His main limitations are that he hasn't been on the front pages long enough to know him that well

The current Idiot in Chief has already shown that real intellect isn't necessary to get elected. It sure would have helped once he started trying to the job.
At least Bush provides us with amusement.
3,200 American troops dying in a war based on nothing but lies makes that tragically dark humor. :(
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
No justifying the lies told before congress.

You can only get away with so much, even the congressional GOP is PO'd
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Clinton fired all U.S attorneys upon taking office, most of them were later re nominated i believe. But let's see what the bushies did differently.

First, they fired only prosecutors who were involved in political cases includiing the one who indicted Duke Cunningham. A U.S attorney is a political position BUT that doesn't mean you may force them to persecute your political enemies and exonerate your political allies. This alone would be enough but....

Second, THEY TRIED GETTING AROUND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR US ATTORNEYS!!! this is absolutely nuts. THey misuse the patriot act to bypass the proper procedures? A provision in the patriot act that was only designed for emergency situations?

Third, they keep changing their story and contradicting themselves every minute.

I am amazed Bush and the Republicans get away with this destruction of the U.S. while Clinton gets grilled over some extra nookie under the desk.

Sometimes I wonder of the U.S. is worth saving.

It could be a case of let them have it.

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Clinton fired all U.S attorneys upon taking office, most of them were later re nominated i believe. But let's see what the bushies did differently.

First, they fired only prosecutors who were involved in political cases includiing the one who indicted Duke Cunningham. A U.S attorney is a political position BUT that doesn't mean you may force them to persecute your political enemies and exonerate your political allies. This alone would be enough but....

Second, THEY TRIED GETTING AROUND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR US ATTORNEYS!!! this is absolutely nuts. THey misuse the patriot act to bypass the proper procedures? A provision in the patriot act that was only designed for emergency situations?

Third, they keep changing their story and contradicting themselves every minute.

I am amazed Bush and the Republicans get away with this destruction of the U.S. while Clinton gets grilled over some extra nookie under the desk.

Sometimes I wonder of the U.S. is worth saving.

It could be a case of let them have it.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

Gee, who started this trend of firing the attorneys to hide from investigations? I wonder.



 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To some extent this is almost a carbon copy of the teapot dome scandal----Warren Harding couldn't take the heat, took a vacation cruse to Alaska, and conveniently died mid trip. Leaving the sitting attorney general as the road block to cleaning up the mess and prosecuting the rats who looted the public treasury. When silent Calvin refused to fire the AG, the congress did have an answer---they prepared a bill of impeachment against the AG. Shortly thereafter the AG resigned. And when Calvin Coolege nominated a another clone to replace the AG---the Senate refused to conform his nomination---twice in a week. Finally we did get an AG who did prosecute the rats---and they found themselves jailed.---even though justice was delayed---it was not denied.

Yes Virgina, impeachment is not just reserved to the President---it can be used against any Federal official. Right now, I can't think of anyone who is begging for impeachment now more than Alberto Gonzales. But Alberto does have the date with congress---and gasp-- is going to have to tell the truth.
And while Alberto is sitting on the witness stand---he may well be mindful of the fate of John Mitchell and may even envy the Harding solution.

And for GWB&co. its a dilemma, GWB may not mind Alberto's excesses done on his behalf, but cannot stomach someone who did it in such an incompetent manner.

Next week's hearings should be interesting---very interesting. Grilled Gonzales should be a very tasty dish.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Actually LemonLaw it appears some of these attorneys were fired because they would not investigate suspicious election results.

of course since a demmy won I suppos cheating is permitted in your book?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To Shivetya---who responds--Actually LemonLaw it appears some of these attorneys were fired because they would not investigate suspicious election results.

That is the surface reason given---the failure to prosecute certain cases---but upon even casual examination---your contention can't be supported in any way. (1) If you were correct, the firing would not have come all at the same time.---and would not have the hallmarks of a purge. (2) There is a big pile of documentation that show that PROVE these firing WERE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. (3) Federal Prosecutors work for the people---and should never be made political hatchetmen for any occupant of the oval office.--------Alberto Gonzales would fit in quite well in Nazi Germany---or as a Saddam Hussein appointee----but does not belong as the chief law enforcement official in a constitutional democracy.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
This is the beginning of the end for AG Gonzales, yet another Administration apointee who will likely be forced to resign in shame:

Panel Authorizes Subpoenas for Justice Dept. Officials

The Senate Judiciary Committee today authorized the use of subpoenas to compel the testimony of five Justice Department officials as part of an investigation into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, but the panel put off a vote on subpoenas for top White House aides, including senior political adviser Karl Rove.

Meeting in an executive session, the 19-member committee voted to authorize the issuing of 11 subpoenas -- five for Justice Department officials involved in the firings and six for U.S. attorneys who were dismissed last year in the controversial purge. The subpoena authority gives the panel a fall-back position in case any of the current and former officials refuse to testify voluntarily or Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reconsiders his pledge to let his subordinates appear before the committee.

WaPo

Nice to see some teeth behind Congressional investigations for a change. The Republicans in charge for the last 6 years had never met a scandal that they didn't want to investigate. :laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Actually LemonLaw it appears some of these attorneys were fired because they would not investigate suspicious election results.
Actually, Shivetya, e-mails within the DOJ and between DOJ and the Whitehouse prove these honest REPUBLICAN attorneys were fired because they did not support partisan objectives and or questionable practices demanded by the Bushwackos and certain GOP members of Congress to push weak investigations of Democrats into the public spotlight in time to influence upcoming elections and because they were successfully prosecuting real criminality by some Republicans.

Can you say Randy "Duke" Cunningham? Can you say Jack Abramoff? Can you say Tom DeLay? :shocked:

If you support such "conservative" values as respect for the law and upholding the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, how can you support such blatant wholesale criminal attempts by this administration to subvert that same Constitution and the underlying laws that support it? :roll:
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
i guess when Clinton fired 98 US Attorneys just a month after he got in office in 1993 was ok.

Yup just As the first Bush fired Ronny's when he came in to office.

Clinton fired Bush' when he came into office

Bush the II fired Clintons when he came into office


POINT IS THEY ARE FIRING THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS TERM BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY ARENT DOING AS THE MASTER WISHES AND BOWING TO POLITICAL PREASURE.

THEY WERE FIRED BECAUSE THEY WERENT BEING TOTAL UNETHICAL WHORES.

Now put the talking points down before they hurt you.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Actually LemonLaw it appears some of these attorneys were fired because they would not investigate suspicious election results.

of course since a demmy won I suppos cheating is permitted in your book?

Actually the Atty's in question didn't believe there was any evidence to support voter fraud that's why the cases weren't being investigated.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well I see DealMonkey beat me to the punch and posted that the 11 subpoenas are approved by the judiciary committee. An hour and six minutes ago according to what I read on yahoo news. When exactly the testimony will begin is not as clear, but the die is cast and the hearing look inevitable now.

I also note the new GWB&co talking points seems to be just what Shivetya posted---to label the firings as justified, point out that Clinton fired all sitting Federal Prosecutors when he came into office, and that Rove is now publically contending that this is all just petty politics. I daresay anyone who has even skimmed this thread realizes that that GWB&co. talking point can't be supported with any rational argument, but thats exactly the point. The GWB administration panders to the ignorant for support.

I very much wonder if the GWB talking point will survive the hearings---or that Rove---the grand master of petty politics, will weather the storm. I also wonder if the administration can make the following deal---Gonzales resigns and no hearing occur.

But the gloves are off now---in lots of areas its going to be a bare knuckled fight between congress and the President---with the President presenting countless targets of opportunity
and the congress risking almost nothing if they fail to totally nail their targets.

It somewhat harkens back to the first week of this new congress when many were posting that nothing had changed yet. And now we are seeing the real tactics unfold---and what a congress can do to hold an out of control President to account.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Wow.....from all accounts in this article...they are ready to start eating their own. Even the Repubs are saying that Gonzo should go and more are about to jump on that bandwagon.

ABC News link

The White House dropped its contention Friday that former Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming "hazy memories" as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove's role. Support eroded further for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."

The White House also said it needed more time before deciding whether Miers, political strategist Rove and other presidential advisers would testify before Congress and whether the White House would release documents to lawmakers.

"Given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved, we need more time to resolve them," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. She said White House Counsel Fred Fielding suggested to the House Judiciary Committee that he get back to members on Tuesday.

Snow's comments came hours after the Justice Department released e-mails Thursday night pulling the White House deeper into an intensifying investigation into whether eight firings were a purge of prosecutors deemed unenthusiastic about presidential goals.

Snow said it was not immediately clear who first floated the more dramatic idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys shortly after President Bush was re-elected to a second term.

"This is as far as we can go: We know that Karl recollects Harriet having raised it and his recollection is that he dismissed it as not a good idea," Snow told reporters. "That's what we know. We don't know motivations. ? I don't think it's safe to go any further than that."

Asked if Bush himself might have suggested the firings, Snow said, "Anything's possible ? but I don't think so." He said Bush "certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general."

"I want you to be clear here: Don't be dropping it at the president's door," Snow said.

............

Meanwhile, a Republican House member suggested it might be time for Gonzales to go.

"It is ultimately the president's decision, but perhaps it would benefit this administration if the attorney general was replaced with someone with a more professional focus rather than personal loyalty," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. He complained of "a pattern of arrogance in this administration."

Republican Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire has called for Bush to replace Gonzales, and a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, speaking on condition of anonymity, has said he plans to do the same next week.

Other GOP lawmakers have joined Democrats in harsh indictments of Gonzales' effectiveness but have stopped short of saying he should be fired.

"I do not think the attorney general has served the president well, but it is up to the president to decide on General Gonzales' continued tenure," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

...........

The latest e-mails revealed between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys. They also indicate Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.

In one e-mail, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, said an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." The e-mail concluded that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."

Sampson resigned this week amid the uproar.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for next Thursday on authorizing subpoenas for Rove, Miers and her deputy, William K. Kelley. The panel already has approved the use of subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice Department officials and J. Scott Jennings, a White House aide who works in Rove's office.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department suggest that Jennings was involved in setting up a meeting on a possible replacement for soon-to-be-fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and in responding to "a senator problem" with the proposed replacement of Bud Cummins, then U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

Among the Justice Department officials named in the subpoenas is Associate Deputy Attorney General William E. Moschella. Lawmakers want him to testify about whether the White House consented to changing the Patriot Act last year to let the attorney general appoint new U.S. attorneys without confirmation.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Can you two stop with the talking points?

1. Clinton didn't "fire" them. He REPLACED them at the beginning of his first term (which wasn't then and still isn't unprecedented unlike Hannity and Rush tell you) because their terms were up with the start of a new administration
2. Clinton didn't fire them because they weren't loyal enough to his administration
3. There is a clear papertrail that this was to put people in place that would not go after them or their cronies
4. Clinton isn't the president anymore....the Repubs could have investigated if they liked when they took control of Congress but chose not to because there was nothing to the actions of Clinton. Hell, they investigated everything else under the sun....if there was even the chance of fire from that smoke, they would have been on it like a fat kid on a snickers.

Edit: A little bit more background on the process that every rightie that doesn't think for himself would never find out from their usual sources of information:

Fed Attorney Q&A

Q: What do U.S. attorneys do and how many are there?

A: U.S. attorneys are the federal government's equivalent of local district attorneys. They are charged with prosecuting federal crimes in the judicial district in which they serve. There are 93 U.S. attorneys, one for each U.S. district court (except that Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands share a federal prosecutor).

Q: Who gets these positions?

A: The highly prized jobs typically are given to politically well-connected lawyers, and often serve as a stepping stone to elective office or a judgeship. Supreme Court Justice
Samuel Alito was the U.S. attorney in Newark when he was tapped to be a federal appeals court judge. Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld had previously been the U.S. attorney in Boston.
FBI Director Robert Mueller was the top federal prosecutor in San Francisco.

Q: How do they get the job?

A: The president nominates them, usually based on recommendations from senators of his own party in that state. The Senate confirms them for a term of four years, but they may continue serving beyond that time until a successor is chosen. A U.S. attorney may be dismissed sooner by the president for any reason at all, under federal law. When a U.S. attorney's position is vacant, the attorney general is empowered to choose an interim prosecutor, who can continue in office until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent replacement.

Q: Has the process always worked this way?

A: No. Last year's renewal of the USA Patriot Act, the Bush administration's prime anti-terror law, contained a provision that abolished limits on how long interim prosecutors may serve. For 20 years, the attorney general could choose someone to serve as U.S. attorney for 120 days, after which a federal judge could pick a prosecutor who would serve until the confirmation of a permanent replacement. Democrats have accused the Justice Department of seeking to use the new law to install new U.S. attorneys without going through the Senate confirmation process. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said his interim choices all would be submitted to the Senate.

Legislation has been introduced to revert to the old process for filling the jobs on a temporary basis.

Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
No President in history has fired U.S. attorneys after getting reelected.
......(snip)..........

Not even any crappy ones? I find that hard to believe.

But if they fired all of 'em upon getting elected and inserted their "hand-picked" ones, why would they back and fire 'em after reelection (other than poor performance etc)?

I've heard that the AG's were signed for 4 yr periods and those have expired. Not quite the same as "firing". Anybody know anything about this 4 yr period expiring?

Fern
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: ntdz
Can someone explain why this is a big deal (seriously)? The President has the power to fire any of the lawyers if we wants to, and Clinton fired every single lawyer during his tenure.

imo, there's a difference between firing every attorney (cleaning house) versus firing select individuals for purely political reasons (especially when you're looking at people that the administration appointed in the first place) and using a loophole to skirt the approval process for the new appointees.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: ntdz
Can someone explain why this is a big deal (seriously)? The President has the power to fire any of the lawyers if we wants to, and Clinton fired every single lawyer during his tenure.

imo, there's a difference between firing every attorney (cleaning house) versus firing select individuals for purely political reasons (especially when you're looking at people that the administration appointed in the first place) and using a loophole to skirt the approval process for the new appointees.

They have been bleating the same ****** for weeks now.. and have been told the same story but they refuse to accept the difference even though it is very real

Why are Congressional Republicans SO PISSED OFF if it was no big deal :) ..

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
shocker, firing attorneys is the right of every adminstration. Remember Clinton and gang fired all of the existing ones when they took over. It was unheralded then and it blew over just like this one will too.


Face it, these offices are not lifetime appointments and should not be.

Two of the most important issues that were facing these attorneys were voter fraud in the states of Washington and New Mexico. One of them refused to investigate, but whats to be expected when his party won a very contestable election?
 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
Can someone explain why this is a big deal (seriously)? The President has the power to fire any of the lawyers if we wants to, and Clinton fired every single lawyer during his tenure.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,006
55,439
136
Thanks rightiswrong,

So that we never hear this talking point again from the right wingers about how This Is Totally Normal, and that Clinton Did It Too. (I'm looking at you Shivetya)

Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.

Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.


Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.