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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Huh, so a buncha US Attorneys are fired for not prosecuting the Democrats in their states fast enough? Hmmm, can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with that...
 

gcy

Senior member
Feb 18, 2001
728
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner


UPDATED

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17560718/


?Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?? Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event.

?He?s gone,? Rove said, according to Weh


I just saw good old FUNDIE On MSNBC claiming there was no link to the whitehouse. Watch the republicans continue to claim there is no link just like they continue to claim joe wilson has no credibility.












http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/3/11424/77159


Yeah, it's daily kos but they highlight other sources. So basically it looks like the administration (yes them directly) fired prosecutors who A) prosecuted republicans B) did not prosecute democrats that republicans asked to be prosecuted.

When the bush presidency is over even a large number of conservatives will admit it was among the worst in history. The harding to hoover era was full of some equivalent incompetence but to so blatantly undermine the rule of law damages the credibility of the entire nation.

Wonder if congress is ever going to start impeachment......
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: johnnobts
you realize clinton fired all the u.s. attorneys when he came into office? they serve at the pleasure of the president. he can dismiss them at any time as he sees fit.

You may have proven others point with that statement. Clinton, like the justice system is supposed to be, was blind to the individuals he fired. Bush was cherry-picking here.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Here's an update from the Washington Post:
Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made'
But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; A01

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales took responsibility yesterday for "mistakes" related to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year but rejected calls for his resignation from Democrats who accuse him of misleading Congress.

"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility," Gonzales said. He said he did not know the details of the plan to fire the prosecutors, but he defended the dismissals: "I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision."

The remarks came after the Justice Department released e-mails and other documents showing that, despite months of administration statements to the contrary, the White House more than two years ago initiated the process that led to the dismissals, and that the decisions were heavily influenced by assessments of the prosecutors' political loyalty. President Bush and senior White House adviser Karl Rove also separately passed along complaints to Gonzales that prosecutors were not aggressively pursuing voter-fraud cases, officials said.

The revelations prompted another outcry on Capitol Hill over the firings and new demands for Gonzales's resignation from key Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). "It appears he's over his head in this job," Reid said.

Even Republicans who have supported the ousters sharply criticized the attorney general.

But Gonzales said he is "here not because I give up," and White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush has "all the confidence in the world" in Gonzales, who has served Bush for more than 12 years in Texas and Washington.

Democrats also renewed calls for testimony from Rove and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel who first suggested in February 2005 that all 93 U.S. attorneys be removed and whose office was provided with evolving lists of at least a dozen prosecutors targeted for ouster. The White House signaled that it would resist the demands.

E-mails released yesterday show that White House deputy political director J. Scott Jennings communicated with Justice officials about the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, to be the U.S. attorney in Little Rock. Jennings used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as an opposition researcher.

Democratic congressional aides said they will investigate whether using the private address for government business violated laws against using taxpayer resources for political work or signaled that White House officials considered the firing of U.S. attorneys to be primarily a political issue. Jennings did not return a call to his office seeking a comment.

"As a matter of course, the RNC provides server space and equipment to certain White House personnel in order to assist them with their political efforts," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said.

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was let go months earlier, with little explanation from Justice Department officials, who later told Congress that the dismissals were related to their performance in office. Several former prosecutors have since alleged intimidation, including improper telephone calls from GOP lawmakers or their aides, and have alleged threats of retaliation by a Justice Department official.

Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

In defending themselves yesterday, Gonzales and the White House implicitly laid much of the blame for miscommunication with Congress on D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned Monday as Gonzales's chief of staff as the result of not telling other Justice officials about his extensive communications with the White House about the dismissals.

Gonzales, likening himself to a chief executive who delegates responsibility to others, said he knew few details about how Sampson was orchestrating the prosecutors' removal.

"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Gonzales said he accepted Sampson's resignation because, by withholding information from other Justice officials, he led them to provide "incomplete information" in testimony to Congress. Gonzales did not comment on his own testimony in January, when he assured senators that he would never fire a U.S. attorney for political reasons.

The administration, which has offered varying explanations for the dismissals over the past three months, also returned to arguments yesterday that the U.S. attorneys were dismissed for performance-related reasons and that the removals were well within presidential prerogatives. Bartlett said it is "highly unlikely" that the administration would allow Rove or Miers to testify before Congress.

The Justice e-mails and internal documents, which were first reported yesterday by The Washington Post, show that political loyalty and positions on signature GOP policy issues loomed large in weighing whether a prosecutor should be dismissed. One e-mail from Sampson, for example, notes that the appointment of Griffin in Little Rock "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

The documents also illustrate that after nearly two years of debate, the dismissal of the seven prosecutors in December was carried out under a plan by Sampson that provided step-by-step guidance on how the prosecutors would be fired, who would be notified and how to deal with criticism. One section of the plan was titled "Preparing for Political Upheaval."

"I am concerned that to execute this plan properly we must all be on the same page and be steeled to withstand any political upheaval that might result," Sampson wrote to Miers and her deputy, William Kelley, on Nov. 15.

In an earlier e-mail, Sampson asked another Justice official whether then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam of San Diego had been admonished for not prosecuting more immigration cases.

Has the deputy attorney general's office "ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?" Sampson wrote.

The e-mails indicate that then-U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico was added to the firing list in October, about the same time he says he received telephone calls from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.). Iglesias alleges they pressured him to speed up a corruption investigation of state Democrats before the November elections.

The firings did not prevent Iglesias from asking Sampson in early January if Gonzales would put in a good word for him with prospective employers.

"David, I am well thank you," Sampson replied by e-mail on Jan. 10. "You can list the AG as a reference -- not a problem. Good luck!"

On Capitol Hill, a few additional Democrats called for Gonzales to resign, while lawmakers from both parties lined up to castigate the attorney general for his handling of the firings and for a separate revelation last week that the FBI had abused its power to seize personal records of Americans. Senate Republicans also began negotiating with Democrats over legislation to strip Gonzales of his right to avoid Senate oversight by appointing interim prosecutors indefinitely.

Many administration defenders had harsh words for the Justice Department. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) called the department "dysfunctional," while Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said "the appearances are troubling" and criticized Gonzales's handling of the issue.


"Everybody who's appointed by the White House understands that they serve at the pleasure of the president," said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), whose home-state prosecutor was among those fired. He added that "a good leader does not just dismiss somebody for no good reason, especially if you haven't done your job in the first place. And I don't feel that the U.S. attorney general's office did their job in the first place."

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) last week led the defense of the administration and criticized Lam. But yesterday he said on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" that "if someone led us astray, they should resign, and I don't care how high it is, anyone involved with this coverup of giving us the truth needs to step down. . . . I am including anybody who would mislead, deliberately mislead the Congress. . . . If it's the attorney general who had a hand in it, then he has to step down."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the first Democrat to call for Gonzales to resign, said the latest revelations show a "breach of trust." He said Sampson's departure increased the pressure on Gonzales to do the same.

"In fact, it raises the temperature. Kyle Sampson will not become the next Scooter Libby, the fall guy," Schumer said, referring to the former vice presidential aide recently convicted of perjury.
This story is really coming to a head, with incriminating e-mail, revelations of White House complicity, calls for Gonzales to resign, and his chief of staff taking the fall for his boss. The Bush administration has again shown its compulsive dishonesty, with the usual ever-changing parade of lies. Even Republican Congressmen are weighing in against the administration. This has to be one of the most corrupt, incompetent presidencies in U.S. history.



(PS. For the usual "But Clinton ..." duhversionists, let me highlight this part again: "Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors." Not the same thing at all, no matter how much smoke you blow.)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The point being, this is and was a political decision and Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this. The one that sticks in my mind is an interesting little sidebar between a Senator and Alberto Gonzales. Where Gozales was somewhat apologizing and trying to pour oil over troubled waters and the Senator point blank telling Gonzales that his little song and dance meant nothing---and he would find himself subpoenaed to the investigating committee that next week and would be TESTIFYING UNDER OATH.----I would have loved to be that little fly on the wall and suspect the look on Gonzales face would have been priceless.

And unlike Chuck Shumer who makes no bones about demanding Gonzales resign, this senator is flat out saying Gonzales serves at the pleasure of the President---and implies that if GWB&co. wants a total clown
to be his public face at the Justice department----GWB&co. WILL find himself saddled with a total clown by the time the committee is even close to done with Gonzales.

In short, this is going to be the wave of the future---gone is the Republican Rubber stamp congress. If GWB&co wants to be the dividers and not the uniter's, they are going to start paying in public relations.
And if the clown boots fit---they will wear it.---after awhile the rest of the GOP will get the message that 08 is a coming, and they can run with GWB&co. risking becoming an endangered species. Or they can put the clamps on their clown and force their idiot to get real.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
They need to change the law about hiring/firing US Attorneys. These men and women work for the public good, not for their politicos.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The problem is that Congreess already approved Gonzales and does not have the authority to remove him.

bush already offered up the sacrificial lamb in Rumsfield. I do nto think that he will offer up some-one else for a political decision that is not on the scale of the Iraq blunders.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: johnnobts
you realize clinton fired all the u.s. attorneys when he came into office? they serve at the pleasure of the president. he can dismiss them at any time as he sees fit.

If you cared to educate yourself on the issue instead of using your partisan opera glasses you would know that:

A. Most Presidents put their own US Attorney's up when they come in to office, neither Clinton or Bush Sr. fired any of the US attorney's mid term.

B. They claimed to have been let for for performance reasons, yet all received great reviews last year. Also, if you read the memos that were released yesterday you can see that this was a direct attempt to circumvent Congress and even the home state Senators.

More and more will come out in the next few days and AGAG will be resigning within a month.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
You really only need a couple words to describe this admistration: Scandal Plagued

When are the P&N Republicans going to stand up for whats right and denounce this BS? Even Bush apologist, Instapundit, is angry over this scandal.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To EagleKeeper--who states---bush already offered up the sacrificial lamb in Rumsfield. I do nto think that he will offer up some-one else for a political decision that is not on the scale of the Iraq blunders.

There is probably little doubt about what GWB wants----but even the President of the Unites States is going to have to pay attention to reality---and if GWB does not want to see his credibility sink to very dangerous low levels, GWB is probably going to have to chuck most of his advisers. Ayabe probably has it right---Gonzales may well be the next to go. And Alberto is under fire over the firing of attorneys and has another full blown abuse of power scandal also brewing.----and is likely to become totally toxic to GWB&co.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
LemonLaw

The Iraqi blunders have been played out in the press and the complete country has seen the impact. One of the results was the scking of rumsfield after the 06 election.

The canning of USDAs may not have a great of an impact on the public. The DA has staff to continue the ongoing cases.

The way and why it was done is wrong; however, if it creates an outcry beyond the capital beltway will be the factor if Gonzales gets the boot.

given the current attitude of Congress toward Bush, I do not think that he will be very concerned ouitside lip service. The government can go on autopilot for the next 2 years for all Bush cares.
He can not push any initiatives through and Congress can be circumvented when-ever he chooses.

The Republicans can yell, but they must worry more about protecting their backsides; Dems have to look at who they will back in 08 and attempt to manipulate themselves in favorable positions without shooting themselves in the foot.

Impeachment has flown in the face of reality. There is no real leverage that Congress has without stepping over their charter and into the running of the country.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,818
6,778
126
I think the strategy is for Bush to look and become so corrupt that the voters will start to think of him as a freak and cease to tie him to his party.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17453555/


First he denied making the call at all now this...

And XMAN, while the case may or may not continue wouldn't other prosecutors not get the message that indicting republicans puts your career in jeopardy? That was a very silly response.

Why can't politicians just run on their own merits instead of only trying to find fault with the other guy? :(

Because when they do, they lose more.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
The L.A. Times, seeking to emphasize the political motivations of the Administration, quotes Sampson as recommending the retention of ?strong U.S. attorneys who have ? exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general.? The article further quotes Sampson as recommending ?removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ? chafed against Administration initiatives.? Here?s what Sampson?s original memo said:

bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.
strikeout = Recommend removing: weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

The L.A. Times removed the bolded parts
is that true?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To EagleKeeper---who states---He can not push any initiatives through and Congress can be circumvented when-ever he chooses.

In terms of the latter statement---that was the sad truth with the republican rubber stamp congress---I very much doubt Bush is going to find circumventing Congress will be either easy or cost free. If GWB&co. has too many your illusions, they may well find themselves impeached with astonishing speed at worst. And badly embarrassed at best. What you are now seeing is just a mere start---that may turn into a rout for neocon advisers.

Testifying under oath---who would have thunk it a year ago?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,907
136
Originally posted by: Phokus
You really only need a couple words to describe this admistration: Scandal Plagued

When are the P&N Republicans going to stand up for whats right and denounce this BS? Even Bush apologist, Instapundit, is angry over this scandal.


Probably about the same time that P&N Democrats stand up for whats right and denounce the Dems when they do something stupid, so never.

Anyways, I haven't looked into this much, but it sounds pretty shady and like a bad move.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
i guess when Clinton fired 98 US Attorneys just a month after he got in office in 1993 was ok.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
The L.A. Times, seeking to emphasize the political motivations of the Administration, quotes Sampson as recommending the retention of ?strong U.S. attorneys who have ? exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general.? The article further quotes Sampson as recommending ?removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ? chafed against Administration initiatives.? Here?s what Sampson?s original memo said:

bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.
strikeout = Recommend removing: weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

The L.A. Times removed the bolded parts
is that true?


*crickets*
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
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.

They probably knew they were going to be removed - Did Bush Sr. do the same thing or was WorldNetDaily not around back then?

And the key issue was .. right after he got into office..
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,907
136
Originally posted by: Citrix
i guess when Clinton fired 98 US Attorneys just a month after he got in office in 1993 was ok.


Kind of reminds me of what happened here in Maryland when Bob Ehrlich took office about 4 years ago as the first Republican Governor in many years. He got rid of a bunch of staffers when he first got into office, about the same amount that every Governor has everytime they got into office. It just makes sense to get your own people in there with you. Anyways, the Baltimore Sun and the rest of the mindless Democrats in this state were hysterical with this horrible partisan move by the evil Republican, but oddly enough, they had no problem with it when countless Democrats did it for many many years.

Anyways, I think the issue is with the fact that he is doing this now, in the middle of his second term.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: JD50
Anyways, I think the issue is with the fact that he is doing this now, in the middle of his second term.
There are three other issues:

1. There is hard documentation that the firings were part of a plan going back at least two years for explicitly political reasons.

2. The documentation proves Bush and Rove were directly involved in the plan.

3. Gonzales explicitly LIED to Congress and denied those facts.

That should be enough to have Gonzales fired, and I believe it's yet another impeachable offense by Bush for abuse of his authority for political advantage.

Whether any previous Presidents have committed similar abuses of their authority is not relevant. It just means those Presidents were not held to account for their behavior, but in no way does it excuse THIS Asshole In Chief for his crimes. It's time to treat him as the lying murderer and traitor he is.

JAIL TO THE THIEF! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: JD50
Anyways, I think the issue is with the fact that he is doing this now, in the middle of his second term.
There are three other issues:

1. There is hard documentation that the firings were plan going back at least two years for explicitly political reasons.

2. The documentation proves Bush and Rove were directly involved in the plan.

3. Gonzales explicitly LIED to Congress and denied those facts.

And - the replacements were put in without any Senat confirmation, using a clause snuck into the Patriot Act.

It's nothing less than the politicization of the group critical to the US having any accountability for the executive branch, the US Attorneys.

It not only affects the 8 removed, but sends a signal to the other 100 or so.

And it's not as if the administration hasn't already highly politicized them - while Republicans held huge political power from 2001-2006, US attorneys IIRC had over 200 investigations of democrats, and only about 67 of republicans. This is a corrupt act by a corrupt administration to cripple almost the only protection against its corruption.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
This is yet further evidence of the total corruption of the Bush administration and provides yet further grounds to impeach the entire administration, starting with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

The nation is hemmoraging, both literally on the battle fields of Iraq and Afghanistan and morally in the bowels of the administration and in the halls of Congress. NOTHING is more important for our nation at this moment than removing the most immediate, most perilous threat to our democratic institutions, the administration of George W. Bush.

This administration is guilty of the murder of every American who had died in their war of LIES in Iraq.

This administration is guilty of treason for their wholesale abuse of power and shredding of the rights guaranteed to every American citizen by the U.S. Constitution.

Now, they have been proven to be up to their eyeballs in a plot to abuse their authority under color of law to pack the office of the U.S. Attorney General with prosecutors tasked to attack their political opponents.

How much is too much? When there is a rabid dog running loose in the streets, first, shoot the mad dog. THEN, we can take time to feel sorry for the poor doggy.

It's time to fire Alberto Gonzales and impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their gang of criminals! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: