|
Firing of US attorneys by Bush
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
It's perfectly in the president's power to fire all US attorneys if he wants to. Clinton fired all of them. These committees are just looking for anything to destroy this administration.
Source
| quote: | March 14, 2007
Senate Judiciary Set To Vote On Subpoenas For Rove And Miers
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote Thursday on whether to authorize subpoenas to 14 current and former administration officials, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, John Bresnahan reports.
Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the panel's ranking Republican, are expected to convene the committee Thursday to vote on the subpoenas for Rove, Miers and William Kelley, a former top aide to Miers.
The committee will also vote to subpoena six of the fired U.S. Attorneys and five Justice Department officials, including Kyle Sampson, the recently fired chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Since Rove, Miers and Kelley were just added to the schedule for Thursday's committee meeting, panel rules allow any member to postpone consideration of the subpoenas for one week.
More details to follow. |
|
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
Clinton fired all 93 WHEN HE ENTERED OFFICE, as Bush did at the beginning of his first term. As I am sure Reagan did, and Carter, and Nixon, et al.
No one cares about that.
But firing a handful of U.S. Attorneys under suspiscious reasons in the middle of his second term does not ring as "no big deal" to most people.
You cannot pull the "everyone else has done it and no one complained" argument on this one. It holds about as much water as a bucket made of window-screen.
The fact is it is fairly obvious that these prosecutors were removed because of their lack of "loyalty" to the political goals of Rove, not because of their work upholding the law.
MrS |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
It's perfectly in the president's power to fire all US attorneys if he wants to. Clinton fired all of them. These committees are just looking for anything to destroy this administration.
Source |
Krypton, are you sure you want to go with this argument? I want to be certain this is what you are going with, the "other presidents do it" talking point before proceeding further (hint: MrSquirrel is quite correct).
Let's see, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff had this to say about that argument you trump up:
| quote: | In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=115 |
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta had this to say:
| quote: | Mr. Rove’s claims [last week] that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/podesta-rove/ |
Former U.S attorney Mary Jo White:
| quote: | However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...storyId=7718586 |
BTW, 4 Republicans are calling for his resignation and counting. Even if we were to go with your argument as 100% valid (it's not), the really biggie problem with Gonzales is he lied under oath to Congress about :
1. Not for political reasons
2. All appointees will receive Senate confirmation:
| quote: | GONZALES: And so let me publicly sort of preempt perhaps a question you’re going to ask me, and that is: I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.
I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate.
-January 18th testimony to Judiciary Committee
|
And as we are all well aware, Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff had this to say about that lovely little Patriot Act provision:
More on Sampson's role:
| quote: | “Tim said he got a call from Bud offering this idea,” Jennings wrote to Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff Kyle Sampson in late August, “that Tim come on board as a special [assistant U.S. attorney] while Bud finalizes his private sector plans. That would alleviate pressure/implication that Tim forced Bud out. Any thoughts on that?”
“I think it’s a great idea,” Sampson responded.
The Justice Department made Griffin a special assistant USA in Arkansas the next month. Finally, in December, Griffin was made the U.S. attorney.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002746.php |
Oh, BTW, Jennings above just happens to be Karl Rove's deputy.
More on Rove's involvement here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...6_trial23m.html
In one of the emails released, Sampson wrote Harriet Miers (remember Bush's lovely SCOTUS choice?) and IDed McKay as one of the U.S. attorneys "we should consider pushing out" (he was subsequently fired and denied judgeship):
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newsse...al/16897028.htm
Shortly after, a Gonzales aide told McKay that “you stay silent and the attorney general won’t say anything bad about you.”:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17552880/site/newsweek/
Taking a look at what some of those attorneys were investigating. One of them, Carol Lam, was investigating the Randal "Duke" Cunningham mess which prior to her being shoved out was getting quite big:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/union...ws_1m13lam.html
U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black was launching an investigation into Jack Abramoff, which shortly after Black issued a grand jury subpoena to the Guam Superior Court to turn over all records involving the lobbying contract with Abramoff, the White House pushed back on him:
| quote: | A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.
The timing caught some by surprise. Despite his officially temporary status as the acting US attorney, Black had held the assignment for more than a decade.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w..._investigation/ |
A coupla other attorneys were let go because they couldn't find any evidence of voter fraud for the Republicans, even though those attorneys were ing Republicans themselves and did all they could to find any evidence of wrongdoing. Of course that doesn't bode well for the Republican trump card of "voter fraud" that you guys carry in your back pocket whenever you feel violated by fair elections and high voter turnouts by minorities, but I digress.
Oh, and the Administration has willfully lied about Karl Rove and the White House's involvement in the matter:
| quote: | New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.
The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.
The e-mails directly contradict White House assertions that the notion originated with recently departed White House counsel Harriet Miers and was her idea alone.
.....“latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1 |
Contrast that to what Gonzales said on Friday:
| quote: | QUESTION: Can you explain what the White House role is specifically in your successor, Harriet Miers, suggested that perhaps all U.S. attorneys should be changed over? Is that the seed that started all of this? How does that connect to the actual terminations?
GONZALES: As we can all imagine, in an organization of 110,000 people, I am not aware of every bit of information that passes through the halls of the Department of Justice, nor am I aware of all decisions. As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive. |
Or what the White House about Rove's involvement on March 6th:
Or what Sampson said in an email:
| quote: | In the email, which has the subject line “Re: Question from Karl Rove,” Kyle Sampson, who was then at the Justice Department, discusses with then-deputy White House Counsel David Leitch the idea of replacing “15-20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys,” because “80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.”
“If Karl thinks there would be policitical will to do it, then so do I,” Sampson concludes.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002778.php |
This White House has lied:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/w...r=1&oref=slogin
Gonzales has lied under oath.
And one other thing to note about our dear friend Gonzales. Remember that whole warrantless spying thingy involving our NSA, our President, and the DOJ supposedly investigating White House involvement? Funny, really:
| quote: | “Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration’s warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.”
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0315nj1.htm |
Got any more thread dumps with unsupported notions? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Isn't the president allowed to fire them even for political reasons? For anything? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Isn't the president allowed to fire them even for political reasons? For anything? |
Yes he is, albeit a bit unusual and unprecedented. That is not the issue, however. Rove, Miers, and AG Gonzales SIDESTEPPED Senate confirmation of the NEW attorney appointees and took advantage of a Patriot Act provision, and then lied about their knowledge of doing so to the public and Congress. Their actions via emails also demonstrate political reasons for doing so, and they subsequently lied about that too.
That is the elephant in the room, and it's taking a giant in the process. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
the real issue is they didn't have to mislead about the firings they were entirely in their right not to give any explaination but Gonzalez didn't excercise that right. his bad.
USDA's are political appointments of and by the Executive. the President can -can them for whatever reason he wants, he just better have his ducks in a row if he chooses to explain why. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Rove, Miers, and AG Gonzales SIDESTEPPED Senate confirmation of the NEW attorney appointees and took advantage of a Patriot Act provision, and then lied about their knowledge of doing so to the public and Congress. Their actions via emails also demonstrate political reasons for doing so, and they subsequently lied about that too. |
source? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the real issue is they didn't have to mislead about the firings they were entirely in their right not to give any explaination but Gonzalez didn't excercise that right. his bad.
USDA's are political appointments of and by the Executive. the President can -can them for whatever reason he wants, he just better have his ducks in a row if he chooses to explain why. |
No one denies that the Administration is within their rights to fire those as they choose. This is clearly a straw man argument, however, because as you point out they, or to be more precise Gonzales has lied under oath about doing so under "Senate confirmation", and instead did the backdoor means of the Patriot Act provision to get new appointees through the door. Furthermore, it's becoming highly suspicious, if not outright deliberate that these U.S. Bush-appointed attorneys were being fired for political reasons, as I outlined above, which also directly contradicts Gonzales' testimony under oath. Lastly, one of the primary reasons why there are subpoenas being issued is to see whether or not investigations were stymied as a result of the firings:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...cs/16931329.htm |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
source? |
I believe they are posted above in my first reply with Krypton. If there's something that you disagree with or does not answer your question, discuss. I will say that the one part I did mispeak on was Miers' involvement - the White House had attempted to shift all the blame on her once it was known they had involvement in the firings that were a bit of a stretch from their and Gonzales' original version of "poor performance", despite there being good performance marks and even lack of documentation supporting their "poor performance" argument. But it got interesting once Rove and the DOJ got involved as well, which was outlined above.
Jesus, what doesn't Rove's have his slimy little hand into? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Gidot of the WSJ is playing up the "Prezdent can fire anyone he chooses" card that we're seeing from the neocon defense team:
| quote: | "U.S. attorneys are political appointees. They're prosecutors appointed by the president, who serve at his pleasure. So presumably the president can dismiss them. What did the administration do wrong in this case?"
http://opinionjournal.com/jer/?id=110009803 |
Which really is an interesting albeit flat-out silly argument, especially when we see how these GOP folks were arguing directly counter to this point when Clinton routinely fired 93 Bush-I/Reagan appointed attorneys in the same manner that Reagan had done (and Bush II) when they took office. Let's see what our GOP buddies were saying back then in '93:
| quote: | Washington Times, March 26, 1993
Senate and House Republicans yesterday blasted the White House and the Justice Department for giving pink slips to virtually all 93 U.S. attorneys, a move Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole called the "March massacre" . . . .
"Nearly 20 years ago, when Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Eliot Richardson were fired from their posts, the press railed about the so-called 'Saturday-night massacre,' " said Mr. Dole.
Texas Rep. Dick Armey, chairman of the House Republican Conference, and about a dozen freshmen colleagues accused Attorney General Janet Reno of bowing to White House political pressure.
"During her confirmation, Miss Reno assured senators that she would 'keep politics out of what I do,' " Mr. Armey said.
"Less than a month later, she fired all the U.S. attorneys in a very political fashion . . . one that reeks of politics, undermining the public's confidence in the Department of Justice."
UPI, March 26, 1993
Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a "severe blow to the administration of justice in this country."
He said, "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently."
Associated Press -- March 31, 1993
Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said President Clinton's "political - and, yes, impatient - desire to select his own U.S. attorneys will force much of the department's important work to come to a screeching halt. Justice will suffer."
Washington Times Editorial, March 28, 1993
All of the U.S. attorneys have important cases and investigations pending. . .
Now, as it happens, we know little of how the decision to ask for the immediate resignations of the U.S. attorneys was made. We do know it was a co-production of the White House and the Justice Department - including, presumably, a murky role for the murky Webster Hubbell, Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner, who occupies an office at the Justice Department in the hitherto unknown and constitutionally dubious capacity as "liaison" to the White House. . . .
Meanwhile, a House committee has taken up the reauthorization of the independent counsel law, which expired in December. Wouldn't it be delicious if the first use of a revitalized law were to look into the propriety of the Clinton administration's decision to fire the U.S. attorneys?
Associated Press on March 25, 1993:
President Clinton rejected Republican complaints Thursday about the demand that all presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys resign. He called it less political than replacing them one by one.
"All those people are routinely replaced, and I have not done anything differently," Clinton said during an Oval Office photo session. "... I think the blanket decision (for resignations) is less political than picking people out one by one.". .
Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., issued a statement criticizing Attorney General Janet Reno for a "March Massacre" and comparing her actions to those of President Nixon during Watergate
| quote: | Rush Limbaugh, television show, March 25, 1993
LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) ...The New York Times had an editorial, Janet Reno Starts Badly.' And they go on to talk about all of the--the possible conflicts, or the appearances of impropriety that the--clearly exist here.
Now do you remember something, folks? Remember when Richard Nixon issued a sweeping order for a bunch of people to got--to be gotten rid of? They called that, back then, an obstruction of justice.' Remember that? Remember Watergate--that Saturday night massacre? Why, he can't do that. Why, that's an obstruction of justice.' And this may end up being the same thing. But what are they calling? Hey, it's just politics as usual. Hey, don't bother us about it. It's our right. We're the new administration.'
But it is suspicious; very suspicious looking. The appearance of impropriety;' remember, that's what a bunch of people said is all we needed to get rid of Ed Meese. Well, my friends, ever since that happened, when he was attorney general for Reagan; the appearance of impropriety--that's all you need. They always say, the attorney general; that's a s--that's a different standard than any other Cabinet post, because that's the administration of law and order. Number one law enforcement official. All we need,' they said back then, did the liberal Democrats, was the appearance of impropriety.' He's disqualified.
I think we have it here. I think we have a pretty huge appearance of impropriety, and I just want to call your attention to it, show you the double standard which exists. Nobody except me, and--well, what an alliance--the New York Times... |
Contrast that to what Limbaugh said two days earlier:
| quote: | JANET RENO (US Attorney General): I haven't asked for Stephens' resignation. I've asked for the resignation of all the US attorneys as part of an orderly transfer to a new administration, so that the new administration can choose its US attorneys which it re--thinks is absolutely integral to the Department of Justice ought--and based on what we think the qualifications for US attorney should be.
LIMBAUGH: Now this happens. She's right. New administrations just come in and get rid of all the US attorneys. |
Paul Gigot in March, 1993:
All of which raises the deeper issue of who is really running Justice. Ms. Reno says dismissing the 93 [U.S.] attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House, which means the White House decided and she announced it. Her letter asked the U.S. attorneys to send their resignation letters "care of John Podesta, assistant to the president and staff secretary, with a copy to me." Independent justice?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...neys/index.html |
You understand the logic, right? Clinton should have been in court and kicked out of the Prezdency for doing what he did, but it's routine work and therefore it's okay for Bush II to do it now, even though it's a bit more selective and it's during a term which neither Clinton nor Reagan ever did. Further, it's okay for Reagan to do it but not Clinton, but we'll refer to Clinton only doing it because that helps bolster our point.
But you see Bush II can fire anyone he chooses because he has that right, even though we argued something completely different for Clinton, even though it's very routine for Clinton to do it back then in '93. He was wrong to do it then, but even though we argued he doesn't have that right and that it was scandalous back then Clinton did have that right just as Bush has that right to do it whenever he chooses and therefore it's fine for Bush II to do it now whenever he chooses.
What a craaaazy world our wonderful Bush supporters live in. Jesus, if this is what they are falling back on, you know they are in serious caa caa. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
Stop clouding the issue with facts, MrOpus :p
** kidding! I also think the whole thing stinks. Well done on the quotes, too. |
|
|
| Krypton |
This is getting reaaal ugly.
| quote: | Bush aides facing subpoenas over firings
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Refusing to budge in a fight with the White House, Democrats in the House and Senate are insisting that
President Bush's top aides describe their roles in the firings of eight federal prosecutors on the record and under oath.
A House committee was to vote Wednesday to authorize subpoenas for political director Karl Rove and other administration officials despite Bush's declaration a day earlier that Democrats must accept his offer to allow the officials to talk privately to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, but not under oath and not on the record.
Would he fight Democrats in court to protect his aides against congressional subpoenas?
"Absolutely," Bush declared Tuesday in televised remarks from the White House.
Democrats promptly rejected the offer and announced that they would start authorizing subpoenas within 24 hours.
"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The two sides appeared on a collision course, with no sign of last-minute attempts at compromise.
"Our reasonable offer that Mr. Fielding presented to Congress yesterday is our reasonable offer and nothing has changed during the 12 hours since Mr. Fielding spoke to the Congress," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they are truly serious about wanting to obtain the facts, they have right in front of them the opportunity to do that."
Bush said he worried that allowing testimony under oath would set a precedent on the separation of powers that would harm the presidency as an institution.
If neither side blinks, the dispute could end in court — ultimately the Supreme Court — in a politically messy development that would prolong what Bush called the "public spectacle" of the Justice Department's firings, and public trashings, of the eight U.S. attorneys. |
MORE |
|
|
|
|
