The Federal Attorney Firing Brouhaha [Archive]

Lemur

03-15-2007, 17:29

This topic has been popping up in other threads, but it doesn't seem to be going away. In the interest of neatness, the attorney firing kerfluffle/scandal/liberal plot/conservative fumble has its own thread.

I'll toss out a starter article (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4633805.html), just 'cause I'm that kind of lemur.

Panel OKs subpoenas in attorney probe

By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The voice vote to authorize the panel to issue subpoenas amounts to insurance against the possibility that Gonzales could retract his permission to let the aides testify voluntarily, or impose strict conditions.

The committee also postponed for a week a vote on whether to authorize subpoenas of top aides to President Bush who were involved in the eight firings, including political adviser Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and deputy White House Counsel William K. Kelley.

The committee approved subpoena power over key Justice Department officials involved in the firings: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.

Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, quit this week. Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales has said he would allow the aides still at the Justice Department to testify voluntarily. It was unclear whether Sampson would agree to tell his story without a subpoena.

The panel also approved subpoena power for six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired since December. The six, all of whom testified last week under oath before the House Committee, are: Carol Lam of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico.

The subpoenas are a warning to the embattled administration to follow through on promises in recent days by Gonzales and Bush to tell the whole story of the firings, beyond the selected details that Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella revealed to the House panel last week.

"I want to obtain their cooperation and all relevant information," Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said. "But I want people to know that if I do not get cooperation, I will subpoena, we will have testimony under oath in this committee. We will find out what happened."

Ranking Republican Arlen Specter said he would do the same thing if he were still chairman, but he cautioned against passing judgment on Gonzales and the aides before the facts are fully known.

"I agree that this committee should get to the bottom of this issue," Specter, R-Pa., said. "I would hope that we would do so with at least a modicum of objectivity."

Some senators have called for days for Bush to fire Gonzales.

Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican to call for Gonzales' ouster just hours after Bush gave the attorney general, a longtime friend of the president, a vote of confidence.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview. "I think the attorney general should be fired."

Although some Republicans have been tepid in their support for the attorney general, Sununu was the first to go so far in the uproar over the Justice Department's firing of the attorneys and its response to congressional questions, plus a separate report that the administration abused its power to secretly investigate suspected terrorists.

The White House issued a curt response to Sununu's remarks.

"We're disappointed, obviously," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. A Justice Department spokeswoman refused to comment.

Speaking to reporters in Mexico before returning to Washington, Bush expressed confidence in Gonzales and defended the firings. "What Al did and what the Justice Department did was appropriate," the president said.

Still, Bush left himself room to sack the attorney general.

"What was mishandled was the explanation of the cases to the Congress," Bush said. "And Al's got work to do up there."

Gonzales, expected to meet with lawmakers this week, has been fending off Democratic demands that he resign over the ousters of the eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have characterized as a politically motivated purge.

"We want Congress to know, to understand what happened here," Gonzales said. "We'll work it out."

The committee's postponement of consideration of subpoenas for White House officials gives Bush's presidential lawyer, Fred Fielding, time to consider what, if any, conditions should be imposed if the aides testify voluntarily. Fielding said he would let Schumer and other lawmakers know on Friday whether the administration is still willing to talk about that prospect, or whether Congress would have to compel testimony from Rove, Miers and Kelley.

The White House was expected to seek some conditions, but Fielding "said his intention was not to stonewall," Schumer said.

Marshal Murat

03-15-2007, 21:21

The attorney's should be fired for not doing their jobs.

I have a feeling Goofball is going to pop up.

ShadeHonestus

03-15-2007, 21:29

"I agree that this committee should get to the bottom of this issue," Specter, R-Pa., said. "I would hope that we would do so with at least a modicum of objectivity."

Talk about pissing in the wind..."modicum of objectivity."

Pindar

03-16-2007, 02:06

Phatose

03-16-2007, 05:07

Eh. The mere suggestion that some of these attorneys were let go specifically to impede corruption cases will be enough of a story to merit a big public show, call in a bunch of political hotshots to testify under oath in the hope they'll like to cover their political behinds, then charge them with perjury.

It's all the same. Only the names have changed.

Lemur

03-16-2007, 07:24

Interesting. So if I'm reading the mood of the backroom correctly, the firings are a complete non-issue elevated by pandering politicos and a pliant press. I learn new stuff here all the time.

drone

03-16-2007, 16:12

Xiahou

03-16-2007, 17:51

The biggest problem I have with this whole deal is that Congress is essentially cut out of the loop when it comes to replacements. By having an indefinite "interim" period with no confirmation required, any political crony could be a US Attorney, regardless of their actual ability or knowledge of the law.
Actually, the interim appointment is only good for as long as it takes Congress to confirm the appointee. Ideally, if Bush appointed someone who was woefully incompetent, the Senate can quickly shoot down the nomination and end the appointees tenure. They only stay in for the entire term if the Senate does not act.

drone

03-16-2007, 18:54

Actually, the interim appointment is only good for as long as it takes Congress to confirm the appointee. Ideally, if Bush appointed someone who was woefully incompetent, the Senate can quickly shoot down the nomination and end the appointees tenure. They only stay in for the entire term if the Senate does not act.

According to Internet Arguing for Dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Attorney), the Senate Confirmation is no longer necessary for interim Attorneys.

Appointment

The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate.

By law, "each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."

The procedure for appointment of Interim U.S. Attorneys is governed by Section 546 of title 28, United States Code.[4] Section (c) states:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

However, on March 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005 which amends Section 546 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a united States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

This, in effect, strikes the 120 days limit on interim U.S. Attorneys, and effectively extends their term to the end of the appointing President's term, which circumvents the U.S. Senate confirmation process.
Circumvention of process is the best thing this administration does, even when unnecessary.

Vladimir

03-16-2007, 20:40

Interesting. So if I'm reading the mood of the backroom correctly, the firings are a complete non-issue elevated by pandering politicos and a pliant press. I learn new stuff here all the time.

It's the Democrats making good on their threats of non-stop hearings until Bush is out of office. The other non-issue of the Plame Game is another example. Meh, inside the beltway politics :thumbsdown: .

ShadeHonestus

03-16-2007, 21:46

It's the Democrats making good on their threats of non-stop hearings until Bush is out of office. The other non-issue of the Plame Game is another example. Meh, inside the beltway politics :thumbsdown: .

Night of Long Knives meets the Beltway...

AH-HA maybe thats the conspiracy behind the early DLS change now...

Hosakawa Tito

03-16-2007, 23:31

This is a non-issue. These attorneys are political appointees that serve at the leisure of the Executive. They can be dismissed at any time for any reason. Clinton dismissed all 93 during his tenor and was perfectly in his right to do so.

If the administration had fired them at the beginning of the term, which is quite traditional, instead of in the middle, just after midterm elections, then it wouldn't appear so politically driven, even though it was. They gotta work on their lying, their political clumsiness is laughable or they're too arrogant to give a damn. The Attorney General is supposed to uphold the laws, even when they may not favor the President and his party. He's supposed to at least appear to be the people's Attorney not the Prez's. He gave that job up when he accepted the AG position. Doesn't matter if he steps down or is removed, the President will just pick another like him to fill the post.

Xiahou

03-17-2007, 00:50

According to Internet Arguing for Dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Attorney), the Senate Confirmation is no longer necessary for interim Attorneys.

Circumvention of process is the best thing this administration does, even when unnecessary.
Look at the footnotes and read the actual laws that are linked to. Changing 546(c) has no effect on 541(a) which still requires Senate confirmation. In a sense you're right- if the Senate does not act, the attorney will remain in his position- but I've already said that in my previous post. What I've also said, and is still true, is that the Senate could, at it's choosing, vote down an appointment.

If the administration had fired them at the beginning of the term, which is quite traditional, instead of in the middle, just after midterm elections, then it wouldn't appear so politically driven, even though it was. They gotta work on their lying, their political clumsiness is laughable or they're too arrogant to give a damn. The Attorney General is supposed to uphold the laws, even when they may not favor the President and his party. He's supposed to at least appear to be the people's Attorney not the Prez's. He gave that job up when he accepted the AG position. Doesn't matter if he steps down or is removed, the President will just pick another like him to fill the post.I'll certainly agree that they've mishandled this situation(and many others). :yes:

Pindar

03-17-2007, 00:51

If the administration had fired them at the beginning of the term, which is quite traditional, instead of in the middle, just after midterm elections, then it wouldn't appear so politically driven, even though it was.

All such appointments are politically driven. Patronage is the standard. The reality is they can be removed at any time: no reason is necessary. There is no story here.

KukriKhan

03-17-2007, 14:37

With all the heads rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue lately (and more projected over Plame-gate, DA-gate, W.Reed-gate, et al), I hope someone has notified the D.C. traffic cops of the potential road hazard.

The firings may not end up being "THE story", but rather the (inadvertantly?) false/inaccurate sworn testimony of the AG before Congress, before the more revelatory e-mails came to light.

Vladimir

03-17-2007, 16:37

With all the heads rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue lately (and more projected over Plame-gate, DA-gate, W.Reed-gate, et al), I hope someone has notified the D.C. traffic cops of the potential road hazard.

The DC police department only declares a state of emergency when white people are killed in affluent areas of the District (NorthWest). :juggle2:

AntiochusIII

03-17-2007, 19:25

The firings may not end up being "THE story", but rather the (inadvertantly?) false/inaccurate sworn testimony of the AG before Congress, before the more revelatory e-mails came to light.Haven't the Right been excusing the Clinton head-hunting back during Lewinsky with "He lied under oath?"

KukriKhan

03-18-2007, 03:56

Haven't the Right been excusing the Clinton head-hunting back during Lewinsky with "He lied under oath?"

Umm. Yes.

T'was enough to invoke constitutional examination of a sitting president's exact sworn words.

It remains to be seen whether the same standard is applied (as it should, IMO) the other way. Resulting in an examination of the concept: NO one is above the law in america, not even the guy personally charged with upholding it.

Nor his boss.

If all are accountable, then let it be.

Lemur

03-23-2007, 01:52

A little footnote (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS08/703210440) to this business:

Six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records.

In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions. The analysis undercuts Justice Department claims that the prosecutors were dismissed because of lackluster job performance. Democrats contend the firings were politically motivated, and calls are increasing for the resignation or ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Immigration cases — a top Bush administration priority, especially in states along the porous Southwest border — helped boost the total number of prosecutions for U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

Don Corleone

03-23-2007, 02:13

Whacker

03-23-2007, 02:16

Umm. Yes.

T'was enough to invoke constitutional examination of a sitting president's exact sworn words.

It remains to be seen whether the same standard is applied (as it should, IMO) the other way. Resulting in an examination of the concept: NO one is above the law in america, not even the guy personally charged with upholding it.

Nor his boss.

If all are accountable, then let it be.

Agree. So who's gonna hold Bush's butt to the flames for his blatant flaunting of the Constitution? Wiretaps anyone? Guantanamo Bay anyone?

I've said and I still say that when he finally got that 2nd relection, he immediately went into "I don't give a :daisy:" mode because this is his last term period, it's just more obvious now than it was back then.

Vladimir

03-23-2007, 17:07

I was actually with the Administration on this one in terms of Executive privellege (as I was with Clinton when he invoked it). However, what was the 'not under oath, not on the record' offer all about? Is it just me or did Bush essentially say "Okay, I'm gonna send my folks over to lie to you for a while... " ?

Now I want to know what the heck is going on. I hope the Democrats have the spine and the motivation to actually push the subpoena fight, but I doubt it.

I believe it had to do with the Democrats trying to turn a political event into a criminal one. To acquiesce to their demands would have given the proceedings the air of criminality which they clearly aren't. More political nuance perhaps? Or maybe it's people (once again) assuming that Bush is an idiot and embarrassing themselves.

Pindar

03-23-2007, 19:13

However, what was the 'not under oath, not on the record' offer all about? Is it just me or did Bush essentially say "Okay, I'm gonna send my folks over to lie to you for a while... " ?

Now I want to know what the heck is going on. I hope the Democrats have the spine and the motivation to actually push the subpoena fight, but I doubt it.

The issue concerns the distinct branches of government. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is Constitutionally independent from the Legislative Branch. The point is the Congress does not have the authority to issue subpoenas as the Executive is not under Legislative authority. Any testimony under oath or 'on the record' similarly suggests a beholden status whereas simple testimony is only a courtesy. Further, such would undercut the notion of Executive Privilege. This is the refrain where the Executive expects to be able to get frank council without the advisors feeling they may be put on trial for their offered advice.

Now, if the Congress is stupid enough to issue subpoenas a couple things can happen (which they probably are). First, Congress has no way to enforce its ruling. It would have to turn to U.S. Attorneys (these are the fellows under the Dept. of Justice and thus under the very Executive Branch Congress would be gunning for). The U.S. Attorneys could then do nothing (as in ignore the issue) or as in the last time this occurred that I can remember (back in 1983) turn around and sue the Congress for lacking the authority to subpoena the Executive Branch in the first place. But, leaving aside the practical, which would include the fact this would be drawn out to long past after the Bush Administration left office: the Judicial case history on Executive Privilege doesn't favor the Congresses. Below is from the In re Lindsey (1997) from the heyday of the Clinton scandals where the Court noted that Executive Privilege has only been defeated to date when in the context of a criminal investigation (i.e. Nixon). No criminal investigation has even been suggested let alone started:

"The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presidential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceedings. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 707-12 (1974); In re Sealed Case (Espy), 121 F.3d 729, 736-38 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In the context of federal criminal investigations and trials, there is no basis for treating legal advice differently from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The public interest in honest government and in exposing wrongdoing by government officials, as well as the tradition and practice, acknowledged by the Office of the President and by former White House Counsel, of government lawyers reporting evidence of federal criminal offenses whenever such evidence comes to them, lead to the conclusion that a government attorney may not invoke the attorney-client privilege in response to grand jury questions seeking information relating to the possible commission of a federal crime. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends, therefore, on whether the communications contain information of possible criminal offenses. Additional protection may flow from executive privilege...

I hope that helps.

Lemur

03-23-2007, 20:19

I found a nice summation (http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=91839) of the current reasoning about why this is a total non-issue:

So, to recap: a) It's okay for the president--not just legally, but morally--to fire any and all U.S. attorneys any time he feels they are not adequately pursuing his priorities; b) it's okay if those priorities include getting more members of his own party elected; and c) the whole thing is a pseudo-scandal until the evidence of explicit obstruction of justice reaches a threshold where it is beyond dispute.

Thank goodness for moral clarity.

Lemur

03-23-2007, 20:29

Another tidbit of information: One of the fired attorneys writes about why he was fired (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?ex=1332129600&en=a621cdbf2769b78f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink).

Why I Was Fired

By DAVID C. IGLESIAS
Published: March 21, 2007

Albuquerque — WITH this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

David C. Iglesias was United States attorney for the District of New Mexico from October 2001 through last month.

drone

03-23-2007, 20:42

Love this editorial from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201804.html

Unnecessary Scandal

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A17

Alberto Gonzales has to go. I say this with no pleasure -- he's a decent and honorable man -- and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

It's not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

And why did Gonzales have to claim that the firings were done with no coordination with the White House? That's absurd. Why shouldn't there be White House involvement? That is nothing to be defensive about. Does anyone imagine that Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in March 1993, giving them all of 10 days to clear out, without White House involvement?

Xiahou

03-24-2007, 02:55

Love this editorial from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201804.html
I think Charles pretty well nailed it. It was Gonzales' errors that allowed this to grow out of control.

Lemur

03-24-2007, 03:33

Whacker

03-24-2007, 03:40

If you're going to BE a politician at least learn to LIE like a politician.

Lemur, I'm dying to know, what exactly is a/the "Cheddar Curtain"?

Edit -

Ahhh, I see. So since I've moved to another state, have I moved beyond the Corn Curtain (http://www.indiana.gov/) ? Or perhaps the Corn Drapes?

Lemur

03-24-2007, 03:41

You'll have to ask someone who has moved ... BEYOND the cheddar curtain (http://bacosaurus.blogspot.com/).

[edit]

I see they've also made a documentary titled Beyond the Cheddar Curtain (http://www.wisconsindairyartisan.com/video.html). Sounds ... thrilling ...

Beyond the Cheddar Curtain, produced by Trillium Productions, is a one-hour long, road-trip style documentary that introduces the audience to Wisconsin ’s artisan cheesemakers through interviews and process shots.

Xiahou

03-24-2007, 05:39

And how many euphemisms for lying does Charles use? "Unprepared," "misinformed," "inaccurate" and "misleading." They had eight weeks to put forward a simple, believable explanation that would cover the bases. The fact that they have failed to do so is indicative.
If he was going to lie, he could've come up with some better ones. Really though, there was no need for any lying at all- a diplomatic "Go to hell, it's none of your business" as Charles outlined would've been the proper response. Instead, Gonzales stupidly gives the Democrats something to point at as justification for their fishing expedition. Just another administration snafu.

KukriKhan

03-24-2007, 15:04

I hope that helps

Yes, on the issue of exec. priv.

But I'm still confused about congressional subpoenas - they've clearly been issued in the past; are they not legal, constitutionally? Or is the problem that prosecuting someone who ignored/failed to comply with one would be referred to the very Dept being investigated?

In short: are they illegal, or just clumsy?

Lemur

03-24-2007, 15:37

If he was going to lie, he could've come up with some better ones.
And yet it appears that he did lie (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070324/D8O2H7S00.html). On several fronts.

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

On Friday night, however, the Justice Department revealed Gonzales' participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed.

[snip

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers - where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Later, he added: "I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated."

KukriKhan

03-25-2007, 14:53

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters...

Lying to the press, though not a great idea, isn't illegal. Lying to Congress, under oath, is. Isn't that the issue?

Marshal Murat

03-25-2007, 14:58

It depends on the hearings. Lying to the press is something people do everyday. If he takes an oath before Congress, then lies about the lying in the press, thats wrong. Now if he says he did lie to the press, then he is telling the truth, and can't really be considered for perjury.:2thumbsup:

:computer:

Now this is going to hell-in-a-handbasket.
This could be President Bush's Watergate.
Everyone is angry at him already, and if Gonzalez is kicked off, Bush has to pick another Attorney General, who will have to pass the fire-and-brimstone Congress.
Gonzalezgate?

KukriKhan

03-25-2007, 15:16

Gonzalezgate?

Gonzalez-Puerta? :)

Lemur

03-25-2007, 16:31

It couldn't have happened to a nicer advocate of torture. And unlimited executive power. Maybe we can get AG Meiers, or AG Rove. Ooooh, maybe we can finally get John Yoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo), the guy who argues that the President has the legal right to crush children's testicles, should the need arise. Now that would be something.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

KafirChobee

03-25-2007, 20:28

The comments in the emails (given to congress by the JD) saying these 8 (and others not deemed loyal) weren't "Bushy" enough I thought said it all. This was a firing, not of the unqualified - but, of the unwilling to break or stretch the law in favor of the administrations political agenda.

That 260+ Democrats have been investigated and only 30-60 Republicans for possible corruption or other illegal activities, under the present regime seems a bit ascew. But, it maybe the norm depending on the President. I believe what makes these firings an issue is the reasoning behind them - not the firings themselves. Firing Federal Attorneys because they ain't Bushy enough, is not a reason - it is an agenda.

Marshal Murat

03-25-2007, 20:41

Do you have a link to these e-mails, or something you heard on CNN?

Like I said before in another post, if anyone is showing favoritism, it's the attorneys who didn't investigate.
They serve at the whim of the President.
(Where is Goofball?)

Lemur

03-26-2007, 01:09

Do you have a link to these e-mails, or something you heard on CNN?
If you're man enough to wade through 300+ pages of them, there are direct links here (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16964237.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation). I assume, by referencing CNN, you're implying that this is all a media-manufacture bag of nothing, correct?

Like I said before in another post, if anyone is showing favoritism, it's the attorneys who didn't investigate.
They serve at the whim of the President.
Not sure I understand the intent of the first sentence. Clarification? The second sentence is an improvement on the phrase passed around of late. "Whim" is even better than "pleasure."

Marshal Murat

03-26-2007, 01:37

There was another such thread, different link, and I argued that the attorneys showed favoritism, and had every right to be fired.

I also think I will read those e-mails.

:computer:
:book: :book: :book:

Marshal Murat

03-26-2007, 01:56

Alright.
PDF 3
Page 8.
Discussion of why the attorney didn't investigate alien smuggling by Antonio Amparo-Lopez, who has a record of criminal activities.
(I'd be worried)
Page 22 has a nice map of the U.S.
Before and after there are concerns raised by this inability of the U.S. Attorney to prosecute this 'coyote' and other illegal immigration offenders. While Bush is for the 'Guest Worker' program, this violation of the current law is offensive, and the attorney should be fired. If this was so beneficial to Prez Bush, why were they fired?

So far, this attorney should be fired.
Anyone care to add their 2 cents?

Lemur

03-26-2007, 04:54

Here's another bleeding-heart Democrat liberalista from the ... oh, the American Conservative Union Foundation (http://acuf.org/issues/issue80/070317pol.asp), um, anyway, declaring that Gonzales' behavior has been beyond the pale.

National police and prosecutorial bureaucracies are notoriously difficult to control and uproot, as both Russian and French history adequately attest .The residents of the seven judicial districts affected by the new appointments do not yet have reason to remonstrate against an Executive who has, in the language of the Declaration of Independence, "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance", but the new appointments, and the statute authorizing them, impair local self-government and overly aggrandize the federal executive.

Pindar

03-26-2007, 18:46

Yes, on the issue of exec. priv.

But I'm still confused about congressional subpoenas - they've clearly been issued in the past; are they not legal, constitutionally? Or is the problem that prosecuting someone who ignored/failed to comply with one would be referred to the very Dept being investigated?

In short: are they illegal, or just clumsy?

The legislative Branch is not empowered to subpoena the Executive Branch. They are distinct and independently vested by the Constitution. The only possible exception would be if there was a criminal investigation/prosecution: Nixon would be an example. No such filing has occurred. Most of the ballyhoo are simple examples of ignorance on stilts.

Lemur

03-26-2007, 18:58

Most of the ballyhoo are simple examples of ignorance on stilts.
Interesting that so many people in both parties are upset with the situation. Who knew that stilt-based ignorance was so prevalent? If, in fact, any of the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid investigation, the law has been broken.

Pindar

03-27-2007, 00:37

Interesting that so many people in both parties are upset with the situation. Who knew that stilt-based ignorance was so prevalent?

You obviously aren't familiar with politicians.

If, in fact, any of the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid investigation, the law has been broken.

Unless someone feels confident enough to launch a criminal investigation such can be dismissed as the earlier mentioned ballyhoo.

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 03:56

I guess this is what being an "independent" is all about, right (I guess I shoud use the worrd "correct" since you're not a big fan of "right") Lemur? :beam:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 04:15

If, in fact, any of the attorneys were fired to interfere with a valid investigation, the law has been broken.

1. Determining the "facts" is a notably slippery proposition in my nation's capitol.

2. The "facts" and the "law" do NOT always coincide -- Pindar, please feel free to chime in on this one, you'll do it more "justice."

3. This is a political and not a legal exercise. The goal has already been accomplished. What we are experiencing now is akin to hitting "continue" after your victory in battle has been announced -- just a few extra kills.

KukriKhan

03-27-2007, 04:22

Lemur

03-27-2007, 06:07

I guess this is what being an "independent" is all about, right (I guess I shoud use the worrd "correct" since you're not a big fan of "right") Lemur? :beam:
Ooooh, looky, Lemur took a position Dave doesn't agree with -- that must make him a Democratic stooge! It only stands to reason that everything that does not equate to Dave's worldview must be part of the Democratic party.

I know a nice cream that can clear up that Manichean rash you've got there ...

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 06:41

Ooooh, looky, Lemur took a position Dave doesn't agree with -- that must make him a Democratic stooge! It only stands to reason that everything that does not equate to Dave's worldview must be part of the Democratic party.

I know a nice cream that can clear up that Manichean rash you've got there ...
Whatever Comrade. I'm just so sure that if it was 1993, Total War could be played on an old 286, and the Org was around, you'd be all over Clinton firing oveer 90 lawyers right? You hang on the Dem's third leg tighter than any fat Jewish intern in a blue dress ever dreamed of. Please, go on with your democr..., excuse me, independent ravings.:yes:

Lemur

03-27-2007, 06:45

Right, first of all, good attempt to get the thread locked. Second, if you'd read any of the earlier posts, you'd see that people from across the political spectrum are unhappy with this. I take it the American Conservative Union Foundation is another bunch of closet Democrats in your book?

Speaking of which, where the hell is your party on this issue? I don't hear anyone in Washington defending Gonzales with half the certainty the Org's "conservatives" are bringing to the table ...

[edit]

Here's another noted liberal Democrat Clinton-lover, Robert Novak, expressing dismay (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500912.html) over the issue.

The saving grace that some Republicans find in the dispute over U.S. attorneys is that, at least temporarily, it draws attention away from debate over an unpopular war. But the overriding feeling in the Republican cloakroom is that the Justice Department and the White House could not have been more inept in dealing with the president's unquestioned right to appoint -- and replace -- federal prosecutors.

The I-word (incompetence) is also used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to cited a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI's misuse of the USA Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader told me. "How can we claim that anymore?"

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 15:43

Well, the reason why most conservatives on the Org aren't bringing anything to the table is because there is NOTHING to bring to the table. These folks serve at the pleasure of the President and can't be fired at anytime for any reason. I know that this is a hard thing for someone with socialist leaning to understand that all jobs aren't unionised or guarantied, but thats just the way things are these days till your side takes over and we're getting a bowl of rice a day and wearing grey uniforms while praying to Moa.

Lemur

03-27-2007, 17:02

"Socialist leanings"? Now that is funny. Way to ad hominem.

If you can't see the distinction between replacing the staff en masse, and picking individuals to purge because you want to have an ongoing mastery of their behavior, then there's really no discussion to be had.

Now please, launch some more personal attacks. It does wonders for your credibility. Go for it.

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 17:08

But within the en mass firings, it included attourneys that were in the middle of cases involving the Clintons. Does that hold any ground in your world view?

Lemur

03-27-2007, 17:15

A couple of thoughts:

I don't give a flying spaghetti about the Clintons. How they became the moral relativist's measure of choice is an odd bit of business. Let's say the Clintons fired all of the attorneys for the worst possible reasons. And then let's say they murdered a homeless guy for kicks. And then let's say that Bubba injected heroin into a baby's eye just to hear its drugged screams.

What frickin' bearing does it have on the current mess? Are you seriously arguing that Bubba Clinton should be your party's measure of decent an responsible behavior? How low have you guys fallen?

P.S.: I was really hoping for more personal attacks. You know you have it in ya, Dave. Let 'er rip.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-27-2007, 17:22

I, for one, am blissed that we have both 'brouhaha' and 'ballyhoo' used in the same thread. If we could work in 'baboozled', 'balderdash' and some other multisyllabic b-word...

Bamboozled and balderdash lend themselves quite naturally to this topic. Nor should it be too difficult to work in bailiwick (one of my faves for decades now) or bombastic.

Beautiful.

Devastatin Dave

03-27-2007, 17:59

?

P.S.: I was really hoping for more personal attacks. You know you have it in ya, Dave. Let 'er rip.
No...:laugh4:

Pindar

03-27-2007, 18:36

I, for one, am blissed that we have both 'brouhaha' and 'ballyhoo' used in the same thread. If we could work in 'baboozled', 'balderdash' and some other multisyllabic b-word...

So, Pindar, is it your position that the ballyhoo threat of congressional subpoenas is an over-reach of the "necessary and proper" clause, doomed to defeat in any sufficiently-informed constitutional court (if not the court of public opinion)?

Such a view, if held by administration officials, would seem to portend another clash of "interpretist" v "constructionist" in the courts. Do you foresee such a contest? Or do you estimate that the interpertist congressmen will back down from confrontation?

The clash over subpoena power is old. The Congress and the President both make claims either be able to do or be immune from based on their reading of the Constitution. * When two branches clash the third branch is often invoked. This is why I brought up the case history. The idea of Executive Privilege has only been over turned once. This was United States v. Nixon in 1974. The rationale in Nixon was because it involved a criminal prosecution. Unless there is a prosecution under way, this puts the President in a strong position in any Constitutional contest. It is also why the President would be happy to push the issue into such a contest as it would help them recover from appearing bamboozled and make the Congress' action look bombastic or simple balderdash.

In my extremely humble opinion, congress is merely flexing its (newly re-discovered) muscle on this issue...

My take, based on conversations I've had with legal folk who work within the Beltway, is: there is talk that two from SCOTUS' health is very poor. It is possible one may have to step down even before the 08 Election. The same talk had the Bush Administration considering Gonzalez as a potential replacement (excuse me while I vomit :toilet: ). When the AG's Office muffed up the basic explanations of why there were firings, I think some of the astute in Congress saw an opportunity and took it. Gonzalez is now out of the running for SCOTUS and even has conservatives calling for his head for the ineptitude. There was also one more Congressional possible benefit. In the wake of the Libby trial and with the Administration on the ropes, if the Demos could get Rove into giving sworn testimony they could attempt to trip him up over a whole host of things. When one is on the record before Congress one is sworn to speak the truth about any question asked. The questioner does not have to focus on only one specific issue. Thus, like Libby, if they could catch Rove in mis-remembering anything: he would be a political dead man. The third benefit is it keeps the Administration on the defensive. I think for the common man the Administration appears incompetent, befuddled and trying to hide something so the Demos have done well out of what should have been a nothing.

* The Congressional stance which I hadn't explained before is usually tied to the idea the Legislative Branch is the first of the three governmental divisions. The idea of three equal branches of government is not correct. The Legislative Branch under the banner of the Constitution is supposed to have the greatest power. This is because it reflects the broadest expression of the popular will. Legally this can be seen by the Legislative Branch being able to impeach individuals from either of the other two branches: neither the Judicial or Executive Branch has this power.

KafirChobee

03-27-2007, 21:59

Pindar, your last summary was excellent - imo.

Still, the main reason for the "fuss" over these firings is not the firings themselves - it is the reasoning behind them that these attorneys were not "Bushy" enough. Further, that one refused to file charges against a Democrat (N.M.) during the last elections, because there did not exist cause for doing so; and that others of the group had much higher ratings in doing their 'jobs' than others (loyal Bushs, I presume). It invited looking into. especially after the release of the "emails" from Justice and the WH.

Xiahou

03-27-2007, 22:06

The same talk had the Bush Administration considering Gonzalez as a potential replacement (excuse me while I vomit :toilet: ). When the AG's Office muffed up the basic explanations of why there were firings, I think some of the astute in Congress saw an opportunity and took it. Gonzalez is now out of the running for SCOTUSWell, I can take at least some solace in that. My initial reaction was similar to yours when faced with the possibility of a "Justice Gonzalez". :ahh:

Still, this whole think smacks of a Democrat fishing expedition....

drone

03-27-2007, 22:24

It might be a fishing expedition, but then why would Goodling invoke the 5th? Either she has bad legal advice, she is being pressured from above to say absolutely nothing, or there is more to this than we currently know. As far as I am aware, you can only use the 5th to protect yourself from self-incrimination. So just by invoking it, she implies that she has done something illegal. Got a small fire, let's throw some gasoline on it! :idea2:

Either everyone is scrambling around in full CYA mode over something bad, or the political and legal help is away for spring break.

Lemur

03-27-2007, 22:31

To reiterate some uncontested facts (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:VaEII54ehGkJ:www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/Table%25204Calculations.pdf+%22shields+and+cragan%22&hl=en):

As is indicated by Table 1, across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department
investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80% to
18%) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers. This was so even though, throughout
the nation, Democrat elected officials outnumber Republican elected officials at the rate of only 50% to
41%. Nine percent of elected officials are Independent/Other.

And some straight-up ugliness (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0703260632mar27,1,7295144.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true):

New Mexico's David Iglesias got the boot after Republican lawmakers made it plain they were unhappy about his failure to seek indictments in an investigation of alleged Democratic corruption. John McKay of Washington state, who was also fired, had been chided by White House counsel Harriet Miers for not bringing charges of voter fraud in the aftermath of a governor's race narrowly won by a Democrat.

But hey, if you can draw a moral equivalence to Bill Clinton, then I guess everything's hokey-dokey.

Xiahou

03-28-2007, 00:40

Lemur, if the president can't dismiss an appointee for, in his view, not adequately pursuing criminal investigations- what exactly would a valid reason be? Again, it seems the mistake was made by the Gonzalez underling who tried to conjure up explanations for firings that needed no explanation. But you're probably right- no attorney was ever dismissed before these for not following up investigations to his bosses satisfaction... this is just ugly.

As is indicated by Table 1, across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department
investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80% to
18%) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers. This was so even though, throughout
the nation, Democrat elected officials outnumber Republican elected officials at the rate of only 50% to
41%. Nine percent of elected officials are Independent/Other.What were the percentages under Democrat administrations?

Lemur

03-28-2007, 01:37

Lemur, if the president can't dismiss an appointee for, in his view, not adequately pursuing criminal investigations- what exactly would a valid reason be?
Hmm, interesting way of looking at it, completely sidestepping the (successful) attempt by the admin to turn the DOJ into a wholly partisan organ. If the attorneys exist to increase the incumbent party's hold on power, then nothing, I suppose.

But you're probably right- no attorney was ever dismissed before these for not following up investigations to his bosses satisfaction... this is just ugly.
And here we have a conflation of two interesting perspectives -- (a) they were dismissed for performance problems (a thoroughly debunked notion), and (b) everybody does it. This time without referencing Bubba by name.

What were the percentages under Democrat administrations?
I don't have the numbers, but you've got your own copy of Google on your computational boxen. And besides, if I were able to summon the numbers for the last fifty years, and if they showed that the last six had been statistically anomalous, would that change your views in the slightest?

Pindar

03-28-2007, 02:06

Hmm, interesting way of looking at it, completely sidestepping the (successful) attempt by the admin to turn the DOJ into a wholly partisan organ.

U.S. Attorneys are partisan organs. They are political appointments that only serve at the pleasure of the Executive. I don't understand your complaint.

Pindar

03-28-2007, 02:07

Pindar, your last summary was excellent - imo.

Thank you sir. :bow:

Devastatin Dave

03-28-2007, 02:09

Hmm, interesting way of looking at it, completely sidestepping the (successful) attempt by the admin to turn the DOJ into a wholly partisan organ. If the attorneys exist to increase the incumbent party's hold on power, then nothing, I suppose.

Over the line. Sanctioned. - Kukri

Lemur

03-28-2007, 02:51

I don't understand your complaint.
I object to the notion that it is normal and appropriate for U.S. attorneys to be used to entrench and enforce the incumbent party's hold on power. I don't care how you slice it, that ain't what anybody had in mind for the office.

Content deleted. Sanctioned. -Kukri

Lemur

03-28-2007, 18:06

Another bastion of hippie liberalism, the National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTNjY2U3Yjk0NTRmNTcyNjg1M2EwM2FlNTA0OTYyMzU=), comes out against Gonzales and the firings (they directly address your objection, Xiahou, that the attorneys were let got for performance problems):

[Gonzales's] claim not to have been involved in the firings suggests that he was either deceptive or inexcusably detached from the operations of his own department. His deputy, Paul McNulty, insulted the fired prosecutors by claiming that they had been asked to resign for “performance-related issues.” But many of them received good reviews, and none of them said he was told about any disappointment with his performance. If Justice wanted to clear them out to make way for new blood, or to find attorneys who shared their prosecutorial priorities, that would have been perfectly legitimate. By saying what he did, McNulty guaranteed that the fired attorneys would lash out in the press. Gonzales’s latest tactic has been to concede that improper motives may have played a role in the firings, but to blame his underlings for any misconduct and to pledge to get to the bottom of it.

[edit]

Apparently the GSA (http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/home.do?tabId=0) was roped into the political machine as well. Sad/funny video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VePqzIrR-ao) of the GSA Administrator conveniently losing her memory at n investigation.

Pindar

03-29-2007, 00:35

I object to the notion that it is normal and appropriate for U.S. attorneys to be used to entrench and enforce the incumbent party's hold on power. I don't care how you slice it, that ain't what anybody had in mind for the office.

Content deleted. Sanctioned. -Kukri

I'm still confused. Do you want to argue some law has been broken? If so, what law? If not, does the 'entrench and enforce' language above mean you don't think the Executive should have control over its own appointees? Did you get upset when Rumsfeld was sacked? If not, why not?

Lemur

03-29-2007, 04:21

Pindar

03-30-2007, 02:02

Pindar, I rather doubt that you are in any way "confused," but I appreciate the polite instinct that causes you to use the word.

Yes, there are specific laws on the books about using Federal offices for partisan political activities. Yes, I think they have been broken. No, I don't know the exact laws, and I suspect different ones may apply to, say, the DOJ as opposed to the GSA.

I don't think the firing of Rumsfeld (which was actually a resignation, if you recall) is a meaningful comparison. Yes, I get your point that he is another appointee who "serves at the pleasure," as the kids say. But the comings and goings of top cabinet officials hardly seems equivalent to ongoing loyalty purges of lower-level staff over what is most likely illegal (at the very least unethical) behavior.

A question for you, sir Pindar. If it turns out that what I suspect is true, that the DOJ and the GSA have been used for partisan political gain (and please don't tell me that you find that concept "confusing"), will a law have been broken?

Political appointments are political: whether it be Rumsfeld (who was sacked) or an attorney at the DoJ, they can be dismissed for any reason, even down to wearing the wrong color tie. It is this reality, that makes to my mind, this business rather boring.

Gonzalez will only be removed if Bush decides to do so. Given Bush is a creature where personal loyalty ranks high I doubt this will happen. I'm not aware of any law that does what I think you want done in this regard or any charges being made along those lines.

Lemur

03-30-2007, 02:28

I'm not aware of any law that does what I think you want done in this regard or any charges being made along those lines.
You misunderstand the root of my objection. Fine, force me to go look up the relevant law (http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm).

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326). (These amendments did not change the provisions that apply to state and local employees. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508.) Under the amendments most federal and D.C. employees are now permitted to take an active part in political management and political campaigns. A small group of federal employees are subject to greater restrictions and continue to be prohibited from engaging in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.

As it turns out, there is a law on the books that explicitly forbids turning entire Federal bureaucracies into partisan activity centers.

Whacker

03-30-2007, 02:46

I will also cautiously toss my hat into the ring here.

To begin, I do agree with Pindar's assessment regarding the jobs in question, they are techincally serving at the executives pleasure.

However..... I believe there are laws that provide for reasonable expectation for continued employment, no matter what your job is. In short, it's becoming increasingly hard these days to fire an employee unless you have full color tape recordings of them in the hotel room killing the hooker on top of the bags full of cocaine and money. There exists (as I understand it) a "reasonable expectation of continued employment baring gross misconduct or breech of contract". As such (provided this is correct and case law supports it) simply letting these people go without providing evidence of misconduct or breech would be, in short, illegal. Also Lemur's link provides for some interesting reading.

To be sure, I have nothing factual to back this up with. I am not a lawyer, nor am I remotely well versed in this field. These are simply my thoughts based on what I have seen and experienced in the past few years through friends, relatives, and past/present coworkers.

:balloon2:

Xiahou

03-30-2007, 03:48

You misunderstand the root of my objection. Fine, force me to go look up the relevant law (http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm).

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326). (These amendments did not change the provisions that apply to state and local employees. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508.) Under the amendments most federal and D.C. employees are now permitted to take an active part in political management and political campaigns. A small group of federal employees are subject to greater restrictions and continue to be prohibited from engaging in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.

As it turns out, there is a law on the books that explicitly forbids turning entire Federal bureaucracies into partisan activity centers.
I'm no lawyer, Lemur, but I'm fairly sure you're completely misinterpreting the law and how it applies here(or in fact, doesn't).

Actually, we don't need to go further than Wikipedia to put this one to bed:

Nonetheless, Section 7324 of The Hatch Act provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:

(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or

(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

Lemur

03-30-2007, 05:19

I'm no lawyer, Lemur, but I'm fairly sure you're completely misinterpreting the law and how it applies here(or in fact, doesn't).
Ugh. Yes, I'm fully aware the Hatch Act does not apply to the appointed positions. Watch the video link I put in post 70. Draw your own conclusions. It certainly appears that this administration has attempted to turn every nook and cranny of the executive into a partisan machine. If you like living under Tammany Hall, then as you keep saying, it's all a big non-issue.

The "loyal Bushie" test of the U.S. attorneys may wind up being the smallest part of this story.

Del Arroyo

03-30-2007, 16:22

Pindar

03-30-2007, 19:36

You misunderstand the root of my objection. Fine, force me to go look up the law....

Ugh. Yes, I'm fully aware the Hatch Act does not apply to the appointed positions.

Xiahou has already replied, but I wanted to be clear: are you still arguing for some illegality or is the stance you don't like it that political appointees are political?

Pindar

03-30-2007, 19:36

I will also cautiously toss my hat into the ring here.

To begin, I do agree with Pindar's assessment regarding the jobs in question, they are techincally serving at the executives pleasure.

However..... I believe there are laws that provide for reasonable expectation for continued employment, no matter what your job is. In short, it's becoming increasingly hard these days to fire an employee unless you have full color tape recordings of them in the hotel room killing the hooker on top of the bags full of cocaine and money. There exists (as I understand it) a "reasonable expectation of continued employment baring gross misconduct or breech of contract".

Hi Whacker,

Political appointments have no employment contract, nor is there any onus on the Executive to maintain them. Such can be dismissed for any reason at any time.

Pindar

03-30-2007, 19:41

Pindar, Xiahou-- Because it is the great hope of the nation that our officials will render homage to some thing higher than petty political cronyism! Gah!

And even taking a step down from the clouds for a second, it is the explicitly established purpose of the US Attorney to be an apolitical instrument. This is not only consistent with the words of AG Ashcroft (which we have read earlier in this thread) but also with the spirit if not the letter of all US legal ideas. If there is evidence that a public prosector is being used or can be used to further a partisan agenda, why the hell wouldn't you want to do something about it? You can can protect the current actors with a fig leaf of technicality, but you cannot change the fundamental fact that it is wrong.

Hi Del Arroyo,

What are you wanting to argue here? U.S. Attorneys are part of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is governed by elections. The results of those elections determine the Executive and the subsequent make up of all the appointees. All appointees are beholden to the graces of the one who appointed them. Are you arguing this standard is cronyism? Would you rather the make up of the Executive Branch was not determined by the Executive, but by another branch of government? If so, then are you willing to eviscerate the base notion of separation of powers because of your irking over cronyism?

Lemur

03-30-2007, 22:41

Xiahou has already replied, but I wanted to be clear: are you still arguing for some illegality or is the stance you don't like it that political appointees are political?

I think there is something fundamentally off about having corruption investigations running at 80% Dem, 20% Rep. (Especially given that this was at the height of Republican control of all branches of the government, which gave them more opportunity to do naughty things, as well as making them greater targets for those would would bribe.)
I think it's fishy to have U.S. Attorneys being ranked by whether or not they are "loyal Bushies."
I think holding partisan meetings for GSA staff is illegal.
The whole thing, however insignificant and perfectly legal you may believe it to be, does not pass the smell test.
Ask yourself how you would think about this situation if there were a Democrat running the Executive Branch. I think it's safe to say that some of the posters in this thread would be singing an entirely different tune.

AntiochusIII

03-30-2007, 23:05

What are you wanting to argue here? U.S. Attorneys are part of the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is governed by elections. The results of those elections determine the Executive and the subsequent make up of all the appointees. All appointees are beholden to the graces of the one who appointed them. Are you arguing this standard is cronyism? Would you rather the make up of the Executive Branch was not determined by the Executive, but by another branch of government? If so, then are you willing to eviscerate the base notion of separation of powers because of your irking over cronyism?That argument smells of Jacksonian arguments for the spoils system which, I believe, is viewed as increasingly less and less desirable for the well-being of the nation. The movement to oppose such actions started as early as the 1800's after all.

This is of course, saying that outrage and condemnation can be done based on intent instead of technical illegalities. A lot of people here are quite angry over the White House firing people with reasons that appear dangerously like it being done with partisan motives.

Pindar

03-31-2007, 00:40

I think there is something fundamentally off about having corruption investigations running at 80% Dem, 20% Rep. (Especially given that this was at the height of Republican control of all branches of the government, which gave them more opportunity to do naughty things, as well as making them greater targets for those would would bribe.)
I think it's fishy to have U.S. Attorneys being ranked by whether or not they are "loyal Bushies."
I think holding partisan meetings for GSA staff is illegal.
The whole thing, however insignificant and perfectly legal you may believe it to be, does not pass the smell test.
Ask yourself how you would think about this situation if there were a Democrat running the Executive Branch. I think it's safe to say that some of the posters in this thread would be singing an entirely different tune.

I see. I don't have a problem with investigations. (note: the GOP doesn't control the Judiciary. I wish it did.)
I don't have a problem with an Administration wanting its appointees to follow its positions.
What law was broken?
Sacking political appointees is mundane. It is also legal.

When Demos are running the Executive Branch its the same. When Clinton sacked all U.S. Attorneys he had every right to do so.

Pindar

03-31-2007, 00:42

That argument smells of Jacksonian arguments for the spoils system which, I believe, is viewed as increasingly less and less desirable for the well-being of the nation. The movement to oppose such actions started as early as the 1800's after all.

Hi Antiochus,

Are you saying that the Executive shouldn't be able to appoint Executive Branch political appointees?

This is of course, saying that outrage and condemnation can be done based on intent instead of technical illegalities. A lot of people here are quite angry over the White House firing people with reasons that appear dangerously like it being done with partisan motives.

Political appointees can be fired for partisan motives. They can also be fired with no motive. They can also be fired for poor fashion sense. No rationale is needed: the firing is its own justification.

Lemur

03-31-2007, 03:03

I see. I don't have a problem with investigations. (note: the GOP doesn't control the Judiciary. I wish it did.)
Let me get this straight, you're completely fine with using federal criminal investigations to advance one party's dominance? And you're saddened that the GOP doesn't have a lock on all governance in the U.S.?

That's the hard part about discussing this with you and Xiahou. You're both logical and well-read, but you seem to believe a one-party state is a good thing, which really is confusing. Not to mention disturbing.

What law was broken?
Ugh. The GSA business was the reason I brought up the Hatch Act, which appears to have been violated. And before you hit me with the "If someone has the confidence to bring charges" line, I expect someone already is in the process of doing so (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/033007p1.htm).

The assumption underlying your position seems to be that partisanship and cronyism are utterly normal, and, more worryingly, that any attempts to rig the system for a single party, so long as not in explicit violation of a law, are okey-dokey. This is a seemingly amoral stance.

But I am pleased to see that the topic is inspiring more of your "X is its own [refutation]/[justification]" formulations.

Antiochus, Del Arroyo, thank you for bringing a touch of morality and patriotism to a thread that has been making me feel dirty and used.

Del Arroyo

03-31-2007, 07:25

Pindar, the entire FBI is also a part of the executive branch and each and every officer in the US military theoretically recieves a commission from the POTUS himself. But one would hope that he would not begin firing any of these positions for political reasons-- indeed our country has found it necessary between its inception and the present date to construct significant legal obstacles to him doing so.

The point is that US attorneys perform a valuable public service-- namely, public prosecution. Of course it can be expected that an incoming president will fire some or all of them initially because he wants to start with a clean slate. But to fire any number of them mid-term because they are serving the US public as a whole and not the selfish interests of the party is simply wrong.

So to answer your question, hell yes I would like for the independence and the priviledge of the executive branch to be violated. I would like for this independence and priviledge to be violated whensoever those surrounding our highest executive feel themselves entitled to abuse that priviledge in an open conspiracy against the American people.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-02-2007, 04:19

Pindar, the entire FBI is also a part of the executive branch and each and every officer in the US military theoretically recieves a commission from the POTUS himself.

Military officers are commissioned and promoted by act of Congress. The POTUS is their commander in chief.

Pindar

04-02-2007, 19:23

Let me get this straight, you're completely fine with using federal criminal investigations to advance one party's dominance? And you're saddened that the GOP doesn't have a lock on all governance in the U.S.?

Criminal investigations are about bringing to light criminal acts. If there are no criminal acts then prosecutions or guilty verdicts are unlikely. If there is a 80 to 20 investigatory focus on the Demos or the GOP is neither interesting nor indicative of anything, any more than a Court that is 80/20 one gender to another is by that ratio thereby bigoted. In short, I don't believe in any PC version of investigatory allotments.

Note: the study pointing to a disproportionate Demo focus (that I assume is the Shields and Cragan study) has been challenged as seriously agenda ridden. Here is a simple link:
blog reference (http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/partisanship/political_profiling_study_is_fatally_flawed)

To your other question, to quote Disraeli: "I'm a man of the Party". Part of what this means is in identifying myself with a Party I am asserting my belief that that Party is more correct than the alternatives and would lead the nation in the direction it should go. To believe in the general rightness of a direction and then desire that the move in that direction be hindered, seems odd.

That's the hard part about discussing this with you and Xiahou. You're both logical and well-read, but you seem to believe a one-party state is a good thing, which really is confusing. Not to mention disturbing.

I am not a fascist. I believe people should be able to organize themselves politically in as many varieties as desired. I also believe any political system must always be amenable to its citizenry and that persuasion not coercion is the model for elections. This does not mean I do not believe there is a 'right' direction or that I wouldn't want that right direction followed.

Ugh. The GSA business was the reason I brought up the Hatch Act, which appears to have been violated.

I see. So you feel staffers were forced to attend the Jan. 26 meeting and the government paid for the cookies. Could be.

The assumption underlying your position seems to be that partisanship and cronyism are utterly normal, and, more worryingly, that any attempts to rig the system for a single party, so long as not in explicit violation of a law, are okey-dokey. This is a seemingly amoral stance.

This is an amazing statement. You seem to be suggesting that the Administration shouldn't want people who hold the views of the Administration as its appointees and to do so is some moral failing. Very strange. The reference to cronyism is similarly odd. Cronyism revolves around political office being granted without qualification. Where has this been suggested? The "rig the system" reference is also interesting especially since you qualify it as a legal rigging of the system apparently. My guess is this idea of legal rigging of the system is somehow an opposition to parties being partisan. Unfortunately, parties are partisan by definition.

But I am pleased to see that the topic is inspiring more of your "X is its own [refutation]/[justification]" formulations.

Sarcasm? I am but a vehicle for truth and coherent thinking: that political appointees may be sacked at any time for any reason or even the lack of reason is correct and the sacking does constitute the justification.

Antiochus, Del Arroyo, thank you for bringing a touch of morality and patriotism to a thread that has been making me feel dirty and used.

It's immoral and unpatriotic to sack political appointees or to defend the basic practice? I'm sorry you feel dirty and used.

Pindar

04-02-2007, 19:24

Pindar, the entire FBI is also a part of the executive branch and each and every officer in the US military theoretically recieves a commission from the POTUS himself. But one would hope that he would not begin firing any of these positions for political reasons-- indeed our country has found it necessary between its inception and the present date to construct significant legal obstacles to him doing so.

The issue revolves around political appointees, note Seamus' post above. The vast bulk of the FBI and military are not political appointees. If I recall correctly, there are around 2700 political appointees. Of these, around 500 or so need to go through a Senate confirmation.

The point is that US attorneys perform a valuable public service-- namely, public prosecution. Of course it can be expected that an incoming president will fire some or all of them initially because he wants to start with a clean slate. But to fire any number of them mid-term because they are serving the US public as a whole and not the selfish interests of the party is simply wrong.

Does wrong here mean you are making a moral argument?

So to answer your question, hell yes I would like for the independence and the priviledge of the executive branch to be violated.

I see. Very interesting. I tend to side with the Constitution when it comes to such matters.

Note: The role and independence of the Executive Branch is not a privilege but a constitutionally enumerated power.

KukriKhan

04-03-2007, 13:51

Military officers are commissioned and promoted by act of Congress. The POTUS is their commander in chief.

It has been a few years, but what I remember is: Officers are presidential commissions. Their commissioning and promotion documents start out: "The President of the United States has reposed special trust and confidence in you... you are therefore promoted to ________.". This for positions Lieutenant through Colonel.

General Officers have their promotions confirmed by the Senate.

Warrant Officers and Sergeants are promoted under authority of the Secretary of the (Army/Navy/AF). There was a movement in the Army in the 80's to elevate Warrant Officers to Presidential appointment. I don't know how that resolved (but I'll look it up). I notice that they (WO's) now have a fifth paygrade that didn't exist when I was active.

Back to topic: So, I see no contest among the posters here that the letter of the law has been observed in firing those DA's. What we're discussing now is the relative independence from presidential influence those guys should be afforded. Correct?

If so, where or when did the concept of "the People's Attorney" arise? Many here hold the opinion that once appointed, their fealty to the US Constitution should trump their loyalty to POTUS. Is that a Hollywood myth?

And second: wasn't there a big discussion (long ago, during the formulation of the constitution) about whether DA's and DoJ should be under the court system vs. the Executive - but the framers decided to place them under POTUS as part of the checks-and-balances precept?

Lemur

04-03-2007, 15:34

Note: the study pointing to a disproportionate Demo focus (that I assume is the Shields and Cragan study) has been challenged as seriously agenda ridden. Here is a simple link:
blog reference (http://stubbornfacts.us/politics/partisanship/political_profiling_study_is_fatally_flawed)
Yeah, I read that one, originally linked through The Economist. Good arguments made, esp. about the urban focus of investigations. It's quite possible they're right. I object, however, to the notion of "PC allocation" of investigations, which I never advocated. To me it looked suspicious; that's not exactly a triumph of political correctness.

I am not a fascist.
I am heartily sorry if I gave the impression that I believe you are. I apologize, for such was not my intent.

I see. So you feel staffers were forced to attend the Jan. 26 meeting and the government paid for the cookies. Could be.
I guess I deserve a small helping of snide at this point. In my (limited) defense, note that you had requested more than once that I specify a broken law. Having done so, I get the cookie treatment.

You seem to be suggesting that the Administration shouldn't want people who hold the views of the Administration as its appointees and to do so is some moral failing. Very strange.
I guess I hold to a weird and outdated view that once elected, candidates are Americans above all, especially in time of war. My view has no legal standing, and you are correct that it is "very strange."

Sarcasm? I am but a vehicle for truth and coherent thinking: that political appointees may be sacked at any time for any reason or even the lack of reason is correct and the sacking does constitute the justification.
Apologies for my temporary attack of sarcasm. Your reasoning about the legal status of the attorneys is correct, of course. I should know better than to debate a point of law with a lawyer.

I'm sorry you feel dirty and used.
I have a strange reaction to partisanship. It's obvious that most Americans do not feel the way I do, if only because most of my countrymen join and advocate a party.

If so, where or when did the concept of "the People's Attorney" arise? Many here hold the opinion that once appointed, their fealty to the US Constitution should trump their loyalty to POTUS. Is that a Hollywood myth?
It's an outdated and erroneous notion of nation over party. Thanks for making those of us who are disturbed by the behavior of this administration sound like folks who have difficulty differentiating movies from reality, however.

Pindar

04-03-2007, 20:08

Lemur,

I think you demonstrate a healthy skepticism about power. Power does corrupt and free peoples need to be ever vigilant. My participation in this thread has basically been to field the legal questions. All political appointees are creatures of their appointment. This is both their strength and their weakness. As things stand there are clear areas where abuse is possible: like if an attorney were investigating the government and was then sacked as his work was striking too close to the bone. I think this is what you were worried about. Here is the bugger: even with political appointees that must get Senate confirmation, there is no similar process or protocal for their dismissal.

KukriKhan

04-04-2007, 03:16

It's an outdated and erroneous notion of nation over party. Thanks for making those of us who are disturbed by the behavior of this administration sound like folks who have difficulty differentiating movies from reality, however.

Cool. Somehow I've convinced our Lemur that I support POTUS action here. I amaze myself sometimes.

I asked the question(s) to further the conversation - that moderator thing I do - not disparage someone's view. Sorry if it came out that way. Truly.

"Myth" does not = lie, IMO. It's a story-telling that reveals in its description of action, and conclusion, what society feels/thinks, or should feel/think (according to the author) about an issue.

As to my personal ideas about the issues: I want Officer Jones on the corner, to by "my cop", not Mayor Smith's; I want PFC Aarvark and MAJ Ant to be "my GI's", not a POTUS plaything; I want my President to be "mine", not the DNC's or the RNC's, or any other NC's. I'm personally revolted and disgusted at any sitting rep of mine raising funds while in office - that person isn't doing "my" buisness, but someone else's.

I expect, and demand that the entire crew of fence-builders I hired and pay, to build my fence, to devote their entire attention to my fence - not their prospects for future emploment, not dalliances with other employers, nor cellphone calls to their brokers. My fence. Period.

Why do I expect less from my elected employees? Or their appointees? Once the oath is taken, and the robes/armor/suit, whatever donned, they're "mine" and should do exclusively "my" business, not that of the party/guy who appointed them.

That idea... may be a myth, not enshrined in law, but furthered by popular culture. Hence the question.

My apologies again, if I offended. :bow: