# Fire them all?



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I understand this didn't actually come to pass, though eight attorneys, as we know, went to the chopping block, but isn't the notion of firing all these people something that probably should never have been entertained in the first place (let alone by Harriet Meirs)?

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070313/D8NRCIKO0.html

The article cites the "disruption" such a move would have caused, and that seems quite likely. This seems like a situtation where partisanship clearly would have trumped national interest.

I do appreciate that these are people who can be fired at any time and who are appointed and serve at the president's pleasure. But even so.

What are your thoughts about this one?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Whatever one's opinion, it's worth noting that Bill Clinton actually did fire all 93 federal attorneys when he took office. Did anyone object then?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Whatever one's opinion, it's worth noting that Bill Clinton actually did fire all 93 federal attorneys when he took office. Did anyone object then?


I had no idea that happened. So it was not made into a Congressional inquiry by the VRWC? Oh wait, Dems still had control of at least one house then in 1992. Or does it take the MSM to fuel one of those? Extra-juicy tidbit there Alan, thanks.

Regards


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

From Investor's Business Daily:



> So there's a sense of irony as congressional hearings open on whether the Bush administration has politicized appointments of U.S. attorneys. After all, it was Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, who fired all 93 U.S. attorneys after her appointment in March 1993, something no administration has done before or since.


The reasons for it, as outlined in the piece linked above, are, shall we say, interesting.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Whatever one's opinion, it's worth noting that Bill Clinton actually did fire all 93 federal attorneys when he took office. Did anyone object then?


Don't you remember the news headlines, Chuck Schumer being indignant and calling for Reno's head, the congressional hearings, the terrible disruption of justice...

Come to think of it, I don't remember any of that either.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I don't think you're suggesting that because Bill Clinton did this that it's a good idea? If you were, that logic would suggest Bush has got some oral pleasures coming his way.

And any ulterior motives Clinton had for firing the lot makes a poor precedent for us to carry forward today, imo. My understanding is that some of the current U.S. attorneys were investigating Republican misdeeds. Were they investigating Democratic misdeeds I would have the same concern about short-circuiting the proceedings for partisan concern.

I don't want crooks of any stripe in D.C. (What a fantasy, I know.)



AlanC said:


> From Investor's Business Daily:
> 
> The reasons for it, as outlined in the piece linked above, are, shall we say, interesting.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I don't think you're suggesting that because Bill Clinton did this that it's a good idea? If you were, that logic would suggest Bush has got some oral pleasures coming his way.
> 
> And any ulterior motives Clinton had for firing the lot makes a poor precedent for us to carry forward today, imo. My understanding is that some of the current U.S. attorneys were investigating Republican misdeeds. Were they investigating Democratic misdeeds I would have the same concern about short-circuiting the proceedings for partisan concern.
> 
> I don't want crooks of any stripe in D.C. (What a fantasy, I know.)


Bertie:

Two wrongs, of course, do not make a right. However, what I drew out of it was that this is not as unusual and singular to the Bush administration as we are currently being led to believe and of course, where were the current Dems leading the charge back when Reno did something far, far, far more egregious? I can only speak for myself, but it seems we have a double standard (in spades given all 93) going here. As you rightly point out, if the Repubs did wrong that is bad, however one cannot clean up Washington if only one party is subject to soap and water.

Just like Hillary going off on Haliburton moving to Dubai. It rings very hollow to my ears until Bill returns the big fat consulting fee he got to try and smooth the "ports deal".


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Bertie,

No where in my post will you find a justification of any kind for either acts. However, the scope of the Bush firings hardly matches Clinton's (8 vs 93?!).

The difference I see are the reactions of the press and the opposing political party. I think it's fairly clear.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm with you: We need consistent ethical judgement. What's good for the goose, etc. The only horse I have in this race (besides my investments and retirement savings) is a desire to see the country strong and creating the most value for as many of us as possible, avoiding disastrous international adventures whenever possible.

I don't particularly care which party occupies the executive so long as they're philosopher-kings (and my tax burden isn't onerous)! 



Wayfarer said:


> Bertie:
> 
> Two wrongs, of course, do not make a right. However, what I drew out of it was that this is not as unusual and singular to the Bush administration as we are currently being led to believe and of course, where were the current Dems leading the charge back when Reno did something far, far, far more egregious? I can only speak for myself, but it seems we have a double standard (in spades given all 93) going here. As you rightly point out, if the Repubs did wrong that is bad, however one cannot clean up Washington if only one party is subject to soap and water.
> 
> Just like Hillary going off on Haliburton moving to Dubai. It rings very hollow to my ears until Bill returns the big fat consulting fee he got to try and smooth the "ports deal".


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I hear you. But do we know for certain that the Reno firings went unreported/underreported? I suspect not.

I'd have to do that research to confirm, something time does not presently allow, but I would guess a L/N search would unearth plenty of vocal complaints regarding the Clinton Administration's actions more than a decade ago.



Relayer said:


> Bertie,
> 
> No where in my post will you find a justification of any kind for either acts. However, the scope of the Bush firings hardly matches Clinton's (8 vs 93?!).
> 
> The difference I see are the reactions of the press and the opposing political party. I think it's fairly clear.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

The office of U.S. attorney is a political patronage position. They serve at the pleasure of the president.

When a new administration comes in, traditionally all the U.S. attorneys are asked to resign and do. Some may then be brought back on, but most are replaced. That's what happened when the Clinton administration came in and my memory is that's what happened previously during Bush the Elder, Reagan and Carter. At least in my district the U.S. attorney always changes from one party to the other when the administration changes.

The fact is that in a lot of districts the U.S. attorney is often largely a figurehead. The real work is done by the staff attorneys (deputy U.S. attorneys), and the chief deputy is the real head of the office in terms of being in charge of things. They don't change, at least in my district.

By the way, among the charges leveled against the Clinton administration is that they fired the U.S. attorney about to press charges against Dem heavyweight Rostenkowski.

So this is just more of the left-wing media making a scandal out of nothing.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Absolutely right, Beresford. Complaining about the incoming president "firing" all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term is exactly equivalent to complaining about the incoming president "firing" the incumbent members of the Cabinet.

Nobody who parrots the Republicans' talking point on this has any credibility on this issue.

The new president is entitled to appoint his people to those positions.

While on the face of it the impact seems larger, getting rid of everybody is clearly not as bad as keeping the great majority of the incumbents, and only firing the ones who wouldn't prosecute your political opponents, which is what Bush did. (In part: he also fired at least one of them in order to give one of Rove's deputies a chance to build up his resume.)

By the way, if you're wondering about the job performance angle, a month after he asked for Iglesias' resignation Gonzales' aide told Iglesias that he could use Gonzales as a reference.

The best coverage of this issue, including tons of original documents, is the work Josh is doing at www.talkingpointsmemo.com.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jack and Beresford seem to be saying two different things.

Beresford seems to be saying the recent firings of eight lawyers is nothing to raise an eyebrow about.

Jack is saying it was okay when Clinton did it but is wrong in this case.

Do I have that right guys? If I have it correct, why was it okay for the Clinton Whitehouse and not the Bush II one? Timing?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

jackmccullough, this is truly hilarious:

"Nobody who parrots the Republicans' talking point on this has any credibility on this issue."

You then go on not only to quote the left's talking points, but to direct readers to a politically left web-site actually called talkingpointsmemo.com. Hilarious!

Clinton fires 93 DAs for political reasons = ok. Bush fires 8 for political reasons = bad, bad.

It all makes sense, now.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

As anyone who paid attention at the time might recall, there was a rather nasty spat between the outgoing Bush I Administration and the incoming Clinton Administration over the retention of federal appointees. It is customary for an incoming administration to ask for the resignation of all of the previous administration's political appointees, some of which will not be accepted. Bush I saw Slick Willie as something of a Carter redux: a barefoot, alfalfa-chewin', cornpone cookin' outlier who was not prepared to staff the federal government, particularly in light of the previous 12 years - only 12? It seemed an eternity at the time - of Republican rule. When Bush I and his flunkies observed some of their appointees cuddling up to the Clinton mob (conduct described as "treason" by some Bushites) GHWB jumped the gun before the Clinton inauguration and issued an order demanding the resignation of 650 Presdential appointees on the day of Clinton's inauguration for the express purpose of "creating chaos." US attorneys were exempt from the order; however, given that most were Reagan/Bush appointees it was unclear if they would go along with the directive or not. Thus, Clinton and his gang simply cleared the decks by dismissing them all and not waiting for them to submit their resignations. The Whitewater preemption explanation for this act is pure right-wing lunacy. The current "controversy" differs from Clinton's action because there was no controversy at that time: it was recognized as an unusually blunt response to an unusually sneaky act by the outgoing administration. Basic hardball. In the present case, the Bush cabal, in typical ham-fisted fashion, simply leaned on US attorneys who were not sufficently with the program. Again, simple hardball, but rather dim-witted, all things considered.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

It would seem this situation does differ in some way compared to historical precedent, or else why would Gonzales today be claiming his people mishandled things?

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070313/D8NRFLT80.html



Lushington said:


> As anyone who paid attention at the time might recall, there was a rather nasty spat between the outgoing Bush I Administration and the incoming Clinton Administration over the retention of federal appointees. It is customary for an incoming administration to ask for the resignation of all of the previous administration's political appointees, some of which will not be accepted. Bush I saw Slick Willie as something of a Carter redux, a barefoot, alfalfa-chewin', cornpone cookin' outlier who was not prepared to staff the government, particularly in light of the previous 12 years - only 12? It seemed an eternity at the time - of Republican rule. When Bush I and his flunkies observed some of their appointees cuddling up to the Clinton mob (described as "treason" by some Bushites) GHWB jumped the gun before the Clinton inauguration and issued an order demanding the resignation of 650 Presdential appointees on the day of Clinton's inauguration for the express purpose of "creating chaos." US attorneys were exempt from the order; however, given that most were Reagan/Bush appointees it was unclear if they would go along with the directive or not. Thus, Clinton and his gang simply cleared the decks by dismissing them all and not waiting for them to submit their resignations. The Whitewater preemption explanation for this act is pure right-wing lunacy. The current "controversy" differs from Clinton's action because there was no controversy at that time: it was recognized as an unusually blunt response to an unsually sneaky act by the outgoing administration. Basic hardball. In the present case, the Bush cabal, in typical ham-fisted fashion, simply leaned on US attorneys who were not sufficently with the program. Again, simple hardball, but rather dim-witted, all things considered.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> It would seem this situation does differ in some way compared to historical precedent, or else why would Gonzales today be claiming his people mishandled things?
> 
> https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070313/D8NRFLT80.html


I would be careful of making that leap Bertie. It is not like no one has ever been pressured into admitting mistakes or mishandling by the press or political opponents, now is it? I am not saying some things might not have been mishandled, what I am saying is people can be pressured into saying things so do not find a logical necessity in it.

I am glad though we have this straightened out. For a moment there I actually thought we were all going to come together and say, "What is good for the Repub Goose is good for the Dem Gander". My world has been righted


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

Ive been getting a kick out of this manufactured outrage. The federal attornies aren't some independent body- that has never been their purpose- they're part of the executive branch! Like any other political appointee in the branch, if you deviate too far from the president's plan, you should not expect to be around for long. 

What I do have a problem with is an excuse I've heard coming from the administration attacking these guys' competency. That's obviously BS, and there was no need to smear these attornies' reputations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

They should've fired some people in the CIA


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Hilliary didn't seem to be feigning outrage when her husband did the same thing, but 11.5 times more than Dubya.

They are political appointees. To the victor goes the spoils. Bush can fire all of them once a month for 4 years if he wants to. 

I wish he'd fire the one that put the Border Patrol officers in prison...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Now what makes you say this is the same thing as what Clinton did when he took office? Do you really imagine that most presidents leave all sitting U.S. Attorneys in office when they take over? It just plain doesn't happen. Stop drinking the Republican cool-aid on this. Even R's like Darrell Issa are jumping ship on this one.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

crazyquik said:


> I wish he'd fire the one that put the Border Patrol officers in prison...


I hear ya!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Relayer said:


> jackmccullough, this is truly hilarious:
> 
> "Nobody who parrots the Republicans' talking point on this has any credibility on this issue."
> 
> ...


Okay, I produced my source. It's there for you or anyone else who is interested to review. I'm sure you can go there and find many, many inaccuracies. Or maybe even one?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

From the NY Times, March 24, 1993:



> Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton . . .
> 
> All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far. But the process generally takes much longer and had usually been carried out without the involvement of the Attorney General.
> 
> ...


Remember, Justice lagged at the beginning of the Clinton Administration because Baird and Wood both came a nanny cropper; and Reno was considered not up to the task when she was confirmed. After the Bush I stunt I referenced earlier, the Razorback Mafia decided to strut its stuff and ordered Reno to can all holdover USAs, including Jay Stephens, now Senior VP and General Counsel with Rayethon, who was investigating Rostenkowksi. A small stink was raised about a "March Massacre," but it went nowhere. Rostenkowski was indicted the following year, pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 1996, and served 15 of 17 months. On his way out the door in 2001 Clinton pardoned Dirty Dan, and that was that. Pretty standard stuff. If Bush & Co had even moderate political acumen they could have pulled this thing off without a nasty dustup; but they just can't get the job done when it counts.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

From the NY Times, March 16, 2001:



> Three of the four top federal prosecutors in New York State, all Democratic appointees, have been asked to step down by the Bush administration, the Justice Department said yesterday. The only United States attorney in New York who has been asked to stay on is Mary Jo White, who is prosecuting the ongoing terrorism case involving attacks on two American Embassies in East Africa in 1998. Ms. White is the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, which covers Manhattan, the Bronx and much of downstate New York. . .
> 
> A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Mindy Tucker, described the turnover as a routine part of the transition from a Democratic administration to a Republican one . . .
> 
> Ms. Tucker said that only about a dozen of the 93 United States attorneys had been asked to stay on, generally because of the cases they were working on. The rest of the prosecutors, including Ms. Lynch, Ms. O'Donnell and Mr. French, will be asked to leave sometime before June on a timetable that is still being worked out, Ms. Tucker said.


Standard stuff. Clinton also asked USAs who were in trial to stay on until their cases were completed. This lame counterspin is going nowhere. Bush already had a bite at this apple; now he's taken another, which has left him vulnerable. Something like this requires political skill and finesse, attributes one does not associate with the Bush Adminstration.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, I produced my source. It's there for you or anyone else who is interested to review. I'm sure you can go there and find many, many inaccuracies. Or maybe even one?


Your original arguement formation had merely to do with the source ("Republican talking points") and not its veracity or accuracy. You were then called on the fact that after you disparaged the source, not its content mind you, you presented as source a liberal website (with "talking points" right in its title, what irony!). When called on that you shifted to accuracy of your source info vs. the fact your source is as biased as any hardline Repub source. You have backed yourself into a classic _ad hoc_ here.

Cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> From the NY Times, March 16, 2001:
> 
> Standard stuff. Clinton also asked USAs who were in trial to stay on until their cases were completed. This lame counterspin is going nowhere. Bush already had a bite at this apple; now he's taken another, which has left him vulnerable. Something like this requires political skill and finesse, attributes one does not associate with the Bush Adminstration.


While I agree 100% that Bush is not in the same league as Clinton when it comes to being a slick operator, let us get back to the issue. What you are saying is that this whole thing is much ado about nothing and it is SOP?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> While I agree 100% that Bush is not in the same league as Clinton when it comes to being a slick operator, let us get back to the issue. What you are saying is that this whole thing is much ado about nothing and it is SOP?


No, I'm not saying that. It is typical for an incoming Presideint to replace most, if not all, of the previous adminstration's USAs, who generally nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, although the Patriot [sic] Act now provides some exceptions to this procedure. Here was the Bush Administration's take on the matter in early 2001:

https://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

It is not typical for a sitting President to dismiss USAs during his term in office. Of course, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President so they can be dismissed at any time. However, if the Administration deviates from the standard practice they must do so intelligently unless they wish to deal with the fallout; USAs are political animals and if they feel they are being scapegoated or abused they can pick up a telephone as easily as the next pissed-off political operative.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

At the beginning of a term it is.

All these people serve at the President's pleasure. If the party changes, especially, they are generally always replaced by a new president, just like the Cabinet.

I don't see what the big issue is, although it's curious that it would happen in the MIDDLE of a term.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Seeing the ridiculous press conference Gonzalez had with his categorizing "High performers, Avg performers, and Low performers" I was thinking they should do something like an Apprentice. It could be quite entertaining ... Gonzalez is a loser IMHO. It's tough to be a conservative these days.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> No, I'm not saying that. It is typical for an incoming Presideint to replace most, if not all, of the previous adminstration's USAs, who generally nominated by President and confirmed by the Senate, although the Patriot [sic] Act now provides some exceptions to this procedure. Here was the Bush Administration's take on the matter in early 2001:
> 
> https://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm
> 
> It is not typical for a sitting President to dismiss USAs during his term in office. Of course, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President so they can be dismissed at any time. However, if the Administration deviates from the standard practice they must do so intelligently unless they wish to deal with the fallout; USAs are political animals and if they feel they are being scapegoated or abused they can pick up a telephone as easily as the next pissed-off political operative.


It is "not typical": agreed. 
The terminated people are politicos with a law degree and you piss them off at your peril: agreed.

However, you seem to be carefully *not* saying anything intrinsically wrong has been done here.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It is "not typical": agreed.
> The terminated people are politicos with a law degree and you piss them off at your peril: agreed.
> 
> However, you seem to be carefully *not* saying anything intrinsically wrong has been done here.


I'm not carefully not saying anything. Is this an example of general Bushite high-handed witlessness? Yes. Does this entire process auger badly for our current system of federal justice? Yes. Is it anything to be terribly up in arms about, given the generally ghastly conduct of the Bush adminstration since 2001? No. I joined this thread in response to the recitation of the pea-brained story generated by right-wing media scum that this current mini-purge is no different than the Clinton Administration's dismissal of all 93 USAs in early 1993. It is different, as five minutes reflection and inquiry would reveal. How anyone would like to respond to this particular story is up to him. Obviously wholesale shitcanning of USAs because the White House doesn't like the outcome in specific political cases is a very bad idea, and contrary to the established Presidential practice for the past several decades. Sure, an incoming President has the right to nominate those USAs that he chooses; however, the standard procedure requires confirmation of these nominees by the Senate. This may generally be a pro forma affair, but it at least preserves the form of oversight and compromise, and if the form is preserved it can be used, if and when it becomes necessary. Under the current state of affairs this congressional check can be easily circumvented, which concentrates even more power in the executive branch. This little purge was very likely a trial run, and it didn't turn out too well. If Congress has any sense it will pass Feinstein's bill to repeal that section of the Patriot Act which gives the Attorney General power to circumvent the confirmation process.


----------



## cgc (Jan 27, 2007)

This is very simple to understand. When a new administration enters the White House they typically appoint new people to executive branch positions. Since Bush kept the White House for a second term the appointments naturally still stood. Miers suggestion came at the start of the second term in January 2005 and would be highly unusual for a second term President to do such a thing. The firing of US Attorneys at the tail end of a second term is also rather unusual and nothing like the actions taken by an incoming administration like Clinton in 1993 or Bush in 2001.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cgc said:


> This is very simple to understand. When a new administration enters the White House they typically appoint new people to executive branch positions. Since Bush kept the White House for a second term the appointments naturally still stood. Miers suggestion came at the start of the second term in January 2005 and would be highly unusual for a second term President to do such a thing. The firing of US Attorneys at the tail end of a second term is also rather unusual and nothing like the actions taken by an incoming administration like Clinton in 1993 or Bush in 2001.


Yet for all the rhetoric, no one has been able to present a real problem. Forget was it smart, good politics, ethical, <insert here>, no one has yet been able to tell me the employment law(s) that have been violated. With such a bevy of lawyers here, I would have expected the laws to be copy and pasted here by now!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Yet for all the rhetoric, no one has been able to present a real problem. Forget was it smart, good politics, ethical, <insert here>, no one has yet been able to tell me the employment law(s) that have been violated. With such a bevy of lawyers here, I would have expected the laws to be copy and pasted here by now!


It isn't a matter of employment law. USAs are nominated by the President, confirmed by Senate, appointed for a four-year term, and serve at the pleasure of the President. (28 USC 541.) Once their term expires, they remain in office until a successor is appointed. (Ibid.) Under former 28 USC 546 if a vacancy arose (a USA is removed, resigns, dies, etc.) the AG could appoint an interim USA for a period of 120 days or until the President appointed a successor. If no appointee was nominated or confirmed at the end of 120 days, the District Court for that federal judicial district could appoint a successor. An amendment to the Patriot Act last year also amended section 546 to allow the AG to appoint an interim USA for an indefinite period of time. _This_ is the issue. While incoming Presidents may dismiss those USAs appointed by their predecessors and appoint whomever those choose, those nominess must be confirmed by the Senate, *and once in office it is very uncommon for them to be removed*. One study I read yesterday indicates that from 1981 to 2006, only two USAs were removed from office during their terms, both during the Reagan administration. The reason for this is fairly obvious, and has to do with the separation of powers. Federal prosecutors are intended to enforce the laws of the United States; they are not intended to be a tools of executive policy. The nomination and confirmation process is intended ensure, however imperfectly, that competent men and women of integrity are appointed to this very important office, not mere flacks who are taking their orders from White House via the AG. While the President may appoint the USAs it has been the practice for him to more or less live with his decisions in the same manner as he has to live with judicial appointments, although by statute the President has the power to dismiss the AGs at his pleasure. Under the present state of the law there is nothing to stop Bush from firing all 93 USAs (which apparently was contemplated last year) and having Gonzalez appoint 93 party flacks and sycophants in their places, none of whom would be subject to the confirmation process, or even judicial review. The possibility now exists, in a way it did not before, that the USAs might become a naked tool of executive power. This mini-purge was a trial run, to see if the Administration could get away with a, possibily unprecedented, accrural of prosecutorial power. Checks, balances, all that kind of thing. That's the issue, not whether one of these individual USAs may have a claim for wrongful termination.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Sooooo, this is another facet of Bush getting ready to declare martial law? :icon_smile_big: 

Just kidding, now I understand. Bush is tossing his weight around near the end of his term vs. the beginning, no one likes that, slow news week, ergo we have a "scandal". I am sure I have over simplified it, but that seems to be the basic gist of it.

Sorry, the last thing I can get worked up about is the fate of a bunch of federally employed, appointed lawyers.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Sooooo, this is another facet of Bush getting ready to declare martial law? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Just kidding, now I understand. Bush is tossing his weight around near the end of his term vs. the beginning, no one likes that, slow news week, ergo we have a "scandal". I am sure I have over simplified it, but that seems to be the basic gist of it.
> 
> Sorry, the last thing I can get worked up about is the fate of a bunch of federally employed, appointed lawyers.


You'd better care. Ask Scooter Libby what it's like when a US Attorney decides to get after your ass.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> You'd better care. Ask Scooter Libby what it's like when a US Attorney decides to get after your ass.


Thankfully I do not work for the VP nor am I in the habit of committing perjury. I feel I am pretty safe but thanks for caring.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Thankfully I do not work for the VP nor am I in the habit of committing perjury. I feel I am pretty safe but thanks for caring.


It isn't that simple. Right now, in many districts the USA's office is bogged down with drug cases. That's not good, but if a tottering administration decides that the War On Drugs can wait a bit while it pursues some high-profile domestic cases to deflect some of the media heat, a whole lot of people can get caught up in the net. Check out 18 USC 1001 - one of the statutes under which Libby was prosecuted - sometime.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> While I agree 100% that Bush is not in the same league as Clinton when it comes to being a slick operator, let us get back to the issue.


On that we agree, Clinton for all his failings can't hold a candle to the train wreck which is the Bush Administration.

I'll admit I'm not fully read on this topic, but can someone please explain why the Administration is falling over themselves to explain their actions?

Why was a document detailing the 8 firings entitled "Preparing for Political Upheaval"?

Why does email suggest several were fired because of lack of Administration loyalty?

I'm confused...do these people swear to serve the President or uphold the Constitution?

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Why are Republians now calling for Gonzales to be fired?

-spence


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

From what I've read it's a (one) Republican, Sununu. Are there others?

Why? "Sununu told CNN's Dana Bash that Gonzales has lost all credibility because of the firings and a report last week that the FBI had underreported its use of national security letters to snoop on Americans."


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> From what I've read it's a (one) Republican, Sununu. Are there others?


I thought Hardball had indicated there were two, but it could just be Sununu. Regardless though, what's with all the fuss if this was just routine?

-spence


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

It's not so contentious that they were fired in the middle of Bush's term (although it is rare), but it _is_ contentious that they were asked to resign for what seem to be very political reasons. The majority of the scandal is focused on Carol Lam, an attorney in California, and another attorney from down south (forget his name). Lam was spearheading the Duke Cunningham investigation, and VERY shortly after the L.A. Times reported she was looking into another Repub. Congressman, she was fired. The other attorney was replaced in order to put a crony of Rove's in the position. As for the remainder...no one really knows yet. A fact, though, is that they all had very positive performance reviews from the IJD.

It's just like that prosecutor from Guam who was mysteriously relieved of his duties when he began digging up more dirt on Abramoff.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Why are Republians now calling for Gonzales to be fired?
> 
> -spence


Rats leaving a sinking ship? Just a guess. Perhaps look at the Republicans in question ... Are they people like Spectre?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Rats leaving a sinking ship? Just a guess. Perhaps look at the Republicans in question ... Are they people like Spectre?


Yes 

Did anyone hear Bush today stumbling over what he said and to who during his press conference? Pretty amazing really.

You really have to question how much of this they bring upon themselves. The level of secrecy combined with an inability to come clean on any topic adds so much fuel to these fires.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> You really have to question how much of this they bring upon themselves. The level of secrecy combined with an inability to come clean on any topic adds so much fuel to these fires.
> 
> -spence


Well, I totally agree with that. I mean "nice spin!"


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, I totally agree with that. I mean "nice spin!"


Excellent. Finding common ground is key to building bridges 

-spence


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> From what I've read it's a (one) Republican, Sununu. Are there others?
> 
> Why? "Sununu told CNN's Dana Bash that Gonzales has lost all credibility because of the firings and a report last week that the FBI had underreported its use of national security letters to snoop on Americans."


Both Republicans and Democrats seemed pissed about this. From the sounds of it, Leahy and Issa are both gunning for anyone who lied to them about this situation and claim they will demand resignations, no matter how high it goes.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

He may be livid, but you couldn't tell it by the one quote from him in that article: - Cornyn: "This has not been handled well."

Still, it seems that only one Republican has called for Gonzalez's resignation, correct?

More may do so, but have not as of yet, to my knowledge.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> He may be livid, but you couldn't tell it by the one quote from him in that article: - Cornyn: "This has not been handled well."
> 
> Still, it seems that only one Republican has called for Gonzalez's resignation, correct?
> 
> More may do so, but have not as of yet, to my knowledge.


REP. DARRELL ISSA: I'm including anybody who would mislead, deliberately mislead the Congress, and the senator is absolutely right. Resigning doesn't change the fact that we're going to get to the bottom of who knew and failed to let us know what -- well, members of the government were being sent to us to give us false information.

That's not tolerable ever, by either party, because we have an obligation. We were simply using our legitimate oversight responsibility in the House and the Senate. And then we were lied to by well-meaning young men who came up to give testimony, that they were given false. And that irritates us beyond belief.

And if it's the attorney general who had a hand in it, then he will have to step down. It certainly included Kyle Sampson, and he has stepped down.

And the senator is right: We're not going to quit until every one of these people has testified and we know the whole truth about the failure to be candid about these firings.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks.

You edited you post (the one with the link about Issa, Cornyn and others), of course, which originally said Cornyn was livid (and did not mention Issa), ergo, my response. 

Of course, it doesn't make any sense now, but thanks for arguing the now non-point.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah, sorry about that. I was a little quick on the draw when posting the original and wanted to correct that important point.



Relayer said:


> Thanks.
> 
> You edited you post (the one with the link about Issa, Cornyn and others), of course, which originally said Cornyn was livid (and did not mention Issa), ergo, my response.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't make any sense now, but thanks for arguing the now non-point.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Anyone watching this today?

It would seem as though there has been some serious dishonesty under oath on this matter now.

Still just a routine matter?

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> Anyone watching this today?
> 
> It would seem as though there has been some serious dishonesty under oath on this matter now.
> 
> ...


Nope. I missed it. Who lied under oath now?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Nope. I missed it. Who lied under oath now?


Don't know if it's online yet...was breaking news in the last few hours...

It was about the Justice Department reporting to Congress on the matter.

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

There are a couple of new developments.

First, Gord Smith is the second Republican senator to call for Gonzales to resign: .

Second, Josh has a memo from Sampson with this interesting line in it: "Bush41 even had to establish that Reagan-appointed U.S. Attorneys would not be permitted to continue on through the Bush41 administration". It also says, "In 2001 Bush43 fired the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorneys, some of which were in the midst of a four-year term . . ."
If you have a problem with the source, look at the document: . Now what was that about how bad Clinton was when he put his own people in?

Third, that same memo makes clear that Rove and Gonazles were directly involved in the firings, disproving previous claims by the administration.

So I don't think anyone in the Bush administration lied under oath today, but that must be considered in context: i.e. they didn't have any of their people testifying under oath today. Just wait until the subpoenas go out.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So I don't think anyone in the Bush administration lied under oath today, but that must be considered in context: i.e. they didn't have any of their people testifying under oath today. Just wait until the subpoenas go out.


This is from memory, but I believe the issue was with Justice Department officials reporting to Congress under oath...

Along with Tony Snow and others making statements that appear to be false.

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Now, I'm confused ... no one lied under oath, but you are just speculating that since subpoenas are going out someone will?

As I understood it ... the memo with Gonzalez's recommendation to fire all 93 was written when he was in the White House as general counsel, not when he was AG.

I highly doubt Tony Snow would lie, particularly under oath.

I guess it's ok for you to hold out hope! LOL


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Now, I'm confused ... no one lied under oath, but you are just speculating that since subpoenas are going out someone will?


Spence asked if anything happened today, you asked if anyone lied under oath now, so I concluded that you were asking if anyone lied under oath today.

I don't think Gonzales has had the chance to lie under oath, because the last time he was in there I don't think he was under oath, but I don't think the Judiciary Committee is going to make that mistake again. (I know it's a crime to lie to a Senate committee even if you're not under oath.)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Spence asked if anything happened today, you asked if anyone lied under oath now, so I concluded that you were asking if anyone lied under oath today.
> 
> I don't think Gonzales has had the chance to lie under oath, because the last time he was in there I don't think he was under oath, but I don't think the Judiciary Committee is going to make that mistake again. (I know it's a crime to lie to a Senate committee even if you're not under oath.)


I meant since or other than Libby. Did someone lie under oath yesterday, but not today? What's the distinction you're making?

Did someone lie under oath? Or; is the answer is still no one and "dishonesty under oath" was just jumping the gun?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I meant since or other than Libby. Did someone lie under oath yesterday, but not today? What's the distinction you're making?
> 
> Did someone lie under oath? Or; is the answer is still no one and "dishonesty under oath" was just jumping the gun?


Okay, so I think we were just talking past each other on that point.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

https://apnews.excite.com/article/20070316/D8NT0I080.html

"The White House maintains that Rove remembers first hearing about the idea to replace all 93 prosecutors from Harriet Miers, a top White House aide designated at the time to follow Gonzales as the president's counsel. "He has not said who the idea originated with," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday evening."

Hmmm. Wonder what role Tim Russert played in this one...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Uh, oh. Karl Rove. The bogeyman of the left is the mix.

"White House political adviser Karl Rove raised questions in early 2005 about replacing some federal prosecutors but allowing others to stay, an e-mail released Thursday shows."

Devastating news. Gonzales has got to go, now. No way he can withstand that revelation. And Rove, too. How can he defend that kind of incontrovertible evidence of... well, something very bad, for sure.

Ok... take a breath.... ok... I feel better, now... maybe, I am over reacting a bit...


----------

