They Serve At the Pleasure of the President by Hero

I was curious what your take on this would be, Hero. Seeing as how you're a prosecutor with, I'm assuming, ambitions to move up the ladder. Maybe one day to USAttorney. I expected you to have a bit more sympathy for stalwart Republican USAttorneys who had been doing their jobs getting the axe because they wouldn't compromise their ethics. After all, that could be you down the road.

The key part you mentioned is "advice and consent of the Senate". None of the replacements for the fired USAttorneys passed through that process. Why? Because there was a provision added to the Patriot Act that got rid of that whole advise and consent part of the deal.

As you mentioned, it is standard procedure for an incoming President to replace all the USAttorneys from a previous administration. Clinton replaced all the USAttorneys that Bush I appointed. Bush II replaced the USAttorneys that Clinton appointed. That's expected and that happens when a President comes into office.

We're not at the start of a President coming into office so what's going on? Well, here you have a group of USAttorneys who were appointed by Bush II and had been working in their positions and then they were fired. Why were they fired? The evidence points to three main reasons: because they were investigating Republican corruption and their investigation was expanding (Lam in San Deigo), because they refused to investigate Democratic politicians purely to help Republicans win elections (Iglesias in New Mexico and McKay in Seattle) or because they stood in the way of a high ranked administration official's protege (the dude in Arkansas getting canned for someone Rove wanted).

But that's not the rationale that the DOJ gave for their firing. They said it was because the USAttorneys were underperforming in their jobs. Which would've been a perfectly reasonable rational for the firings if it had been the case. But it wasn't.

What is interesting, as Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo pointed out (and who is to the go to source on this story, and has been since December), is that none of these USAttorneys would've gone public with their complaints if they hadn't been slandered by the DOJ. They would've taken the firings and moved on. However, when the DOJ attacked their credibility they finally felt the need to defend themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:53 AM

JKIDDO

I decided to google up "Reno Clinton fire 93". When I could only find references to the Drudge Report and lesser-known websites I got suspicious about the honesty of Hero's post. I had to go rather deeply down the list before I found this:

What happens at the start of each administration is that all of the AGs submit their resgnations. This has occurred for many admins previous (Carter, Reagan and Bush) However, several AGs refused to tender their resignations, prolly to embarrass Clinton, which led Reno to request resignations from ALL of them.

http://watchingthewatchers.org/story/2007/3/13/15406/0864

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:56 AM

JKIDDO

doubly good

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:49 PM

The short answer to the claim that USAttorneys serve at the pleasure of the President is: Why then did they feel the need to lie about why the USAttorneys were fired?

Everything else is designed to cloud the fact that, when questioned about the firings, the administration made up reasons that don't hold water.

And when you look at the real reason - that the USAttorneys weren't political enough in their choice of who to prosecute - there is evidence that administration officials and politicians were illegally pressuring the USAttorneys. For example, how else to interpret a sitting US Senator calling up a USAttorney at his house and asking him if he would be bringing indictments of Democrats before the 2006 midterm, finding out that he wouldn't be, expressing his disappointment at that response and then slamming down the phone (which is exactly what Domenici did to Iglesias in New Mexico).

* eta: Why the USAttorneys were fired opens up a whole other can of worms wrt USAttorneys who weren't fired. Was pressure brought to bear on other USAttorneys to be more political in who they chose to prosecute or not prosecute and did they succumb to that pressure? For example, the New Hampshire phone jamming case that has already resulted in prison time for many of the participants. The investigation into that case has been exceedingly slow, excruciatingly slow, even with evidence that the orders for the phone jamming came from the highest levels. It's no wonder that Sununu is calling for Gonzales to resign. The phone jamming may indeed have led to his election and he's the last person who wants people to be reminded that Republican operatives engaged in illegal voter suppression activities when he has to run for reelection in two years. He's probably hoping all this can blow over without breaking open.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:00 PM

JKIDDO

All I can say is... If Hero prosecutes his cases with as little regard to fact as he posts on this board, they're paying him too much- no matter how little he makes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:10 PM

I've always thought that Hero was a Republican party loyalist who was good at his job. Which is why I'm surprised at the Republican party loyalist part of him trumping the good at his job part of him. The people who were fired were clearly Republican Party loyalists who were good at their jobs. They were fired precisely because conducting their jobs ethically was more important to them than party loyalty.

Although it does sound like they were willing to not protest the firings for the good of the party until their competency as attorneys was brought into question. So, yeah, they're not saints.

* eta: But we're not looking for saints. We just want our prosecutors to enforce the law while working within the law. And being a party loyalist says nothing about your ability to do that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Where's it stated that a President MUST fire all USAttorneys upon entering his 1st term in office ? Oh, that's right - no where.

Maybe 'SOME' credit can be given to Bush that he only fired 8 USAttorneys, and that they were ones appointed by him, not Clinton? Fact is, a President can fire any USAttorney for what ever reason he/she deems fit. Wearing white socks might be reason enough. It sucks, but that's how it's been done in D.C. for ages now.

Clinton fired 2 USAttorneys who were working on cases involving Democrats, so why can't the same level of cynicism be raised for his actions, if also raised for Bush ?

Naww. The Left will gloss over the tiny details, and make a federal case out of this, via the media.

Pure, concentrated, inside the belt way politics. Nothing more.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Maybe 'SOME' credit can be given to Bush that he only fired 8 USAttorneys, and that they were ones appointed by him, not Clinton? Fact is, a President can fire any USAttorney for what ever reason he/she deems fit. Wearing white socks might be reason enough. It sucks, but that's how it's been done in D.C. for ages now.

It's 2001 again? I must have set my clock wrong. How are you confusing the replacement of USAttorneys that usually happens at the start of a President's term in office with a midterm firing?

Oh, I forgot, this is standard bait-and-switch when you're trying to rub that red herring all over the backtrail (how's that for a mixing and mangling).

Quick question: have you been following this story since January? I have. Or are you just repeating the latest Republican talking points with little knowledge of tons of back-story? Which is where I'd put my money.

I agree that you can fire a USAttorney for a number of reasons. But when you are asked by Congress why you fired a block of USAttorneys all at once you probably shouldn't lie about it. Here is what Gonzalez said in a letter back in January:

Quote:
excerpted from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/01/16/opting-out/
...
In a letter to the senators Tuesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the turnover in U.S. Attorneys was normal. “Please be assured that United States Attorneys never are removed, or asked or encouraged to resign, in an effort to retaliate against them or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case.”
...

That's why Gonzalez is in trouble. Because it's clear that the firings were an effort to retaliate against the USAttorneys or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case. There's too much documentary evidence to claim otherwise.

Which won't stop you from trying.

Even if you play by the rules and work hard and do a good job that's not enough for the Republican leadership. You could be a lifelong Republican but if you're not willing to subvert your ethics for the cause you're toast.

What a great message to send to all the mid-level Republicans out there.

* eta: Damn. I just realized I've been spelling Gonzales' name incorrectly. I hate it when I do that (/pet peeve over/).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
What happens at the start of each administration is that all of the AGs submit their resgnations. This has occurred for many admins previous (Carter, Reagan and Bush) However, several AGs refused to tender their resignations, prolly to embarrass Clinton, which led Reno to request resignations from ALL of them.

The article you cited is actually citing an unnamed Duke Law Journal article.

Bush did not replace all of Clinton's US Attorneys and some continue to serve. I note for the record that Clinton retained one of the folks in question...Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security Director.

Also, while many are replaced at the start of a new administration, both Bush and Clinton and likely every President have replaced people as time goes by. After all, eight years is a long time.

Staffing decisions are a part of Presidential privilage. Seems to me the only mistake the DOJ made was in answering the question "why".

"Why did you fire them?"
"Thats an internal decision and we will not discuss it, next question."

Done.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Even if you play by the rules and work hard and do a good job that's not enough for the Republican leadership. You could be a lifelong Republican but if you're not willing to subvert your ethics for the cause you're toast.

Lieberman...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Also, while many are replaced at the start of a new administration, both Bush and Clinton and likely every President have replaced people as time goes by. After all, eight years is a long time.

Staffing decisions are a part of Presidential privilage. Seems to me the only mistake the DOJ made was in answering the question "why".

"Why did you fire them?"
"Thats an internal decision and we will not discuss it, next question."

Done.

The number of USAttorneys fired at once was one of the things that raised eyebrows. Eight at once? Out of a total of, what, 93? Just a little short of ten percent?

The other thing was that USAttorney Lam was fired right as she was bringing indictments in the ongoing Duke Cunningham corruption investigation. In fact, that was her last act as a USAttorney, indicting former high-level CIA official Foggo and defense contractor and accused Cunningham briber Wilkes. The investigation was also starting to go in the direction of US Rep Lewis (*eta: who, for the record, is a Republican).

I agree that it was a mistake for the DOJ to lie about why the USAttorneys were fired but that wasn't the only mistake that was made, it was just the one that led to an investigation. Per usual, it's not the original crime that gets you, it's the cover-up. There was illegal pressure being put on the USAttorneys behind the scenes. But the USAttorneys weren't going to bring that up if the DOJ hadn't said they were fired for performance reasons. As David Iglesias, one of the fired USAttorneys, wrote back in February:

Quote:
from http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002632.php
This is a political fragging, pure and simple. I'm OK with being asked to move on for political reasons, I'm NOT OK with the Department of Justice wrongfully testifying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee that I had performance issues...

I'm curious Hero, since you're a prosecutor, what the general take on this is from your colleagues? Is the feeling that the USAttorneys should've played ball and compromised their ethics? Or that they should've just shut up and taken it when they were accused of being fired for having sub-par performance?

* edited to add: There were two USAttorneys who were basically fired midterm by President Clinton: one who bit a topless dancer on the arm and another who grabbed a television reporter by the throat. (via http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf via Bite by Bite via DKos)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Soup,

Just briefly, it was the WH use of attorneys to further WH goals that got Nixon in trouble. No separation of powers. That's an impeachable offense and a charge that was brought against Nixon.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The other thing was that USAttorney Lam was fired right as she was bringing indictments in the ongoing Duke Cunningham corruption investigation.

Odds are that at any given moment in all 93 jurisdictions the local US Attorney is investigating Republicans, Democrats, and/or PirateNews. So to say "they were investigating Republicans" is just plain silly, they investigate everybody and Republicans make up half of that group. If one was investigating Republicans and another was investigating Democrats, why were they fired? Because the President can fire them for whatever reason he wants...perhaps his soup was cold that day and he felt the need to blame the US Attorney in New Mexico...

Quote:

I'm curious Hero, since you're a prosecutor, what the general take on this is from your colleagues?

Thats easy. We serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. We live with this stuff. Mayor likes to support the Boy Scouts...I write a check to the Boy Scouts. Mayor is a jogger...I'm a jogger. Mayor does not like smokers...I don't smoke.

The general feeling is its a non-story. They got fired, happens all the time. Now they get to go make real money in private practice. Sure its a stupid way to run a government, but its a flawed system that takes merit out of the mix, but Congress made the law and the Courts said the President can fire them for ANY reason. Can't blame Bush for exercising his power same as it ever was.

You don't like it, call Pelosi.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Odds are that at any given moment in all 93 jurisdictions the local US Attorney is investigating Republicans, Democrats, and/or PirateNews. So to say "they were investigating Republicans" is just plain silly, they investigate everybody and Republicans make up half of that group.

That is what you'd expect. However, that is not what the numbers show.

Quote:
from http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002420.php
...
A study of reported federal investigations of elected officials and candidates shows that the Bush administration’s Justice Department pursues Democrats far more than Republicans. 79 percent of elected officials and candidates who’ve faced a federal investigation (a total of 379) between 2001 and 2006 were Democrats, the study found – only 18 percent were Republicans. During that period, Democrats made up 50 percent of elected officeholders and office seekers during the time period, and 41 percent were Republicans during that period, according to the study.

"The chance of such a heavy Democratic-Republican imbalance occurring at random is 1 in 10,000," according to the study's authors.
...

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If one was investigating Republicans and another was investigating Democrats, why were they fired? Because the President can fire them for whatever reason he wants...perhaps his soup was cold that day and he felt the need to blame the US Attorney in New Mexico...

You're ignoring the evidence of political pressure being brought to bear on the USAttorneys (the one in Seattle and the one in New Mexico in particular).

Quote:
from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003605090_mckay07m.ht
ml
...
The spotlight fell on McKay early in the day, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked him if he had ever been contacted by any members of Congress about ongoing investigations.

McKay responded that "some weeks" after the 2004 election, after a third recount had determined that Democrat Christine Gregoire had narrowly defeated Republican Dino Rossi in the governor's race, Ed Cassidy, Rep. Hastings' then-chief of staff, called McKay.

"I was told the purpose of the call was to inquire on behalf of Congressman Hastings" about the status of ongoing investigations of voter fraud, McKay said.

McKay said he was "concerned and dismayed by the call," given Cassidy's job and the sensitivity of the election.

McKay said he informed Cassidy that his office had already asked the public to contact the FBI with any evidence of voter fraud, so it could be investigated.

Cassidy then began to ask McKay whether any future action would be taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office with regard to the governor's race.

"When Mr. Cassidy called me on future action, I stopped him and I told him I was sure that he wasn't asking me on behalf" of Hastings, McKay told the Senate committee, "because we both knew that would be improper. [Cassidy] agreed it would be improper, and he ended the conversation in a most expeditious manner."

McKay said he didn't pursue the fraud allegations because there was no evidence to support them.

Cassidy is now a senior adviser to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and, among other things, advises Boehner on congressional ethics.

Hastings chaired the House Ethics Committee from February 2005 until Democrats took control of the House earlier this year. He's now the ranking Republican on the committee.
...

USAttorney fired after he refuses to start an investigation in the absence of evidence. Hmmmm. (* edited to remove the word shortly )

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The general feeling is its a non-story. They got fired, happens all the time. Now they get to go make real money in private practice. Sure its a stupid way to run a government, but its a flawed system that takes merit out of the mix, but Congress made the law and the Courts said the President can fire them for ANY reason. Can't blame Bush for exercising his power same as it ever was.

Fair enough. Another question, if you were requested by the major's office to prosecute a case, against a political opponent of the mayor, where there was no evidence of wrongdoing would you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Soup,

Just briefly, it was the WH use of attorneys to further WH goals that got Nixon in trouble. No separation of powers. That's an impeachable offense and a charge that was brought against Nixon.

Thanks, Rue. I'm ashamed to admit that I know very little about the crimes that Nixon committed and resigned for. I was alive at the time but still shitting myself and drooling (although, now that I think about it, that could apply to a few times during undergrad...).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:56 AM

DAYVE

New E-Mails Put Rove At Center Of Attorney Purge
ABC News | JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG | March 15, 2007 04:48 PM[/b/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1

Quote:
New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House adviser Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House.

The e-mails also show Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel -- weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

Alberto Gonzales has been GW's handpicked foot soldier since their time together in Texas. I think his blind obedience to Bush indicates the incompetence of Mr. Gonzales as Attorney General and will, or should lead to his dismissal. As for Rove - this is just business as usual.

Does anyone truly believe that this administration has the least bit of concern for the citizens of this country?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Fair enough. Another question, if you were requested by the major's office to prosecute a case, against a political opponent of the mayor, where there was no evidence of wrongdoing would you?

Could not happen. This aint Cleveland or Youngstown (both very corrupt Democratic political strongholds).

In fact were we to Prosecute the Mayor, a friend of his, or his political opposition, then we'd probably name a Special Prosecutor from the neighboring county. I myself have been a Special Prosecutor for the neighboring county (nice OVI case involving a local Prosecutor).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

New E-Mails Put Rove At Center Of Attorney Purge

So. January 2005 was the start of a new term and Bush was shaking up the DOJ. Its no surprise this was considered. As for asking Rove, thats his job...he's an advisor. Can't advise if he isn't in the discussion.

I'm sure they've considered alot of things in the last seven years. For example:

"Gee, what should we have for lunch today, Mr. President?"
"I don't know, let's ask Carl...Rovey what do you think?
"Ham and cheese on toast..."
"Good."
"Fine by me..."

Two years later ABC gets exclusive "Rove at Center of Lunchmeat Controversy"

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:00 PM

FLETCH2

Hummm, I can see the logic in that Hero but do they do that at Federal level? Ie if a national politico from a state is being investigated would it be his state USAttorney that would do it or another?

In any case it makes no difference. The possition you are in is that your boss is not the same guy who is the boss of the special prosecutor, so no pressure could be seen to be applied. In effect the USAttorneys all have the same boss, so whoever is appointed would be equally susceptable to strongarming.

Guess in that respect we all live in Cleveland....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

From my post above:

"Just briefly, it was the WH use of attorneys to further WH goals that got Nixon in trouble. No separation of powers. That's an impeachable offense and a charge that was brought against Nixon."

That's why it's important why they were fired.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:18 PM

Think we oughtta change the title of this thread. Given the news today, seems like, per-maybe-haps, they serve at the pleasure of Karl Rove.
Just which election did he win, after all? I seem to forget...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 2:00 AM

SHINYED

Nobody had ANY problem when Clitman told butchy-boy Reno to fire 92 of the 93 prosecutors...so what's all this horseshit from the smarmy, pukey Dems 'bout anyway?

I'm MORE pissed-off at the SPINELESS, PUSSY-WHIPPED Republicans for even engaging in this topic....Why are they such gutless cowards when it comes to protecting their electability, but all..oh so "brave" to vote to KEEP THE TROOPS in the Iraq meatgrinder?

Bush has made a lot of very poor decisions...NONE worse than his "vision" back in 2001 to "be a nice guy" and let many Clintonistas stay on the payroll....one by one they've all betrayed him & America..purely for their own personal political & financial gain....aka Clarke, Wilson, 87 non-fired Federal prosecutors, CIA leakers/traitors, etc etc etc.

Yeah...quit Gonzalez..ya stupid piece of chit....you haven't done you're job, just like your retarded predecessor Ashcroft ...not one iota...if you had, there'd be lots of newspapers, writers, editors, and politicains all sitting in prison now, found guilty of treason & sedition, and awaiting their executions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 3:40 AM

DAYVE

….but, but… Clinton did it tooooo….

getting a little tired of this stategy…

you guys need better material..

photo and accompanying article from firedoglake
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/15/but-clinton-did-it-toooooo-uh-no
-he-didnt/#more-7807

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

….but, but… Clinton did it tooooo….

They haven't used it Lately, Dayve, but the War in Iraq , and the Dead GI's , are his fault , too.
Haven't heard them blame Walter Reed on him yet, but they will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 9:07 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

isn't part of the matter that the administration was attempting to influence ongoing investigations? Apparently that violates ethics laws, but I don't know what books those ethics laws are on.

Anybody know what these are? Is this illegal or just highly unethical?

And if its just unethical, why don't you have a problem with that, Hero?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

isn't part of the matter that the administration was attempting to influence ongoing investigations? Apparently that violates ethics laws, but I don't know what books those ethics laws are on.

Its not ethical for a Prosecutor to be influenced. So if the White House pressured them and they allowed that pressure to be the deciding factor in the case, then the Prosecutors have violated the ethical canons. Just because your all ethical does not mean you can't be fired.

But calling a Prosecutor for "information" is not unethical. Matter of fact its part of the President's job to oversee the administration of justice. We recently had a gang rape involving high school students and an underage girl. The Mayor got a briefing because ultimately he's responsible for the police, the Prosecutors and the street sweepers doing their job and you can bet if those jobs are not being done properly in his opinion, heads will roll. Its no different for the President who is the nation's chief law enforcement official (among other things).

Quote:

And if its just unethical, why don't you have a problem with that, Hero?

If it were unethical, I'd have a problem. But its not, so I don't. What's unethical is the fuss. Everybody knows its a non-issue. Thats been part of the problem for the last twenty years in this country. Too much fuss over this, that, and the other thing and no fuss left for the real issues.

Its housekeeping. And guess what, the President's advisors...they advise him. Surprise!

This reminds me of the 'military planning invasion of Iran' stories we had about a year ago. Hello? Thats what they do. The military has plans for everything, they have groups of folk who sit around and plan, plan, plan. Only now ITS A STORY and A SCANDAL or A MISUSE OF POWER. Please. Its housekeeping, "want me fluff pillow?"

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 10:45 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

are you saying it is not a violation for lawmakers to apply pressure?

That is, if they are applying pressure and they have control over whether or not you hold your job, it's all on you?

I don't know the answer, I'm genuinely asking you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

are you saying it is not a violation for lawmakers to apply pressure?

That is, if they are applying pressure and they have control over whether or not you hold your job, it's all on you?

I don't know the answer, I'm genuinely asking you.

It might be a violation of some rules and for some people, but not others. What's pressure? Congressman have rules against 'improper influence' but make 'calls' on behalf of constituents all the time.

If Congress did make such a rule it would not apply to the President and if the President made such a rule for the DOJ it would not apply to Congress. The legal ethical canons are made by the Supreme Court and apply to the Prosecutors, but not to Congress or the President.

So is applying pressure wrong? Yes. Illegal? No. Unethical? Sometimes. And what exactly is applying pressure? That's always up for debate. What isn't up for debate is the black letter law cited in my very first post that gives the President the power to fire a US Attorney for ANY reason. When Nixon fired all those folks investigating him...they didn't get their jobs back and he was not going to be impeached for firing them because everybody understood that firing them was within the law, even if it was unpopular.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 3:19 PM

STORYMARK

...you are asking a lawyer about ethics....?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 17, 2007 3:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
That's why Gonzalez is in trouble. Because it's clear that the firings were an effort to retaliate against the USAttorneys or interfere with or inappropriately influence a particular investigation, criminal prosecution or civil case. There's too much documentary evidence to claim otherwise.

It's clear from the view of the Left leaning unbiased Press, hoping to make a story which isnt' there, of course.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

If the Congress decides to go ahead and supoena presidential advisors, I see this going to the Supremes. Seems like compelling arguments on both sides. Should be interesting.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If the Congress decides to go ahead and supoena presidential advisors, I see this going to the Supremes.

Not likely. The Supreme Court traditionally does not interject itself in political disputes between the branches.

The fact is the President is under no obligation to make non-appointed advisors like Rove available to Congress. He does not have to disclose what his decision making process was on this or any issue.

Congress can subpoena them. If they don't show or don't answer then Congress can hold them in contempt and there's nothing the President can do about that...but it has no practicle effect since they are not judges and don't have nice little holding cells to put folk in.

If it gets really ugle the contempt can become criminal and they can be charged with a crime. This rarely happens but if it did the President could pardon them...of the contempt...or at least its criminal penalties.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 22, 2007 4:52 AM

DAYVE

(post from 'start writing the obits' thread noting rule of law)*

.......but the fact is the majority in congress seems to want to distance themselves from his stranglehold on all branches of government.

There will be plenty of backlash at the dems who want to pursue all perceived wrongdoings by the White House and it could hurt them politically, but playing politics to get to the truth of so many unanswered allegations of unethical practices by this administration, IMHO, would be well worth the risk.

A very interesting article from Mark Kleiman, at samefacts.com, helps explain the power of the congressional subpoena and shows how congress does have some leverage in the matter.

Here are a few excerpts from that article and a link to the full story as well.

What leverage do the Judiciary Committees have over the Administration with respect to the Overblown Personnel Matter? Why shouldn't Fred Fielding just stonewall to his heart's content?

*Answer: a Congressional subpoena isn't a request, it's an order. (Sub poena: "under pain.") If the order is ignored, the Committee that issued the subpoena asks the parent body to vote a Contempt-of-Congress citation. Contempt of Congress is like contempt of court: defiance means jail. In principle, the Justice Department could refuse to prosecute but at that point even the Republicans in Congress would probably have reached the limits of their tolerance. In addition, either House of Congress has (though it seldom uses) the power to order its Sergeant-at-Arms to simply arrest anyone who defies a subpoena; that power, like civil contempt of court, is coercive rather than punitive. That is, confinement lasts only as long as defiance lasts.

If it looks as if there's going to be a subpoena battle, perhaps the Congressional Democrats might want to file Resolutions of Inquiry covering all of the white House and DoJ players now known to have been involved in the firing.

After the spectacle of the Clinton impeachment, my guess is that impeaching the President, even this President, would be unpopular with the voters. But I can't see any political downside to impeaching Karl Rove.

Footnote Of course there is one undoubtedly valid privilege against having to testify: the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against being forced to incriminate oneself. Rove, or whoever, could avoid testifying by claiming that privilege, though somehow I doubt they'd want to. But that applies only to testimony; someone can be forced to produce an incriminating document.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/overblown_personnel_matter_/2007/03/
leverage.php

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:45 AM

Just found this on Huffington.post.
Now of course , they're left wing, pro Democrat, terrorist loving traitors, but it still is an interesting point.

"In the White House Press briefing that just concluded, press secretary Tony Snow said that he was not aware of the president being briefed on the US Attorney issue. He further said the president did not sign off on the firings.

CNN's Ed Henry hit the nail on the head: if no conversations occurred with the president, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield presidential advice?

Tony Snow's response: "That's an intriguing question."

Darn straight it's an intriguing question! What the heck are they protecting if there exists no presidential advice on the issue? I'll tell you what they are protecting: Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, two of the President's most loyal and trusted advisers."

So since they serve at the pleasure of the Prez, did HE want them fired or not? How does anybody know? Where did he sign? Is he criminally involved? or do they REALLY serve at the pleasure of Harriet Miers, or Karl Rove? Who was elected to run this country?

ANother question: the White House released 3000 pages of e-mails, not in chronological order. Supposedly, there's a 16 DAY gap in them. Maybe this is a strategy of , " Let's bury them in irrelevant details. Maybe nobody will notice that we left out the 16 days where the real reasons were discussed, and the real decision made."

Nixon's gap was only 18 minutes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
A very interesting article from Mark Kleiman, at samefacts.com, helps explain the power of the congressional subpoena and shows how congress does have some leverage in the matter.

...But I can't see any political downside to impeaching Karl Rove.

This guy presents just enough facts to make a convincing incorrect argument.

First of all you can't impeach Karl Rove. Can't be done. He's not holding an elected or appointed office. Its like trying to impeach the White House Janitor...can't happen.

Your fella talks about subpoenas like he knows his business and they are really going to send the Sgt-at Arms out to arrest someone. First of all where do they hold them? Congress has no jail. And lets not forget an 1857 law in which Congress decided to vest this power in the Justice Department.

Ah, your saying, what about the early 1950's when an ambitious Senate Seargent deputized Hoover and a bunch of FBI agents as deputy Sgts and sent them out to arrest Mobsters who were ducking subpoenas? Good point, says I, but in that case it was not a conflict between branches. In those cases there needs to be a compromise...at least thats the Supreme Court's POV..."you fellas work this all out" says Justice SoandSO.

So lets review. Subpoenas have the force of law, unless they are in conflict with the seperation of powers. Good example is former AG Janet Reno, cited for Contempt of Congress in 1998 for refusing Congressional subpoenas regarding a campaign finace in the '96 Presidential election (something about Gore, buddists, and bags of cash). She was never arrested or tried. Similar examples go back thirty years and usually result in either a stalemate or te kind of compromise the President offered, which is probably why he offered it.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
So since they serve at the pleasure of the Prez, did HE want them fired or not? How does anybody know? Where did he sign? Is he criminally involved? or do they REALLY serve at the pleasure of Harriet Miers, or Karl Rove? Who was elected to run this country?

1. The power is the President's power. He can hire advisors to make recommendations or even empower them to act on his behalf. For example, the President is the Commander in Chief. Legally he has the power to personally oversee the operations of the 3rd Marine Battalion of the 4th Marine Regiment which deployed to Iraq last September. Instead he has assigned the job to Lt. Col. Scott Shuster who will act on his behalf and subject to the President's overall authority.

2. Is he criminally involved? No. Why? Because its not against the law for the President to fire a US Attorney for ANY reason including no reason at all.

3. They serve at the pleasure of the President, not Rove, Myers, or anyone else. Its safe to say, however, that if you don't please Rove and Myers, you may not be pleasing the President. In my job I serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, but if I piss off the Law Director...

4. President Bush was elected to run the administration.

What this is really about is a non-issue.

Can the President fire them? Yes.
Does he have to have a reason? No.
Does he have to explain the reason? No.
Does he have to make sure that if the DOJ gives a reason its the correct one? No, but in this case the Deputy AG who was less then truthful was fired.
Should he explain the reason? Yes, if for no other reason then it seems a big deal and it would defuse the whole controversy.
Is there a good reason? Well eight folk were fired. So far the press has had time to look closely at three and more to come in the next week but of those first three: one refused to prosecute illegal aliens until they were convicted of two or more domestic felonies in State courts, one refused to use the death penalty, and one was not in line with the President's policy of terrorist investigation. Prevailing wisdom is that there are more then enough good reasons for all eight and there has been no credible evidence put foreward that the firings were politically motivated, but rather policy differences.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 3:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Hero, got a question for you.

Suppose that Mr. Rove is subpoenaed and, for whatever reason, decides to appear before the committee. Would the members have to limit their questions to the US Attorney issue, or could they just go on a fishing expedition and ask, say, "Mr. Rove. Did the President lie about WMDs?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hero, got a question for you.

Suppose that Mr. Rove is subpoenaed and, for whatever reason, decides to appear before the committee. Would the members have to limit their questions to the US Attorney issue, or could they just go on a fishing expedition and ask, say, "Mr. Rove. Did the President lie about WMDs?"

I suspect that they would be limited in their inquiry. The various committees have jurisdictional limits. The WMD issue is properly before the Intellegence Committee. This is the Judciary Committee.

He will be subpoena'd but its the President's decision whether he testifies. Rove cannot assert the President's privilage on his own behalf.

I'm with Spector on this subject. The President has offered to let them interview his aides, not under oath and such. Its the traditional compromise. If they do it and are not satisfied then they can always subpoena Rove later. The Democrats are not interested in a compromise. I suspect its a perjury trap. Rove goes and testifies about something and then it turns out that some non-material fact is misrembered under oath and suddenly he's on trial for perjury when there is no underlying crime. Kind of like the Libby trial.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 6:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constiutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: ...

Article 2
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following: ...

Article 3 - concealing and failing to provide subpoena'd evidence - does not YET apply.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Must be fiction cause Nixon was never impeached.

I note for the record that Clinton's impeachment had several unrelated articles that were never included in the final draft.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 6:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh dammit Rue...

Beaten to the punch AGAIN.

I was gonna post almost exactly that.

As for impeachment, the best bulwark shrub has right now is the veep - less people want HIM in charge than they do shrub, so unless the Dimocrats find the testicular fortitude to "clear the deck", it's pretty unlikely.

Conyers has also hit the limit of his own consitutencies patience around here with his "it's off the table" position after lying to them repeatedly prior to the shift of balance in Congress... if there's any real competition against him next time around, he's gone.

Screw compromises, that's what got us into this, put ALL of these goons on the stand, find out the who-what-why-when of all this BS (not just the firings) and start charging people for it, being part of the gov is not a free pass, nor does it make one above the law.

Watching this for the past six years just makes me ill, we're acting like some third world junta run by a pack of psychotic generallisimos, and that HAS to stop, or chaos will soon ensue.

And if either party wants to get partisan about it, by all means, go right the hell ahead, as long as there is hard, solid evidence of criminal behavior, let em fry each other - the Dimocrats ain't no angels and are every bit as responsible for obeying the law as the Rethugs, and if partisan hatred is what it takes to clean these crooks out, so be it.

They all wanted to play dirty, fine - now let them face the consequences of it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 7:12 AM

STORYMARK

Let's all remember the words of Tony Snow:

Quote:
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law."

Apparently, the "rule of law" only applies to Democrats.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 7:18 AM

ERIC

Hehe...Tony Snow needs to go back to selling aluminum siding.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 7:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Must be fiction cause Nixon was never impeached."

Yeah, the draft scared him outa' office. No, not THAT draft, nor the sudsy kind either - it was the one Congress was working on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 8:11 AM

funny thing:

Every time I read a post of Hero's here, defending the Prez and his buddies, I can hear Mal's voice in my head, saying, " Joey Bloggs, huh? Well, would his job still be open?"

The funny thing is that Mal never said that...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Must be fiction cause Nixon was never impeached."

Yeah, the draft scared him outa' office. No, not THAT draft, nor the sudsy kind either - it was the one Congress was working on.

Yeah, Rue, the Republicands and Conservatives don't wanta admit, right now, that their oldest hero invented " cut and run", and ditched " stay the course", when it got down to the nitty-gritty. Might present a bad example to folks they're trying to jawbone on another issue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 8:43 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Must be fiction cause Nixon was never impeached."

Yeah, the draft scared him outa' office. No, not THAT draft, nor the sudsy kind either - it was the one Congress was working on.

Yeah, Rue, the Republicands and Conservatives don't wanta admit, right now, that their oldest hero invented " cut and run", and ditched " stay the course", when it got down to the nitty-gritty. Might present a bad example to folks they're trying to jawbone on another issue.

Yeah, the only time they like history brought up is when it's preceded by the words "But Clinton...".

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 23, 2007 5:26 PM