Alberto steps in it...

[Bullypulpit]

Seems the firing of eight federal attorneys has led to some unintended consequences for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But then, that's not a hat he'd ever really worn at the DoJ. He's mostly served as an enabler for the Bush administration's policies. You know...warrantless wire-tapping...justifying torture...the suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>...FBI abuses of the PATRIOT Act...little things like that. Taken as a whole though, they add up to Mr. Gonzales failing in his duties as Attorney General. His job is to enforce the law, not help the Executive branch castrate the Legislative and Judicial branches. His job is to uphold the laws, not serve as an enabler to an administration drunk on its fever dreams of power.

The scandals that have erupted around him in the last week show just how badly he has failed as the nation's top law enforcement officer, and give us insights into just how corrupt this administration is.

 

[dilloduck]

Seems the firing of eight federal attorneys has led to some unintended consequences for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But then, that's not a hat he'd ever really worn at the DoJ. He's mostly served as an enabler for the Bush administration's policies. You know...warrantless wire-tapping...justifying torture...the suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>...FBI abuses of the PATRIOT Act...little things like that. Taken as a whole though, they add up to Mr. Gonzales failing in his duties as Attorney General. His job is to enforce the law, not help the Executive branch castrate the Legislative and Judicial branches. His job is to uphold the laws, not serve as an enabler to an administration drunk on its fever dreams of power.

The scandals that have erupted around him in the last week show just how badly he has failed as the nation's top law enforcement officer, and give us insights into just how corrupt this administration is.

And all the time I thought that was YOUR job, Bully !

 

[Bullypulpit]

And all the time I thought that was YOUR job, Bully !

And it doesn't bother you that the Department of Justice, under Alberto Gonzales, has become a political arm of of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcement agency it is supposed to be?

Hiring and firing US attorneys on the basis of their political cooperation with the administration's agenda completely undermines the purpose of having federal attorneys, in general, and the Justice Department in particular. Using an obscure provision of the mis-named PATRIOT Act, prosecutors hired under this provision need not go through the Senate confirmation process. This attempt to end-run the Senate and its oversight function is simply another example of how this administration seeks to gather power to itself, undermining the Legislative and Judicial branches...Another example of its obsession with secrecy...Another attempt to undermine the Constitution.

 

[dilloduck]

And it doesn't bother you that the Department of Justice, under Alberto Gonzales, has become a political arm of of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcement agency it is supposed to be?

Hiring and firing US attorneys on the basis of their political cooperation with the administration's agenda completely undermines the purpose of having federal attorneys, in general, and the Justice Department in particular. Using an obscure provision of the mis-named PATRIOT Act, prosecutors hired under this provision need not go through the Senate confirmation process. This attempt to end-run the Senate and its oversight function is simply another example of how this administration seeks to gather power to itself, undermining the Legislative and Judicial branches...Another example of its obsession with secrecy...Another attempt to undermine the Constitution.

I'm just going to rely on you to fix everything by bringing together a coalition of Bullys.

 

[CSM]

And it doesn't bother you that the Department of Justice, under Alberto Gonzales, has become a political arm of of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcement agency it is supposed to be?

Hiring and firing US attorneys on the basis of their political cooperation with the administration's agenda completely undermines the purpose of having federal attorneys, in general, and the Justice Department in particular. Using an obscure provision of the mis-named PATRIOT Act, prosecutors hired under this provision need not go through the Senate confirmation process. This attempt to end-run the Senate and its oversight function is simply another example of how this administration seeks to gather power to itself, undermining the Legislative and Judicial branches...Another example of its obsession with secrecy...Another attempt to undermine the Constitution.

The DoJ has been getting more and more political each decade, in my opinion.

Your indignation is sooo insincere...I wonder if you will have the same view if in 08 we have a Dem president who fires them all simply for political reasons...somehow I think not. I can already see your post about how such an action is merely to correct a grievous error by the previous administration.

 

[dilloduck]

The DoJ has been getting more and more political each decade, in my opinion.

Your indignation is sooo insincere...I wonder if you will have the same view if in 08 we have a Dem president who fires them all simply for political reasons...somehow I think not. I can already see your post about how such an action is merely to correct a grievous error by the previous administration.

Agreed--It will fit under the category of "things we can't do because Bush messed it all up so bady".

 

[Bullypulpit]

And this just in, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize the use of subpoenas in the matter of hearings on this grab for power. The subpoenas will include those DoJ officials involved in the firings...Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle as well as six of the eight fired attorneys. Carol Lam of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico, who have already given testimony before the House Committee will be subpoenaed as well.

A decision on subpoenas for White House officials involved in this matter are being delayed for a week. This likely to give the White House a chance to come clean...Which they won't. They'll claim 'executive privilege' which, since national security isn't involved, shouldn't apply.

 

[jasendorf]

Oversight by Congress?

What a novel idea? I'd almost forgotten what that was in the past six years.

 

[CSM]

And this just in, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize the use of subpoenas in the matter of hearings on this grab for power. The subpoenas will include those DoJ officials involved in the firings...Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle as well as six of the eight fired attorneys. Carol Lam of California, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, Paul Charlton of Arizona, John McKay of Washington state, Daniel Bogden of Nevada, David Iglesias of New Mexico, who have already given testimony before the House Committee will be subpoenaed as well.

A decision on subpoenas for White House officials involved in this matter are being delayed for a week. This likely to give the White House a chance to come clean...Which they won't. They'll claim 'executive privilege' which, since national security isn't involved, shouldn't apply.

Ah...the DoJ in cahoots with the Congress trying to undermine the Executive I see....I guess that doesn't bother you one bit, does it, Bully? I swear you would cut off your own manhood if you thought it would get at Bush.

 

[CockySOB]

The DoJ has been getting more and more political each decade, in my opinion.

Your indignation is sooo insincere...I wonder if you will have the same view if in 08 we have a Dem president who fires them all simply for political reasons...somehow I think not. I can already see your post about how such an action is merely to correct a grievous error by the previous administration.

Ahem. It is standard practice for an incoming POTUS to dismiss his predecessor's appointees and replace them with his own. This has been the case going back to Reagan that I know of. The only difference here is that GWB if performing an in-term replacement of some of the US Attorneys. There's no problem with a POTUS replacing the US Attorneys en masse on his entering office, and there is nothing wrong with replacing the US Attorneys during his tenure in the Oval OFfice.

The only people who have a problem with this are people who are desperate to find ANYTHING to attack GWB as POTUS. Rather than stick to factual or legal issues, they raise an emotional and sensational clamor in order to do some political grandstanding.

 

[jasendorf]

Ah...the DoJ in cahoots with the Congress trying to undermine the Executive I see....I guess that doesn't bother you one bit, does it, Bully? I swear you would cut off your own manhood if you thought it would get at Bush.

You call it undermining... I call it exhibiting the type of due diligence demanded of Congress and the Judiciary in oversight of the Executive so that we can remain a Republic instead of a monarchy... but, whatever...

If it's a Republican King.... Congress and the Judiciary are "undermining"... I get where you're coming from now. All Hail THE PARTY.

 

[CockySOB]

Oversight by Congress?

What a novel idea? I'd almost forgotten what that was in the past six years.

The POTUS appointees to the office of US Attorney still require confirmation to the best of my knowledge, except for the case of an interim appointment which I think is only good for 120 days. Even William Moschella, the associate deputy attorney general who spear-headed the changes to the Patriot Act which affect these interim appointments stated that the changes were not meant to circumvent Congressional confirmation to the post of US Attorney, despite the fact that the wording could be construed as such.

I would like to see the wording of that change to the Patriot Act modified and clarified so as to specifically require Congressional confirmation of appointees to the US Attorney's Office for terms exceeding the 120-day interim limit.

(source)

 

[jasendorf]

Ahem. It is standard practice for an incoming POTUS to dismiss his predecessor's appointees and replace them with his own. This has been the case going back to Reagan that I know of. The only difference here is that GWB if performing an in-term replacement of some of the US Attorneys. There's no problem with a POTUS replacing the US Attorneys en masse on his entering office, and there is nothing wrong with replacing the US Attorneys during his tenure in the Oval OFfice.

The only people who have a problem with this are people who are desperate to find ANYTHING to attack GWB as POTUS. Rather than stick to factual or legal issues, they raise an emotional and sensational clamor in order to do some political grandstanding.

So, you're saying that the DoJ replaces 110,000 employees every Presidential term?

You want to hire and fire career civil servants based on their loyalty to The Party? Is that really how you want it? This isn't about their job performance... it's about how much they did in accordance with the desires of The Party.

 

[CockySOB]

So, you're saying that the DoJ replaces 110,000 employees every Presidential term?

You want to hire and fire career civil servants based on their loyalty to The Party? Is that really how you want it? This isn't about their job performance... it's about how much they did in accordance with the desires of The Party.

Nope, not 110,000 employees each Presidential term.. But I am saying it is standard practice for the 93 US Attorneys to be replaced upon change of Presidency.

And your second paragraph has two glaring errors.
1) The US Attorneys are not necessarily career civil servants. Where di you get that notion?
2) Performance isn't even an issue, and Sampson deserved to be canned for misrepresenting that to Congress. The US Attorney serves at the pleasure of the POTUS, period. Even McKay said as much.

(source)

"I was told to resign by the end of January," McKay confirmed Wednesday. "I asked what the reason was, and they told me there was none.

"Ultimately, I serve at the pleasure of the president," McKay said. "I accept that now and I accepted that then, and that's why I resigned."

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ahem. It is standard practice for an incoming POTUS to dismiss his predecessor's appointees and replace them with his own. This has been the case going back to Reagan that I know of. The only difference here is that GWB if performing an in-term replacement of some of the US Attorneys. There's no problem with a POTUS replacing the US Attorneys en masse on his entering office, and there is nothing wrong with replacing the US Attorneys during his tenure in the Oval OFfice.

The only people who have a problem with this are people who are desperate to find ANYTHING to attack GWB as POTUS. Rather than stick to factual or legal issues, they raise an emotional and sensational clamor in order to do some political grandstanding.

Actually, it is most unusual for a president to engage in this practice in the middle of his last term in office. That these attorney's were involved in the prosecutions of Republicans, or refused to expedite the prosecutions of political opponents makes this mass firing all the more offensive. And let's not forget that the US attorney involved in the investigation into Jack Abramoff's dealings with the Marianas Islands was sacked and replaced with an attorney more agreeable to the administration...So agreeable, in fact, that the investigation was dropped.

There's no grandstanding here, except by the Bush administration in its hollow and insincere protestations of innocence.

 

[CockySOB]

Actually, it is most unusual for a president to engage in this practice in the middle of his last term in office. That these attorney's were involved in the prosecutions of Republicans, or refused to expedite the prosecutions of political opponents makes this mass firing all the more offensive. And let's not forget that the US attorney involved in the investigation into Jack Abramoff's dealings with the Marianas Islands was sacked and replaced with an attorney more agreeable to the administration...So agreeable, in fact, that the investigation was dropped.

There's no grandstanding here, except by the Bush administration in its hollow and insincere protestations of innocence.

While it is irregular, it is not unheard of. In fact, the recommendation of Harriet Meiers (doh!) was that ALL the US Attorneys be replaced in 2005 after GWB was re-elected to his second term. AG Gonzales indicated this would not be feasible without having viable replacements ready to go in order to minimize the disruption at the DoJ. So these dismissals actually have their root in a recommendation which was VERY MUCH the norm. The fact that the actual removals were not done immediately speaks to me of prudence. The politically expedient thing to have done would have been to dismiss these eight much earlier, especially if your delusion of conspiracy is to be believed. Otherwise why allow former US Attorney Lam to finish her prosecution of Duke Cunningham, for one example?

Again, the question remains, Bully. Does the POTUS have the explicit authority to appoint and dismiss the US Attorneys? The answer is still "yes" no matter how you cut it. And POTUS can do so on a whim. Please refer to my answer to jasendorf wherein I quote former US Attorney McKay who flat-out says this is the way it is.

The grandstanding is most definitely coming from the Democrats who are wanting to try to increase their power (both as a party and individually) for the upcoming 2008 election cycle.

 

[jasendorf]

If there's no problem here... why isn't the Administration just coming out and saying, "Look. These attorneys don't hum The Party's tune. So, we fired them."?

Why all the contortions?

 

[CockySOB]

If there's no problem here... why isn't the Administration just coming out and saying, "Look. These attorneys don't hum The Party's tune. So, we fired them."?

Why all the contortions?

I don't see why the administration made any comment at all on their dismissal, as I've said. The question comes as to who inquired WHY they were dismissed, and what made them think they had any business in that?

And you can ascribe whatever delusional motive you want, but that doesn't make your delusion real by any stretch.

 

[jasendorf]

I don't see why the administration made any comment at all on their dismissal, as I've said. The question comes as to who inquired WHY they were dismissed, and what made them think they had any business in that?

You're right. Stupid citizens. Who do we dare think we are to question the authority of The Party? Who do we stupid plebes think we are to look over the shoulder our politicians at work?

I'm sorry, I'll learn to subjugate to the will of The Party... perhaps a re-education camp is in order for those of us who dare question The Party?

 

[CSM]

Bully, just what is ILLEGAL about what has been done with these attorneys???

What specifically is ILLEGAL....not what makes you angry, not what you think of the administration, not what do you think....what is ILLEGAL???