Alberto steps in it...

[red states rule]

The "King of Cut-and-Paste" strikes again. Don't you have any thoughts of your own?

Facts do get under your skin - don't they?

Why not address the facts of the articles? Or is that beyond your ability?

 

[CSM]

Clinton's nominees had to go through the Senate confirmation process. They could not be appointed to serve indefinitely, bypassing Senate confirmation, as is now possible under the USA PATRIOT Act. BUt more to the point, Goatboy never fired federal attorneys in political retribution.
BULLSHIT! 93 ... that number stir any memories? or are you saying all 93 were incompetent??? Are you relying on the supposition that we are all stupid.






They serve at the pleasure of the President, but they must be confirmed by the Senate, at least until that provision was slipped into the PATRIOT Act in the middle of the night. And they still must be confirmed by the Senate. You make it sound as if the interim replacements can never be removed

I have to admit, you are a master od spin. I only hope you do not truly believe your own rhetoric!

 

[red states rule]

I have to admit, you are a master od spin. I only hope you do not truly believe your own rhetoric!

He will not address the points made in the atricles I post - it is very hard to counter truth with spin

The Bush hating left and the liberal media no longer have a death grip on the media they once had

Now the crys for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to step down is the chant from the liberal media - did they same the same for Reno?

Read for yourself


Why No Calls for Janet Reno To Resign In 1993? As If She Were In Charge?
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 10:39.
Newsweek's Eleanor Clift complained on Friday's Diane Rehm show on NPR that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has drained all the independence out of his office, that he's acting too much like the president's "personal lawyer." In 1993, when Janet Reno announced the mass dismissal of all 93 U.S. Attorneys, no one demanded her resignation for her lack of independence from the White House. In fact, it could be because someone else was coordinating with the White House on how to run the Justice Department, the felonious Webster Hubbell. At that time, the Wall Street Journal editorial page found a "fascinating exchange" in an interview Reno granted to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw just after the Waco debacle on April 19:

BROKAW: Once the fire broke out, what did you tell President Clinton?

RENO: I haven't talked to President Clinton yet, because I have other [sic] with me, have been talking to the White House while I've been talking with the FBI. And as I have said, this is my responsibility, I'm accountable for it, and I've been trying to respond to questions from you and others in the media.

BROKAW: With all due respect, General Reno, you mean that the President has not had a direct conversation with you, has not expressed curiosity?

RENO: The President has expressed extensive curiosity. He has had a direct conversation with Webb Hubbell, who was with me as I was talking to the FBI.

BROKAW: And what did he tell Webb Hubbell?

RENO: You would have, I should say, as I understand, he was talking with Webb Hubbell. But you should check and see.

BROKAW: Webb Hubbell did not share with you what the President was saying?

RENO: Again, I have been trying to respond to the people. Trying to be accountable to the people. Trying to take your request and the request of others for information as to what happened. And as soon as I'm through with this, I'm gonna talk to the President.

A few days before, Journal columnist Paul Gigot editorialized about the U.S. attorney firings, after noting Webb Hubbell caused two U.S. attorneys to resign in protest after he arranged meetings to ease corruption investigations into Rep. Harold Ford:

All of which raises the deeper issue of who is really running Justice. Ms. Reno says dismissing the 93 [U.S.] attorneys was a "joint decision" with the White House, which means the White House decided and she announced it. Her letter asked the U.S. attorneys to send their resignation letters "care of John Podesta, assistant to the president and staff secretary, with a copy to me." Independent justice?

General Reno's spokeswoman adds that Mr. Hubbell was an "adviser" on the dismissals, though he hasn't even subjected himself to Senate confirmation. Perhaps in another era Mr. Hubbell would be Mr. Clinton's attorney general. But in this age of "diversity" and ethical appearances, a presidential crony from Arkansas seems to need a skirt to hide behind.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11462

 

[red states rule]

The legalities have yet to be sorted out. That the White House feels that it is within its bounds to sack US attorneys who are doing their jobs is, particularly where those jobs involve the prosecution of Republicans, is an unethical abuse of presidential power.

But when were you ever worried about the legalities? Oh, I remember, when Goatboy fired the travel office staffers. It's okay if Republicans abuse the powers of their offices, but scream bloody murder when a Democrat does it.

Chimpy and Co may have collectively crossed the line in conspiracy and obstruction when they denied investigators from the OPR the security clearances they needed to investigate Bush's warrantless wiretapping scheme.

I do so love watching the wheels falling off of this particular administration's cart. Schadenfreude...Just can't help myself.

Nature of the job

By Dan K. Thomasson
March 18, 2007


Those who subscribe to the notion U.S. attorneys are above the political fray are potential customers for a sweet real estate deal in the Okefenokee Swamp.
Just to clear things up a bit, U.S. attorneys get their jobs by being either loyal workers or contributors to the success of their political party or knowing someone with strong political connections to the White House. They may or may not be great attorneys. That really has very little to do with it. They are pure and simple political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president and are subject to dismissal at any time despite the false security of a four-year term.
Furthermore, while they like to maintain that once in office they are independent from the wishes of their bosses in Washington, that is only partially true. They are expected to follow the policies endorsed by the administration. In the case of at least some of the eight fired by the Justice Department, the White House and Republican lawmakers apparently were unhappy about their failure to expeditiously pursue allegations of Democratic voter fraud.
Certainly there have been well-documented instances when prosecution was sidetracked because of pure political consideration.
In the 1950s a federal grand jury voted unanimously to indict a controversial but popular African-American congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, on a number of fraud and corruption counts. Before the action was announced, the congressman, a Democrat, held a press conference endorsing Republican Dwight Eisenhower's re-election as president. The then-attorney general, with the acquiescence of the U.S. attorney, refused to approve the indictment.
Since Watergate, there has been far less interference. When questions involving administration propriety have arisen, the Justice Department often has acquiesced to an outside prosecutor to avoid an appearance of favoritism or cover-up.
Having said all that, the heavy-handedness of the dismissal was deplorable. Even President Bush found it so. It is not good form to call someone Friday and tell them not to come to work Monday, particularly those with such high-profile jobs. The result has been predictable -- a veritable Democratic orgy of protest and chest thumping that threatens the job of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, already a controversial figure, and causes the beleaguered Mr. Bush further heartburn.
But what did the White House and the department expect? Hello. There is a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill that has its eyes set on recapturing the Oval Office in less than two years and intends to take full advantage of every opportunity to whack an increasingly unpopular lame-duck Republican president.
Some of the more virulent critics have waited a long time to get even not only with a president, whom they feel is a puppet for evil forces, but the chief puppeteer, Karl Rove, whom they blame for their loss of the last two presidential elections.
Mr. Gonzales admits mistakes were made. He is correct and one of the worst was his silly statement he would never relieve one of the attorneys for political reasons. Of course he would. Every administration since the position was created has done just that when its political interests were at stake. A major difference between now and then is that these actions weren't documented by e-mails.
Clearly Mr. Gonzales' chief assistant, Eric Sampson, author of the e-mails outlining the firing strategy and who has now resigned, was a major player. But Mr. Gonzales' protest that he personally wasn't in the loop is ridiculous. Please. The ultimate responsibility is his and he must at least take blame for employing Mr. Sampson.
Because of his weak performance here and in other controversies, it is quite possible the president's opponents will end up with Mr. Gonzales' scalp. The prolonged problems of Iraq and Afghanistan may have weakened Mr. Bush to the point he is unable to prevent that without damaging his other objectives.
But Mr. Bush is nothing if not stubborn and prone to slug it out when necessary. A word of caution to Democrats: Be careful with Mr. Gonzales, the son of Mexican immigrants who is the first Hispanic -- now the largest minority in the nation -- to hold that prestigious job. A Latino political backlash could be a concern.
Meanwhile, don't be fooled by the holier-than-thou attitude of those inside the Beltway who claim there is no politics in Justice and that your favorite U.S. attorney got and keeps his job strictly on merit.

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...4440-5674r.htm

 

[red states rule]

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.

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.


As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc

 

[red states rule]

The non-scandalous scandal
By Mike Gallagher
Friday, March 16, 2007



Move over, Watergate. There’s a big new scandal in America. The impeachment of a president? That’s child’s play compared to this biggie.

In fact, to read today’s papers, all the political controversies in our nation’s history combined don’t add up to the earthquake of a scandal that is rocking our world: the Bush Administration was involved in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall of a high school social studies class when a student timidly raises his hand and says to the teacher, “Um, Miss Smith – if President Clinton can fire all 93 U.S. attorneys for obvious political reasons, why can’t President Bush?”

It’d be fascinating to hear what Miss Smith would say. If she’s a liberal Democrat hell-bent on destroying the Bush Administration, I suppose she’d say something to the effect that it somehow looks worse to fire eight people than all ninety-three.

But if she has a shred of fairness and objectivity, she’d answer the student’s question by laughing out loud at the absurdity of Democrats – and a couple of spineless Republicans – thumping their chest in outrage over a complete, total, meaningless, entirely non-issue.

I get tired of repeatedly asking fundamental questions that make me sound like I’m leading a group of mentally challenged people. Just like we often ask, “What is it about illegal immigrants you don’t understand?” we now have to ask, “What is it about the fact that the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president that you don’t understand?”

Yes, all one has to do to respond to this idiotic firestorm of controversy is point out the obvious: U.S. attorneys can be appointed and dismissed by the administration for whatever reason it chooses.

I’m not exaggerating here; this is a laugh-out-loud contrived and concocted political “scandal.” Aided by a willing and enthusiastic Bush-hating news media, hypocritical Democrats are trying to convince the American people that a White House “connection” to the dismissal of these U.S. attorneys is somehow sinister.

I keep waiting and watching for a Democrat, any Democrat, to explain why Bill Clinton’s house-cleaning purge of 1993 is a different situation. In fact, I foolishly waited for former Clinton aide-turned ABC News “journalist” (ha!) George Stephanopolous to ask that of Hillary Clinton while interviewing her the other day about the “scandal.” Silly me. Why would the man who was at Clinton’s right hand in the middle of the mass firings and the woman who was at his left hand even touch on the subject in front of millions of viewers? Even a couple of rabid liberals like them know how to keep their mouths shut when it comes to reeking hypocrisy.

So the only thing left to ponder is why there’s been such a tepid, lukewarm, practically non-existent response from the Bush Administration and Republicans everywhere.

My theory is that there can only be one explanation: despite knowing that this is a non-scandal, conservatives have never really liked Alberto Gonzales and so they’re happy to see him twist in the wind.

I’ve heard the grumblings in the past about the moderate nature of some of Gonzales’ positions on social issues. Others say he is too mild-mannered and even bland for the job. In fact, his media appearances this week seem to confirm that. It really wouldn’t have been much of a stretch for the U.S. Attorney General to dismiss this entire affair with a laugh and an observation to the TV interviewers that politics is certainly blood sport.

Instead, he came across as the proverbial deer in the headlights, saying something about “taking responsibility” for certain aspects of all of this and practically acting like he robbed a bank.

Everything about this fabricated controversy stinks. And the worst part of it is this: if and when Gonzales – or Karl Rove – should happen to resign in order to get the world off President Bush’s back, the bullies of the media and the Democratic Party will wallow in victory and be more monstrous than ever.

One of these days, our side will wake up and realize that you gotta fight back.

 

[red states rule]

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?

CBS Gives Full Air Time to Attorney Firing Critics
Posted by Justin McCarthy on March 18, 2007 - 10:54.
CBS continues to pound away the US attorney firings story. On the March 16th edition of "The Early Show," reporter Bill Plante lead his story stating "the hole just keeps getting deeper." Plante then played a sound bite from Democratic hyper partisan Senators Chuck Schumer at Patrick Leahy. After playing a few clips of White House staffers Karl Rove and Tony Snow, they hyped Republicans calling for their resignation, touting Senator Gordon Smith and playing a sound bite of Representative Dana Rohrabacher implying Gonzales should go.

Anchor Harry Smith sought some expert opinion from Republican strategist Ed Rollins and Democratic strategist Mike Feldman. Fair and balanced debate? Not from what Mr. Rollins said from the start.

HARRY SMITH: Ed, let me start with you. Alberto Gonzales, two questions, should he stay or should he go?


ED ROLLINS: It certainly isn't the president's prerogative, but I would argue that he should go. Think at this point in time they're losing support among Republican Senators by the day. And the president desperately needs their support.

The transcript from the story is below.

HARRY SMITH: There are growing signs that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could lose his job for his handling of the firing of those eight US attorneys. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante is live at the White House with the latest. Good morning, Bill.

BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The hole just keeps getting deeper. New e-mails released last night by the Justice Department showed that while Gonzales was still the White House counsel in late '04 and early '05, he was involved in a discussion about getting rid of 15 to 20 percent of the US attorneys. And White House counselor Karl Rove was also involved in that discussion.


SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Well, it shows he certainly had the idea, firing US attorneys. It shows that the White House statements that he wasn't involved are false.

PLANTE: The e-mail quotes Rove as asking a White House lawyer in January 2005 "how we planned to proceed regarding US attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all, or selectively replace them." Rove defended the firings and dismissed the outrage as partisanship.

KARL ROVE: This, to my mind is a lot of politics. And I understand that's what Congress has a right to play around with, and they're going to do it.


PLANTE: The Senate Judiciary Committee authorized subpoenas for five Justice Department officials, even though Attorney General Gonzales has said they will testify. But action on subpoenas for former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and for Rove has been postponed until next week as negotiations continue between the White House and Congress.

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): We now have strong reason to believe that despite the earlier protestations to the contrary, Karl Rove and political operatives at the White House and for the Republican party played a role.

PLANTE: The attorney general says he will testify and the president is still publicly supportive.

TONY SNOW: The president has confidence in the attorney general. He's made that clear both privately to the attorney general. He made it clear yesterday in the press conference.


PLANTE: But a second Republican Senator, Oregon's Gordon Smith, has now urged Gonzales to step down, as did GOP House member Dana Rohrabacher.


REP DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA): Maybe the president should have an attorney general who is less a personal friend and more professional in his approach.

PLANTE: The public may be-- I mean the president may be publicly supportive, but influential Republicans around the White House are less so. They say he's finished, he's a problem, he has to go. Harry.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11487

 

[Bullypulpit]

I have to admit, you are a master od spin. I only hope you do not truly believe your own rhetoric!

I don't have to spin anything. It is customary for a President to seek replacement of US attorneys at the beginning of their administration. Reagan replaced some 80 US attorneys, and nobody kicked up a fuss then. Chimpy also replaced some 90 US attorneys at the beginning of his first administration...nobody bitched about that either.

What struck a nerve here is the obvious, given the amount of e-mail traffic on the matter between the White House and the DoJ, attempt to eliminate those US attorneys that weren't marching in lock-step with the White House. There is also the cronyism of replacing the Arkansas US attorney with a former Rove staffer. There is the effort to bypass Senate confirmation of these replacements using a clause in the PATRIOT Act which permits US attorneys to be appointed by the DoJ for an indefinite period without confirmation hearings. There are also some 20 US attorney seats which have yet to be filled by Chimpy, so why the rush to fill these appointments especially since six of them were sacked in December alone? And why was Harriet Miers replaced by Fred F. Fielding, former Associate Counsel to Richard Nixon?

Let me direct you <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009>HERE</a> for a debunking of some of the mythology you've helped to promulgate here.

 

[red states rule]

I don't have to spin anything. It is customary for a President to seek replacement of US attorneys at the beginning of their administration. Reagan replaced some 80 US attorneys, and nobody kicked up a fuss then. Chimpy replaced a number of US attorneys at the beginning of his first administration...nobody bitched about that either.

What struck a nerve here is the obvious, given the amount of e-mail traffic on the matter between the White House and the DoJ, attempt to eliminate those US attorneys that weren't marching in lock-step with the White House. There is also the cronyism of replacing the Arkansas US attorney with a former Rove staffer. There is the effort to bypass Senate confirmation of these replacements using a clause in the PATRIOT Act which permits US attorneys to be appointed by the DoJ for an indefinite period without confirmation hearings. There are also some 20 US attorney eats which have yet to be filled by Chimpy, so why the rush to fill these appointments? Politics.

Let me direct you <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009>HERE</a> for a debunking of some of the mythology you've helped to promulgate here.

There is no issue here so libs will make one up. The liberal media will report the made up issue as a scandal

 

[Bullypulpit]

Poor RSR. His original statements, such as they are, are limited to a few short sentences. Everything else is cut-and-paste. Such a tragedy. Gotta go now, love you...really. B'bye!

 

[red states rule]

Poor RSR. His original statements, such as they are, are limited to a few short sentences. Everything else is cut-and-paste. Such a tragedy. Gotta go now, love you...really. B'bye!

Since you did not point out where it is illegal to fire the lawyers - why do I have write a long response?

 

[red states rule]

I don't have to spin anything. It is customary for a President to seek replacement of US attorneys at the beginning of their administration. Reagan replaced some 80 US attorneys, and nobody kicked up a fuss then. Chimpy also replaced some 90 US attorneys at the beginning of his first administration...nobody bitched about that either.

What struck a nerve here is the obvious, given the amount of e-mail traffic on the matter between the White House and the DoJ, attempt to eliminate those US attorneys that weren't marching in lock-step with the White House. There is also the cronyism of replacing the Arkansas US attorney with a former Rove staffer. There is the effort to bypass Senate confirmation of these replacements using a clause in the PATRIOT Act which permits US attorneys to be appointed by the DoJ for an indefinite period without confirmation hearings. There are also some 20 US attorney seats which have yet to be filled by Chimpy, so why the rush to fill these appointments especially since six of them were sacked in December alone? And why was Harriet Miers replaced by Fred F. Fielding, former Associate Counsel to Richard Nixon?

Let me direct you <a href=http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009>HERE</a> for a debunking of some of the mythology you've helped to promulgate here.

Latest nonscandal

Ho boy. Washington is all agog over the administration's decision to replace a bunch of U.S. Attorneys -- eight of them at last count. Therefore the rest of the country is supposed to be all agog over it, too.
Let's hope the usual partisans about to beat this nonscandal into the ground, and the media that dutifully repeat and amplify their accusations, will excuse some of us for not joining the pile-on.
Because it's not as if federal prosecutors held nonpolitical, Civil Service-protected positions. These are all political appointments, and any administration is entitled to unappoint them. That privilege goes with a political party's winning a presidential election and, with it, getting to distribute the spoils of victory. Or in this case, redistribute them when it takes a mind to.
This has been going on since the political parties hurling accusations at each other were Federalists and Jeffersonians instead of Democrats and Republicans, but the game is the same. And it will remain much the same after this "scandal" is replaced by the next one, and the sound and fury begins anew.
Fair enough. The first duty of the opposition, after all, is to oppose. Partisan criticism is one more check-and-balance in a system just crammed to overflowing with them. And it can be a good thing, as any member of the press should know. Every administration ought to be subject to intense scrutiny, even heckling.
But that scarcely means the public needs to take every catcall seriously, or pretend every nonscandal is Teapot Dome, much as the party in opposition would like it to be.
If this administration's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a mistake, and he did, it was in talking loosely about how he would never replace a U.S. Attorney "for political reasons."
There may indeed have been good, credible nonpartisan reasons to dismiss any or all of these federal prosecutors. For what lawyer cannot find some reason to criticize another lawyer's work? Still, the attorney general would have been better off to just stick with the president's clear constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss federal prosecutors as he will, for they all serve at his pleasure. Instead, Mr. Gonzales talked about how above politics the process is. It isn't, it wasn't, and surely never will be.
For there would have been a down side to saying the obvious, which is that politics plays a role in political appointments. It's not done for politicians to admit they play politics, and that includes handing out patronage.
As a rule, pols don't like to be thought of as pols, especially if they are. So they avoid explicit references to their occupation, preferring euphemisms about being in public service, which of course they are. But like any servants, they have their own interests to look after, as they do assiduously. That doesn't make them bad, just human.
By now former U.S. Attorneys even have their own association, sounding board and lobby, to wit, the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys. Various of its members now have complained loudly about these eight U.S. Attorneys having been dismissed like the political appointees they were.
Can these distinguished formers believe they were appointed for life, or at least the life of an administration? Have they confused their posts with that of almost untouchable federal judges? Their sense of entitlement annoys as much as it entertains. Somebody should have told these folks, in the immortal words of Mister Dooley, Finley Peter Dunne's sage Irish barkeep at the turn of another century, that politics ain't bean bag.

This whole overblown fuss in a long succession is not without amusing aspects. These oh-so-indignant partisans are now shocked -- shocked -- to discover a handful of federal prosecutors are being let go for what seem to be political reasons. Can anyone recall their expressing the slightest outrage when a Democratic administration did much the same thing, only across the board, to make way for its own appointments?
In March 1993, Bill Clinton's newly sworn-in attorney general -- Janet Reno -- fired every single U.S. Attorney in the country, all 93, in the opening salvo of the Clinton Years. That administration never hesitated to reward loyal FOBs -- Friends of Bill -- whether the jobs were in the justice system or the White House travel office.
The clean sweep of U.S. attorneys in '93 may have been the most comprehensive, unmistakable, unprecedented, and politically motivated dismissal of federal prosecutors in American history. Surely they couldn't all have been incompetent.
At the time, Bill Clinton tried to make it seem unexceptional: "All those people are routinely replaced," he claimed, "and I have not done anything differently."
Really? But those other presidents were far more gradual about it. They did have some shame. Still, as president and chief executive, Mr. Clinton had every right to fire the federal prosecutors he had inherited, and appoint his own people.
Let this much be said of Bill Clinton's blanket decision to get rid of every sitting U.S. Attorney in the country: It showed a firm grasp of the unitary theory of the executive. All those people he was firing ultimately worked for him and, if he wanted to appoint different ones, that was entirely his prerogative.
But here's the punch line of the story: More than a decade later, another Clinton -- Hillary, at present the junior senator from New York -- now has complained about this current president's "politicization of our prosecutorial system." What a hoot. New Yorkers have a word for this kind of oh-so-outraged accusation: Chutzpah.

Paul Greenberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070318-094755-2352r.htm

 

[red states rule]

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.

Now libs are letting their powr go to their heads

White House Aides Targeted in Attorney Firings Probe
Monday, March 19, 2007


WASHINGTON — The White House will reveal Tuesday whether President Bush's advisers will appear on Capitol Hill to discuss the firing of eight federal prosecutors, but the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday if White House officials don't voluntarily agree to testify, he will try to subpoena them.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he wants White House political adviser Karl Rove and former counsel Harriet Miers to explain what they knew about the prosecutors' dismissals.

"On Thursday, I am seeking a vote for a subpoena. I intend to get (testimony) under oath. I am tired of these informal briefings where we don't get the full truth, oftentimes, we don't get the truth. That way, the American people know what's going on," Leahy said.

Republicans are also increasingly expressing concern about the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys, all of whom were removed from political appointments. Some of the fired prosecutors told senators earlier this month that they were targeted for political reasons. The Justice Department had said most were dismissed for poor performance

"Congress has the constitutional authority to set some parameters and guidelines. We don't want to interfere with the president's basic right to set policy," Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the judiciary panel, told "FOX News Sunday" host Chris Wallace.

"But there's a real question here if he fires for a bad reason, if he fires because a U.S. attorney would not respond to pressure to prosecute or if there was pressure on him to not prosecute. We're taking a look now, Chris, at whether Congress ought to legislate to require some showing of cause," he continued.

Democrats accuse the Justice Department of misleading them about the reasons for the attorneys' dismissal and the extent of White House involvement. More documents from the Justice Department are headed to Congress on Monday.

E-mails already received showed that Rove, as early as Jan. 6, 2005, questioned whether the U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and to some degree worked with Miers and former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson to get some prosecutors dismissed. Sampson, who resigned last week, said senior Justice officials knew the White House "had been discussing the subject since the election" of 2004.

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore declined to comment Sunday as to whether Rove and Miers would testify. Current Counsel Fred Fielding was taking additional time to review the matter "given the importance of the issues under consideration and the presidential principles involved," she said.

The Senate committee already has approved using subpoenas, if necessary, for Justice Department officials and J. Scott Jennings, deputy to White House political director Sara Taylor, who works for Rove.

Although U.S. attorneys serve at the president's pleasure, one of the dismissed prosecutors said he wants to know exactly what happened.

"They asked me to leave. I left. And they told the truth almost consistently throughout this about my situation," said former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins of Little Rock. Ark. "So I really don't think this is as much about me as it is the positions they've taken to try and explain the other seven. And that's where I personally am still very concerned, because I don't think they've been fair to the other seven colleagues at all."

"Performance has nothing to do with this," said fired attorney David Iglesias, who was working in Albuquerque, N.M. "This is a political hit and I just wish the Justice Department would have been honest when it testified in January that these were, in fact, not performance-related but, in fact, political."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is facing increasing pressure to step down in the wake of the firings, though he has apologized for the way he handled the matter. President Bush said last week that the firings were mishandled, but expressed confidence in Gonzales.

Lawmakers are scheduled to quiz Gonzales on Thursday about his agency's budget request. The hearing will likely focus in part on the prosecutor scandal.

On Sunday Gonzales won support from Republican Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a former federal judge.

"I know Al Gonzales well, and he's a good man. I think he's made some serious mistakes. I think he ought to be given a chance to correct those mistakes and I think if he does, he should continue as attorney general. But this is ultimately the choice that the president will make and General Gonzales himself," Cornyn said.

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said Gonzales has got to go.

"I wouldn't be surprised if, a week from now, he's no longer attorney general. He has just miscast his role, misperceived his role. Instead of just being the president's lawyer who rubber stamps everything the White House wants, he has a role, as attorney general, as the chief law enforcement officer of the land without fear or favor. And on issue after issue -- the U.S. attorneys is obviously the most prominent and most egregious. He's bungled it," Schumer said.

Schumer said Bush could "clear the air" by appointing a new attorney general and coming clean with the facts.

But Specter scolded Schumer for using the issue in a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee letter urging New Mexico voters to oust Republican Sen. Pete Domenici. Domenici called Iglesias to find out the status of an investigation into alleged voter fraud by Democrats shortly before Iglesias was fired. Domenici's chief of staff offered the Justice Department a list of possible replacements.

"(Schumer) has taken a very political stance. Now, he's got a right to do that. He's a politician and I'm a politician. But I don't think he can do both things at the same time without having a conflict of interest, but that's up for him to decide," Specter said.

FOX News' Malini Bawa and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ohhhh! Owwww! Yah got me! The "Cut-and-Paste Kid" strikes again!

As for Republican support for Gonzalez, Cornyn seems to be the only Senator voicing his support. The rest seem ready to throw him under the bus, and White House support is tepid at best.

As for your cut-and-pastes, they differ little in content from FOX Noise's talking points over the weekend. You're really gonna have to do better though. Show some original thinking from time to time. Come on, I know you can do it! I have faith in you. You're smart enough, you're good enough and, doggone it, people like you...I think.

And just so ya know, the firings of the US attorneys may, indeed, have been illegal. If, as it seems, they were dismissed for failing to misuse their offices for the purpose of political retribution or to interfere with the prosecution of political allies of the White House, those firings were illegal. The specific law is US Code, Title 18, Section 1512(c).

Alberto's conflicting statements to Congress could lead one to the conclusion that he was lying to Congress. That is illegal.

Contacting a prosecutor in order to influence or impede the progress of an investigation as Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Heather Wilson (R-NM) did with Davis Iglesias is illegal.

It is illegal to intimidate Congressional witnesses, as former US attorney H.E. Cummings testified happened to him. He stated that the chief of staff for Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty called and threatened him with unspecified retribution.

 

[CockySOB]

And just so ya know, the firings of the US attorneys may, indeed, have been illegal. If, as it seems, they were dismissed for failing to misuse their offices for the purpose of political retribution or to interfere with the prosecution of political allies of the White House, those firings were illegal. The specific law is US Code, Title 18, Section 1512(c).

Except for the fact that your cited section of the US Code relates to tampering with a victim, witness or informant. Can you cite case law which uses this particular section in a manner relevant to the "crimes" you have ascribed to (who exactly again)?

Perhaps you could find some other portion of USC Title 18, Section 73 (which deals with Obstruction of Justice) which is a better match for your alleged criminal activities.

 

[GeeWhiz]

The real issue here is the lying and the dirty trick that was played by the WH primarily Rove.

The WH originally claimed performance was the reason the prosecutors were fired; emails has revealed that this was not so.

Gonzales played a role in getting the Legislative Branch to slip in a line in the Patriot act that will allow the President to replace prosecutors without Senate oversight. Gonzales under oath testified that he would never do a loophole on that line and use it politically. Gonzales lied as the emails proved; see above.

Firing prosecutors in midterm is very unusual for any President save that of Bush.

Rove tried to downplay this by pointing at Clinton. Truth is no President not even Clinton fired that many prosecutors during midterm lets not even mention for political reasons that the DOJ did under Bush'es watch.

The pressure put on the fired prosecutors was political. The DOJ under Bush'es watch have tainted the DOJ in the name of politics. Moral within the DOJ has been at it's lowest since Gonzales took office. Moral is low because Gonzales tainted the DOJ.

 

[red states rule]

The real issue here is the lying and the dirty trick that was played by the WH primarily Rove.

The WH originally claimed performance was the reason the prosecutors were fired; emails has revealed that this was not so.

Gonzales played a role in getting the Legislative Branch to slip in a line in the Patriot act that will allow the President to replace prosecutors without Senate oversight. Gonzales under oath testified that he would never do a loophole on that line and use it politically. Gonzales lied as the emails proved; see above.

Firing prosecutors in midterm is very unusual for any President save that of Bush.

Rove tried to downplay this by pointing at Clinton. Truth is no President not even Clinton fired that many prosecutors during midterm lets not even mention for political reasons that the DOJ did under Bush'es watch.

The pressure put on the fired prosecutors was political. The DOJ under Bush'es watch have tainted the DOJ in the name of politics. Moral within the DOJ has been at it's lowest since Gonzales took office. Moral is low because Gonzales tainted the DOJ.

So the Bush administration fires eight lawyers it is a scandel

Clinton fires 96 and it is business as usual

Liberal logic leaves alot to be desired

 

[Bullypulpit]

So the Bush administration fires eight lawyers it is a scandel

Clinton fires 96 and it is business as usual

Liberal logic leaves alot to be desired

Bush fired some 90 US attorneys at the beginning of his first term. Dutch fired around 80 in his first term. This was part of the normal chain of events when a new administration comes to town. They had nothing to do with weeding out those the White House felt to be disloyal to the Administration.

These eight attorneys, Republicans all, were sacked for failing to place loyalty to party and president above their duty to fairly and impartially enforce the law.

Your logic leaves nothing to be desired as it wouldn't even make good road-kill.

 

[red states rule]

Bush fired some 90 US attorneys at the beginning of his first term. Dutch fired around 80 in his first term. This was part of the normal chain of events when a new administration comes to town. They had nothing to do with weeding out those the White House felt to be disloyal to the Administration.

These eight attorneys, Republicans all, were sacked for failing to place loyalty to party and president above their duty to fairly and impartially enforce the law.

Your logic leaves nothing to be desired as it wouldn't even make good road-kill.

Since the lawyers serve at the pleasure of the President - he can fire them as he pleases

I do nto recall any screaming when Clinto fired his lawyers

 

[Adam's Apple]

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?

Tell us the truth, Bully--did it bother you that the Department of Justice, under Janet Reno, became a political arm of the White House rather than the impartial law enforcement agency it was supposed to be?