Don't want another Enron? Simple, fire all those pesky attorneys...

[jasendorf]

Well, it seems that the Rove-smear and burn machine is at it again. The Administration has been pretty good so far at covering for him and his behind-the-scenes destruction of our government all in the name of power.

I wonder if the American public will finally see this guy for what he is.

How do we rate, hire and fire U.S. Attorneys in the President Bush era? Well, based on Party loyalty of course. Loyal to The Party? Then you will be rewarded. Capable of being a champion for the American public? Who cares. Welcome to life in the Power-hungry Republican-run government.

In this era of Power-Republicanism... who needs the courts if you have the sheriffs? There is more than one way to shield your constituents than stacking the courts.

All roads lead to Rove

The White House political director was clearly at the center of the partisan plot to fire U.S. attorneys, despite the administration's clumsy attempts to pretend otherwise.

By Sidney Blumenthal

March 15, 2007 | The Bush administration's first instinct was to shield Karl Rove from scrutiny when Congress began inquiring about the unusual firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Among the replacements, the proposed new U.S. attorney for Arkansas happened to be one of Rove's most devoted underlings, his head of opposition research, Tim Griffin, who boasted during the 2000 presidential election about the effectiveness of the negative campaign against Al Gore: "We make the bullets!" Griffin also posted a sign in his department at Bush headquarters: "Rain hell on Al!" A letter written by the Department of Justice in late February informed Congress: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." Despite this categorical disavowal, a sheaf of internal Justice Department e-mails released this week to Congress under subpoena revealed Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, writing in mid-December 2006, "I know getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Harriet, of course, was Harriet Miers, then the White House legal counsel.

The Justice Department's statement on Karl Rove was simply one part of its coverup. The department's three top officials -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general -- all testified before Congress under oath that the dismissed U.S. attorneys had been removed for "performance" reasons, not because they had been insufficiently partisan in their prosecution of Democrats or because they would be replaced by those who would be. Yet another Sampson e-mail, sent to Miers in March 2005, had ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys on the basis of being "good performers," those who "exhibited loyalty" to the administration, or "low performers," those who "chafed against Administration initiatives, etc."

The day before the e-mails were made public Sampson resigned, offering a classic fall-guy statement, claiming that he was the one who failed to inform Gonzales and other officials about the firings. Sampson, who was Gonzales' closest aide, accompanying him from the White House Counsel's Office to the Justice Department when Gonzales was appointed attorney general, had sought to become a U.S. attorney himself through the purge. And Sampson was considered to be politically adept enough to be considered a stand-in for the supposedly indispensable Rove. When it was rumored that Rove might be indicted in the Valerie Plame case, the Washington Post reported that Sampson was likely to replace him.

Sampson's abrupt departure was followed by Gonzales' bizarre press conference on Wednesday. Speaking in a passive voice that "mistakes were made," he pleaded ignorance of "all decisions" at his department, explained that it has 110,000 employees, appealed to his modest origins, and promised to oversee the investigation of his own misfeasance. His defense was the very grounds used to fire the U.S. attorneys: poor performance. He used his failure as a shield.

But the day before, Gonzales' ignorance defense had already been punctured. A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, acknowledged that the U.S. attorneys' dismissals were preceded by a conversation between President Bush and Gonzales last October in which Bush complained that some prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud investigations. These were, in fact, cases that Rove thought were especially important to Republicans.

Rove was the conduit for Republican political grievances about the U.S. attorneys. He was the fulcrum and the lever. He was the collector of information and the magnet of power. He was the originator, formulator and director. But, initially, according to the administration, like Gonzales, he supposedly knew nothing and did nothing.

Even after the administration alibis had collapsed, the White House trotted out Dan Bartlett, the cool and calm communications director, to engage in a bit of cognitive dissonance. There was no plot, and maybe Rove was involved in the thing that didn't happen. "You're trying to connect a lot of dots that aren't connectible," Bartlett said, adding, "It wouldn't be surprising that Karl or other people were receiving these complaints." Thus the "dots" are invisible and Rove is at their center.

To the extent that the facts are known, Rove keeps surfacing in the middle of the scandal. And it is implausible that Sampson, the latest designated fall guy, was responsible for an elaborate bureaucratic coup d'état. Nor is it credible that Gonzales -- or Harriet Miers, who has yet to be heard -- saw or heard no evil. Neither is it reasonable that Gonzales or Miers, both once Bush's personal attorneys in Texas, getting him out of scrapes such as his drunken driving arrest, could be the political geniuses behind the firings. Gonzales' and Miers' service is notable for their obedience, lack of originality and eagerness to act as tools. The scheme bears the marks of Rove's obsessions, methods and sources. His history contains a wealth of precedents in which he manipulated law enforcement for political purposes. And his long-term strategy for permanent Republican control of government depended on remaking the federal government to create his ultimate goal -- a one-party state.

"We're a go for the US Atty plan," White House deputy counsel William Kelley notified the Justice Department on Dec. 4, 2006, three days before seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were dismissed. "WH leg[islative affairs], political, and communications have signed off..."

 

[Avatar4321]

What the heck does Enron have to do with any of this in the article?

The President has the power to appoint and fire the attorneys. Period. It's perfectly legal. This is a non-issue.

I really don't like when Congress and the media try to limit the power the executive inherently has.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

What the heck does Enron have to do with any of this in the article?

The President has the power to appoint and fire the attorneys. Period. It's perfectly legal. This is a non-issue.

I really don't like when Congress and the media try to limit the power the executive inherently has.

Although I agree with most of what you say here, it's not a non-issue. It's a PR issue and it was handled poorly. Bush even stated his displeasure in the manner in which it was handled.

 

[jasendorf]

What the heck does Enron have to do with any of this in the article?

The President has the power to appoint and fire the attorneys. Period. It's perfectly legal. This is a non-issue.

I really don't like when Congress and the media try to limit the power the executive inherently has.

So, your response is... Congress needs to stop trying to undermine Our Glorious Leader? Maybe we should just dissolve Congress? Two parties are too much for you?

 

[CockySOB]

Although I agree with most of what you say here, it's not a non-issue. It's a PR issue and it was handled poorly. Bush even stated his displeasure in the manner in which it was handled.

Agreed. Which is why Sampson was fired from his post at Justice. Frankly I haven't yet read about a negative performance review for any of the eight former US Attorneys, and why Sampson told Congress they were dismissed for performance reasons is a mystery.

 

[jasendorf]

It's simple. You can't get your corporate campaign contributors to line up when they see former contributors like Kenny Boy Lay and Jeff Skilling convicted of their crimes. They paid good money for protection and the Bush Administration let them float in the wind.

Rove needed a way to assure his money men that The Party could protect those who were loyal and this was his way of showing them that if the attorneys weren't in lock-step, they could be "handled."

 

[red states rule]

I do not recall libs or conservatives being upset when Clinton fired 93 attornneys in 1993

BTW, all the corporate scandles happened during the greta Clinton economy. Libs seem to ignore that fact


Clinton Fresh: In '93, CNN Described Mass Attorney Firings as 'Clean Sweep'
Posted by Tim Graham on March 14, 2007 - 16:13.
The media’s historical omission of Clinton’s mass dismissal of 93 U.S. Attorneys has led to demands on the MRC archive for footage of Janet Reno’s declaration of the act – and our staff found an April 12, 1993 CNN special report where reporter Ken Bode called it a “one-day clean sweep.” Reno declared: “I have asked for their resignations at the request of the President…It’s important that we build a team that reflects our desire to have a Justice Department marked by excellence, marked by diversity, marked by professionalism, and integrity. I want teamwork where we’re both interested in achieving justice throughout America.” Video clip: Real (1.7MB) or Windows (1.9MB) plus MP3 (295KB).


Bode’s report as a whole earned our old “Janet Cooke Award” that month for slanting dramatically against the Reagan-Bush Justice Departments, allowing Reno to defend herself, but not GOP attorneys general Ed Meese or William Barr. As we wrote at the time:


Bode's story moved on to Clinton: "Clinton's first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high- profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new attorney general to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children, and a continued emphasis on crime and public safety." Bode aired no one taking issue with Clinton's years in Arkansas or his present policies.


Bode ended on a properly even-handed note, suggesting that Janet Reno's firing of 93 U.S. attorneys "raises suspicions that the Clinton administration is willing to put politics above enforcing the law." Bode let fired U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens charge politics were involved in taking him off the investigation of House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. He also concluded that the Rostenkowski probe "has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno." But Bode interviewed Reno and let her declare herself non-political in three soundbites. That's very unlike his treatment of Reagan-Bush officials, who were simply left out.


But much of the report was a harsh critique of conservative politicization of the justice system:


Bode selected an increasingly popular target, the Reagan and Bush Justice Departments: "For the last decade, the Justice Department was an ideological warehouse for conservative thinkers. At the same time, Justice became a political arm of the White House." Bode aired sound bites from Donald Ayer, a disgruntled former Justice official, and Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bode explained: "The Department of Justice will always reflect the policy priorities of a President, but the Reagan-Bush Department went further, undermining laws the administration opposed."


Bode caricatured the GOP record: "The Reagan-Bush agenda included a hard line on abortion, a rollback on civil rights -- trying to restore tax credits for segregated schools, for example -- also attempts to minimize affirmative action requirements." To explain this, Bode brought on liberal Ralph Neas of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He aired no one defending Reagan policies.

Bode also underlined liberal charges that the Reagan-Bush GOP had a racist pattern of punishing black politicians in political corruption cases, and a lax approach to S&L fraud -- a rich critique compared to the Whitewater File Shredders who came next. The man who's number two to Al Gonzales now gave me a rebuttal back then to the charge of right-wing politicization:


Former Justice official Paul McNulty replied to MediaWatch: "What about the 1960s? Was the Johnson administration politicized because it 'undermined' racist laws? In the 1980s, we wanted to bring on reforms as well -- to correct oppressive regulation, restore a sounder reading of the Constitution, question discriminatory civil rights laws. Every administration is suppose to advocate policies in legislation and in judicial advocacy."


That sounds like a much better answer than what we’re hearing today.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, your response is... Congress needs to stop trying to undermine Our Glorious Leader? Maybe we should just dissolve Congress? Two parties are too much for you?

We live in a nation based on the separation of power. The President, not Congress, is the one who has the power to fire Federal Attorneys. Any action Congress tries to take is an overreach of their authority. If Congress doesn't understand that then they should resign and let the people vote in congressmen who understand their job.

 

[red states rule]

Another example of the liberal media and how they ignore facts

CBS and NBC Pursue Gonzales and Rove, But ABC Raises Clinton and Lack of Illegality
Posted by Brent Baker on March 15, 2007 - 21:03.
ABC's World News separated itself from the media pack Thursday night. Though ABC's coverage was keyed to how e-mails supposedly show that Karl Rove was at “the center” of early 2005 discussions about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, anchor Charles Gibson pointed out how “these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?” Jan Crawford Greenburg answered, in a broadcast network evening newscast first, by informing viewers of how “President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration.”

Meanwhile, NBC and CBS continued the obsession on the story for the third night in a row. NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown breathlessly teased her lead, “The prosecutor purge: Did the idea of firing all U.S. Attorneys start with inner circle adviser Karl Rove? If so, what now?” The CBS Evening News led with two stories on the subject, starting with Jim Axelrod on Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher's call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Next, Bob Orr looked at how Gonzales “was tangled in controversy" before becoming AG. “As the President's chief lawyer, Gonzales sanctioned the widespread use of warrant-less wiretaps,”Orr thundered, thus “allowing the government to snoop on Americans without court orders.” Plus, “he also approved the so-called 'torture memo'” and “under Bush-Gonzales policies, prisoners were allowed to be held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay with no access to U.S. courts,” policies reflecting an “attitude,” Georgetown law professor David Cole charged, in Orr's words, which “led directly to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”

(My transcription of the CBS Evening News was impeded tonight by college basketball which aired instead of the CBS Evening News on the CBS affiliate in Washington, DC, so I had to transcribe from the Web-cast.)

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the March 15 coverage on ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson announced:


"The Bush administration launched a new defense of its controversial decision to fire a handful of U.S. attorneys without making the reasons immediately clear. Today top White House aide Karl Rove said several of the prosecutors had been fired because they did not make administration policy their top priority. And he said the critics are motivated by politics."

Karl Rove, before a group in Alabama: "Now, we're at a point where people want to play politics with it. And that's fine. I would simply ask that everybody who's playing politics with this be asked to comment about what they think about the removal of 123 U.S. attorneys during the previous administration, and see if they had the same superheated political rhetoric then that they're having now."

Gibson: "What Rove didn't say but we now know from White House e-mails released just tonight is that Karl Rove was more involved in the firing of U.S. attorneys than the administration has previously acknowledged. ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg joins me now from Washington. Jan, I had a chance to read this e-mail that you first learned about today, and it does show that a lot of people at the White House, very early on, were discussing the firing of U.S. attorneys, including Rove, but do they show there was political motivation involved?"

Jan Crawford Greenburg, a former Chicago Tribune Supreme Court reporter who recently joined ABC News: "Well, the emails that were released tonight show that Rove was at the center of these discussions from the beginning along with Alberto Gonzales. These emails took place a month before Gonzales was confirmed as the Attorney General. Now, Rove was asking whether any decisions had been made about whether to fire the U.S. attorneys, whether they should just target certain ones, so these emails show he was in on that from the beginning."

Gibson: "But to come back to the point the White House makes, was anything necessarily wrong? These U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at any time. So did anything really get done that was wrong?"

Greenburg: "Well, that's exactly right. And President Clinton, in fact, fired all the U.S. attorneys when he came into office from the previous Republican administration. Of course, a President can fire U.S. attorneys when he chooses. The problem for the White House now and the Justice Department is that these e-mails seem to suggest the White House, at least that's what Democratic Senators are saying tonight, the White House hasn't been forthcoming with how this whole plan began, and they show that Rove was in on it from the beginning."

Gibson: "This issue consumes Washington, and there will be many hearings on this with Karl Rove called to testify?"

Greenburg: "Karl Rove is unlikely to testify. The White House right now is discussing whether any White House officials will go up in the Hill and try to explain their role in the matter. The White House believes that goes to the core of separation of powers and executive privilege issues. So they now, there's a large contingent of people in the White House who think that they should not allow Rove or former White House counsel Harriet Miers to testify about those discussions. But as this email shows today, it will be difficult for them to resist because Democrats are stepping up the calls to hear from them."


My Wednesday NewsBusters rundown: “ABC and CBS Lead Again with Fired Attorneys, Paint Them as Victims of Bush Politics.” And my Tuesday posting: “Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/11452

 

[red states rule]

It's simple. You can't get your corporate campaign contributors to line up when they see former contributors like Kenny Boy Lay and Jeff Skilling convicted of their crimes. They paid good money for protection and the Bush Administration let them float in the wind.

Rove needed a way to assure his money men that The Party could protect those who were loyal and this was his way of showing them that if the attorneys weren't in lock-step, they could be "handled."

or how Obama was doing with his campaign doners?

Does Obama Have a Problem?
For the second time since signaling his plans to run for president, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is battling allegations of ethical misjudgment.

The latest incident comes courtesy of today's New York Times, which reports that shortly after arriving in the Senate Obama bought stock in two companies whose investors included several major donors to his campaign. One of the companies -- AVI Biopharma -- was developing an avian flu treatment even as Obama began work to secure increased federal funding for the disease.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama had entered into a "trust agreement" in February 2005 whereby his stock broker neither solicited his advice on investments nor consulted him when trades were made. As a result, according to Burton, Obama was unaware that the stocks had been purchased and when he found out that he owned them in the fall of 2005 he immediately divested himself of the stocks at a financial loss.

"Obama owned stock in two companies which he did nothing to help -- an investment that lost him $13,000," Burton said in a statement released Wednesday. "At the end of a thorough examination of Senator Obama's portfolio, It's apparent that his dealings were completely above board and his decisions were proactively made in the interest of avoiding the potential for conflict."

The controversy comes on the heels of Obama's acknowledgment late last year that he made a "boneheaded" mistake in purchasing a property in Chicago on the same day that the Democratic fundraiser Tony Rezko bought an adjacent parcel of land. Less than a year later with Rezko under federal investigation Obama paid $100,000 to the fundraiser and his wife for a piece of the property.

Taken apart (or even together), neither of these incidents are terribly damaging. But, no event happens in a vacuum. Obama has made ethics the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, rejecting contributions from lobbyists and political actions committees in an attempt to show his commitment to reform. By taking on the image as dedicated reformer, Obama -- rightly or wrongly -- ensures he will be judged by a higher ethical standard. Perception -- in politics -- equals reality.

The concern for Obama is whether the Times story winds up being part of a larger story line of misjudgments. One incident can be dismissed as a simple mistake; two at least raises the possibility that there may be more ethical questions lurking out there.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/obamas_problems.html

 

[jasendorf]

We live in a nation based on the separation of power. The President, not Congress, is the one who has the power to fire Federal Attorneys. Any action Congress tries to take is an overreach of their authority. If Congress doesn't understand that then they should resign and let the people vote in congressmen who understand their job.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. - From Article II, Section 2, United States Constitution
(emphasis mine)

I guess when it comes to Power for The Party... the Constitution takes a back seat. Congress is completely and wholly charged with advising and consenting on these appointments and they are solely charged with determining whether that power should be delegated. When the U.S. Patriot Act was rammed through Congress, they chose to give that power to the Attorney General... now they're choosing to take it away because it was abused by this Administration.

 

[red states rule]

Why do you hate the Constitution?



I guess when it comes to Power for The Party... the Constitution takes a back seat. Congress is completely and wholly charged with advising and consenting on these appointments and they are solely charged with determining whether that power should be delegated. When the U.S. Patriot Act was rammed through Congress, they chose to give that power to the Attorney General... now they're choosing to take it away because it was abused by this Administration.

Let see.... eight lawyers were fired by the Bush admistration

96 by the Clinton administration

I do not remeber libs having a cow over the Clinton firing like they are now of the Bush firings

These lawyers serve at the pleasure of the President

Get over it

 

[insein]

So, your response is... Congress needs to stop trying to undermine Our Glorious Leader? Maybe we should just dissolve Congress? Two parties are too much for you?

Basically, yes. Congress has its role and the president has his powers. Congress needs to stop trying to take the president's powers away and claiming more for itself. Hiring and firing US Attorneys is one the powers the president has. ITs ludicrous that the Democrats try to act there was any wrongdoing in what the president did.

They merely want to try and paint a scandal on anything in the hopes that something, anything will stick. Yet in 7 years now, they have squat on this president. They've thrown every single brick, mud, dirt, crap at the whitehouse wall in the hopes that it will tarnish it. Yet they have never been able to get anything to stick. You'd think that the "Most corrupt Admin in the History of the US" would have something these jackals could find. Instead they are reduced to calling routine practices scandals. Next president Bush eating rice crispies instead of cheerios will be a National Scandal. How dare he.

 

[red states rule]

Basically, yes. Congress has its role and the president has his powers. Congress needs to stop trying to take the president's powers away and claiming more for itself. Hiring and firing US Attorneys is one the powers the president has. ITs ludicrous that the Democrats try to act there was any wrongdoing in what the president did.

They merely want to try and paint a scandal on anything in the hopes that something, anything will stick. Yet in 7 years now, they have squat on this president. They've thrown every single brick, mud, dirt, crap at the whitehouse wall in the hopes that it will tarnish it. Yet they have never been able to get anything to stick. You'd think that the "Most corrupt Admin in the History of the US" would have something these jackals could find. Instead they are reduced to calling routine practices scandals. Next president Bush eating rice crispies instead of cheerios will be a National Scandal. How dare he.

with liberal patriots who needs the terrorists?

 

[CockySOB]

CSPAN2 is carrying the Conrgessional hearing on this right now.

Most of the arguments heard here have made their way into the hearing.

 

[red states rule]

CSPAN2 is carrying the Conrgessional hearing on this right now.

Most of the arguments heard here have made their way into the hearing.

I have not watched it but I can tell you what the libs are saying

They are attacking the right wing smear machine and blaming Fox News and Rush for distorting the facts

 

[CockySOB]

I have not watched it but I can tell you what the libs are saying

They are attacking the right wing smear machine and blaming Fox News and Rush for distorting the facts

Actually, Feinstein is claiming that there is no parallel between dismissing US Attorneys upon change of administration and dismissing US Attorneys in-term. Kennedy went on some tirade about civil rights abuses and DoJ.

Personally I thought Kyl laid it out correctly that there is actually less problem with this set of dismissals than there is when administrations change out the entire US Attorney roster upon taking office.

 

[red states rule]

Actually, Feinstein is claiming that there is no parallel between dismissing US Attorneys upon change of administration and dismissing US Attorneys in-term. Kennedy went on some tirade about civil rights abuses and DoJ.

Personally I thought Kyl laid it out correctly that there is actually less problem with this set of dismissals than there is when administrations change out the entire US Attorney roster upon taking office.

In other words more of the same moonbat liberal talking points one can puke by

 

[CockySOB]

In other words more of the same moonbat liberal talking points one can puke by

Pretty much, and as one would expect the split is pretty much down party lines.

 

[red states rule]

Pretty much, and as one would expect the split is pretty much down party lines.

You never confront a lib with facts, logic, and truth. It makes their heads explode