Former DOJ official says Gonzo's approach was "appalling"

[Gunny]

I gave you proof it was unpresidented.

Now give me proof you can refute the facts I gave you?

I've provided all the proof the issue needs.

Your so-called "proof" is proof of nothing. If you want to provide proof, show me the law that says the President can't do it. It's been clearly shown in more than one thread that the President CAN do it. The onus of proof is on YOU to explain why he cannot.

Which, you cannot explain. All you offer is a disparity in numbers you choose to call "proof" that it is unprecedented.

It's a bullshit argument and you've been had.

Enjoy what's left of your evening. I know I shall enjoy mine.

 

[Truthmatters]

Wrong. It's more partisan witch hunting for Bush doing what every President before him has done.

You can twist and dance and sing all you want, and NOTHING changes that basic fact.

It has never been done before and I gave you proof.

 

[Truthmatters]

Obstruction of justice is illegal.

You really dont care if its illegal do you?

 

[Truthmatters]

"Black demotion
On August 8, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that the day after a grand jury subpoena of records connected to Jack Abramoff "U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black." His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party, was confirmed without any debate. The investigation of Abramoff in Guam ended when "Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case involving [Carl] Gutierrez" because "the new U.S. attorney was a cousin of 'one of the main targets'," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials."[146]"


This was an attempt to end the Abramhoff scandal.

This is just one of the cases involved.

 

[Edward]

Numbers are irrelevant. You aren't listening. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees, plain and simple. They can be dismissed for whatever reason the President sees fit.

This isn't that hard; yet, you choose to make more of it than is there in your neverending quest to point a finger at the right.

That is arguable at best, and while you can cite the U.S. Code in respect to U.S. Attorney's being removable by the President neither the Constitution or law say that they serve at his pleasure. The law states that each U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President and does not say that the President can dismiss them for whatever reason he sees fit. He does not appoint U.S. Attorney's instead he nominates them and they are appointed by the Senate who along with the House has the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's through impeachment proceedings. Congress, choosing by law has granted the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's but the law does not state that this can be for whatever reason he sees fit nor does he have the Constitutional right to remove them and instead his authority to remove U.S. Attorney's is a legislative authority which is delegate and not an executive one. This gives the Congress (especially the Senate) the right to review his decision to fire specific U.S. Attorney's especially if they were fired for political reasons.

Senators from each state affected by these terminations have the right to protest and draw attention to the firings if they occured outside the limits of the Constitution and law and have a negative impact upon the people they represent as the Senate has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorney's and when one of them is removed by the President it is the concern of the Senate.

The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate officers of the United States including U.S. Attorney's but the right to appoint U.S. Attorney's is reserved to the Senate and the President's authority is merely one of nomination and not of appointment. Also, the law can be changed if necessary to remove from the President the ability to terminate U.S. Attorney's at will as he does not have the constitutional authority to do so. In fact, the Congress can also remove his authority to terminate them at all or the Congress can choose to modify the law so that he is not able to fire solely for political reasons. So I suggest you read the Constitution and law again as neither give the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he sees fit nor do either prevent the Congress from exercising his constitutional responsibilities over U.S. Attorney's.

 

[Edward]

You aren't providing facts. You're providing selected information and opinions to paint a specific picture.

The FACTS are, the President can hire and fire the attorneys as they wish, and the reason is irrelevant.

This is not a fact supported by the Constitution or the law. It is your opinion that the President can hire and fire the attorney as he wish. Only someone as ignorant as you would make this claim. First, the President does not have the authority to hire or fire U.S. Attorney's as he wishes because they are not employees of the President. For example, under the law the President cannot fire a U.S. Attorney because of their race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin or disability. An incoming President cannot decide he is going to fire all the black U.S. Attorney's because he doesn't like black people or fire all the women because he thinks they aren't capable of being U.S. Attorney's or fire a U.S. Attorney because he thinks people in wheelchairs can't make effective U.S. Attorney's. I suggest you take the time to read the law and the Constitution as it is apparent that you are ignorant of both.

Also, the authority of the President in terms of U.S. Attorney's is one of nomination (recommended) and they are appointed (hired) by the Senate. So your point about them being hired at the will of the President is simply idiotic. Second, neither the law or the Constitution grants the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he wants nor is the reason irrelevent. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law that gives the President this authority except in your twisted mind. Congress has the authority to review the decisions of the President when he chooses to terminate U.S. Attorney's who are appointees of the Senate and to take any necessary action to correct any problem.

 

[Edward]

I've provided all the proof the issue needs.

Your so-called "proof" is proof of nothing. If you want to provide proof, show me the law that says the President can't do it. It's been clearly shown in more than one thread that the President CAN do it. The onus of proof is on YOU to explain why he cannot.

Which, you cannot explain. All you offer is a disparity in numbers you choose to call "proof" that it is unprecedented.

It's a bullshit argument and you've been had.

Enjoy what's left of your evening. I know I shall enjoy mine.

The onus of proof rests with those who claim that the President has an authority he doesn't possess. The law does not give the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he wants and you cannot find a single provision of the Constitution or U.S. law that grants the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he chooses. On the contrary, the only provision you would be able to cite is the provision that grants the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's but that provision doesn't say that he can do it for whatever reason he wants and U.S. law clearly bars him in several specific instances from doing so such as race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age or sex. These are specific reasons he cannot fire U.S. Attorney's and it negates your claim that his authority is an absolute one when it comes to firing U.S. Attorney's so the burden now rests with you to provide a provision of the Constitution or law that bars the Senate and House from investigating the reasons for the firing of Senate appointees as theirs is the hiring authority while the President basically acts as the HR. Director who recommends to his CEO who should be hired. In fact, without the Congress having delegated to the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's he wouldn't possess it by virtue of his office and if they see fit they can limit or even revoke that right through legislative action.

 

[Edward]

Obstruction of justice is illegal.

You really dont care if its illegal do you?

There are many reasons the President could have had for firing these U.S. Attorney's which would have been illegal and obstruction of justice is only one of them. Had he decided to fire female U.S. Attorney's because they were women he would have been breaking the law. Had he fired them because of their race or religion he would have been breaking the law. The President is given much latitude by the Congress in nominating and removing U.S. Attorney's but that authority is not absolute but I doubt very much that you will be able to convince him of that as he has a total disregard for the law and the Constitution and only refers to them when it serves his purposes and then when he does so it is to conveniently twist them in such a way that they aren't even recognizable. Congress not only has the right but the duty to investigate the reasons for the firing and to take action.

 

[CockySOB]

They may serve at his pleasure but he would still be in breaking the law by putting a stop to investigations.

It is UNprecidented and history of the DOJ proves that.

The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of POTUS, and he can dismiss them at will. The "checks-and-balances" comes in when Congress is required to confirm the POTUS appointments for the US Attorney office.

Which investigations were impeded by these replacements? Rhetoric does not equal fact, although I doubt you grasp that.

The dismissal of in-term US Attorneys is not unprecedented, although it is rare. The only thing unprecedented in these dismissals is the number of individuals who were replaced (eight). But again, there is nothing illegal nor improper in a POTUS dismissing his US Attorneys at any time he chooses. IF you can provide proof to the contrary, please do so.

Remember now, that we do have Federal laws protecting the employment of career civil servants from arbitrary dismissal. But the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and not a civil service position.

 

[CockySOB]

Obstruction of justice is illegal.

You really dont care if its illegal do you?

And you're a partisan hack. You really don't care if you are, do you?

You just made the allegation that dismissing the specific US Attorneys was obstructing justice. Please show exactly which of the Federal obstruction codes you are citing and show evidence to support your claim.

 

[Care4all]

I think you need to do a little more reading on the subject. The attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. He is free to hire and fire them as he sees fit.

The fact Bush did so mid-term is neither unprecedented, nor unlawful. It's really as simple as that.

gunny,

fyi
I don't think you know that it is AGAINST THE LAW to hire one of those prosecutors for political reasons. By Law, they are not even allowed to discuss what party they even belong to or what POLITICAL views those hired believe in.

And by LAW, those prosecutors hired can not be fired in the middle of their term for any political reason.

Monica Goodling testified that she broke the LAW, AND POLITICAL posturing was a part of their considerations for replacements.

Sure Prosecutors are hired At the discretion of the President and with the approval of the Senate, but with no political agenda allowed! BY LAW! and this is how it should be.

Disclaimer:

I have not read the entire thread yet so if someone has pointed this out already, I apologize.

 

[Care4all]

The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of POTUS, and he can dismiss them at will. The "checks-and-balances" comes in when Congress is required to confirm the POTUS appointments for the US Attorney office.

Which investigations were impeded by these replacements? Rhetoric does not equal fact, although I doubt you grasp that.

The dismissal of in-term US Attorneys is not unprecedented, although it is rare. The only thing unprecedented in these dismissals is the number of individuals who were replaced (eight). But again, there is nothing illegal nor improper in a POTUS dismissing his US Attorneys at any time he chooses. IF you can provide proof to the contrary, please do so.

Remember now, that we do have Federal laws protecting the employment of career civil servants from arbitrary dismissal. But the position of US Attorney is a political appointment and not a civil service position.

RIGHT!

And WHY have you failed to mention that these 8 prosecutors did NOT get the VETTING of the Senate, they did not get Senate approval as per our constitution.

This was circumvented by the Bush administration and the firings and replacements were not vetted through the Senate.

Now, what is your "excuse"? What happened to the checks and balances and WHY did the Bush administration decide to fire and hire the new prosecutors without following the Constitution? Without the "Checks and Balances?

Care

 

[CockySOB]

RIGHT!

And WHY have you failed to mention that these 8 prosecutors did NOT get the VETTING of the Senate, they did not get Senate approval as per our constitution.

This was circumvented by the Bush administration and the firings and replacements were not vetted through the Senate.

Now, what is your "excuse"? What happened to the checks and balances and WHY did the Bush administration decide to fire and hire the new prosecutors without following the Constitution? Without the "Checks and Balances?

Care

Try doing a quick search on this site and you'll see that the GWB administration''s push to bypass confirmation of US Attorneys by delegating that authority to the US Attorney General for interim appointments is NOT something I support.

Nice to see you're still full of assumptions though.

 

[Care4all]

Try doing a quick search on this site and you'll see that the GWB administration''s push to bypass confirmation of US Attorneys by delegating that authority to the US Attorney General for interim appointments is NOT something I support.

Nice to see you're still full of assumptions though.

You did not answer the question, WHY do you think they chose to fire/and then HIRE these new prosecutors without the vetting of the Senate?

And nice to see that you have woken up on the right side of the bed! NOT!

Good Morning Cocky, how are you today? I'm not here to have a circle jerk with myself, but to debate with those that differ, without HATE or MALICE present, if that is possible!

Care

 

[Care4all]

That is arguable at best, and while you can cite the U.S. Code in respect to U.S. Attorney's being removable by the President neither the Constitution or law say that they serve at his pleasure. The law states that each U.S. Attorney is subject to removal by the President and does not say that the President can dismiss them for whatever reason he sees fit. He does not appoint U.S. Attorney's instead he nominates them and they are appointed by the Senate who along with the House has the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's through impeachment proceedings. Congress, choosing by law has granted the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's but the law does not state that this can be for whatever reason he sees fit nor does he have the Constitutional right to remove them and instead his authority to remove U.S. Attorney's is a legislative authority which is delegate and not an executive one. This gives the Congress (especially the Senate) the right to review his decision to fire specific U.S. Attorney's especially if they were fired for political reasons.

Senators from each state affected by these terminations have the right to protest and draw attention to the firings if they occured outside the limits of the Constitution and law and have a negative impact upon the people they represent as the Senate has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorney's and when one of them is removed by the President it is the concern of the Senate.

The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate officers of the United States including U.S. Attorney's but the right to appoint U.S. Attorney's is reserved to the Senate and the President's authority is merely one of nomination and not of appointment. Also, the law can be changed if necessary to remove from the President the ability to terminate U.S. Attorney's at will as he does not have the constitutional authority to do so. In fact, the Congress can also remove his authority to terminate them at all or the Congress can choose to modify the law so that he is not able to fire solely for political reasons. So I suggest you read the Constitution and law again as neither give the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for whatever reason he sees fit nor do either prevent the Congress from exercising his constitutional responsibilities over U.S. Attorney's.

AMEN!

But in addition to this, it is protocol in the Justice Dept Prosecutor Ethics/Protocol hand Book of hiring procedures that political reasons are NOT allowed, not permissable for any reason.... so to keep them independent.
I know it appears that this is not the case because of the way presidents have replaced their attorney g's over the years, but political questioning was NOT permitted per this protocol handbook, when they were choosing their nominees....

At least that was the understanding that I got when reviewing the hearing with Monica Goodling before Congress?

 

[CockySOB]

You did not answer the question, WHY do you think they chose to fire/and then HIRE these new prosecutors without the vetting of the Senate?

And nice to see that you have woken up on the right side of the bed! NOT!

Good Morning Cocky, how are you today? I'm not here to have a circle jerk with myself, but to debate with those that differ, without HATE or MALICE present, if that is possible!

Care

Just search the site for one of the several threads pertaining to the US Attorney brouhaha (I'd recommend the search term "Goodling" and/or "McKay." That should get you going.

Frankly, I don't care WHY they were dismissed - it's irrelevant under the law. As I indicated, the US Attorneys are political appointees and not career civil servants, which means that they can be dismissed without stated cause. I think the GWB administration royally screwed up by making any comment on their dismissal at all. I approved of Sampson and Goodling leaving the DOJ, and I called for AG Gonzales' resignation on the grounds that he was either knowledgeable of what was going on and corrupt, or ignorant of the goings-on and therefore inept.

I also think that Congress should revisit the legislation covering the Attorney General being able to appoint a temporary US Attorney to fill a vacancy and either put some major restrictions on the use of such power, or remove it altogether. Congress should retain confirmation power regarding the appointment of full-time US Attorneys, no "ifs, ands or buts" about it. But from a Constitutional standpoint, Congress passed the legislation delegating such authority TO the Attorney General, which gives the law authority until/unless challenged at SCOTUS or repealed via Congress.

BTW, for someone claiming not to want to have hate and malice in the discussion, you came out of the gate making accusations that I somehow supported positions I do not. If you start out that confrontational, you're going to get it back in spades.

 

[Care4all]

"Black demotion
On August 8, 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that the day after a grand jury subpoena of records connected to Jack Abramoff "U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black." His replacement, Leonardo Rapadas, recommended for the job by the Guam Republican Party, was confirmed without any debate. The investigation of Abramoff in Guam ended when "Rapadas recused himself from the public corruption case involving [Carl] Gutierrez" because "the new U.S. attorney was a cousin of 'one of the main targets'," according to a confidential memo to Justice Department officials."[146]"


This was an attempt to end the Abramhoff scandal.

This is just one of the cases involved.

Wow, I had no idea about this one!

care

 

[Care4all]

Just search the site for one of the several threads pertaining to the US Attorney brouhaha (I'd recommend the search term "Goodling" and/or "McKay." That should get you going.

Frankly, I don't care WHY they were dismissed - it's irrelevant under the law. As I indicated, the US Attorneys are political appointees and not career civil servants, which means that they can be dismissed without stated cause. I think the GWB administration royally screwed up by making any comment on their dismissal at all. I approved of Sampson and Goodling leaving the DOJ, and I called for AG Gonzales' resignation on the grounds that he was either knowledgeable of what was going on and corrupt, or ignorant of the goings-on and therefore inept.

I also think that Congress should revisit the legislation covering the Attorney General being able to appoint a temporary US Attorney to fill a vacancy and either put some major restrictions on the use of such power, or remove it altogether. Congress should retain confirmation power regarding the appointment of full-time US Attorneys, no "ifs, ands or buts" about it. But from a Constitutional standpoint, Congress passed the legislation delegating such authority TO the Attorney General, which gives the law authority until/unless challenged at SCOTUS or repealed via Congress.

BTW, for someone claiming not to want to have hate and malice in the discussion, you came out of the gate making accusations that I somehow supported positions I do not. If you start out that confrontational, you're going to get it back in spades.

where does the law say they are POLITICAL appointees and are you saying they, the prosecutors are NOT civil servants, just because their term is not for a lifetime?

They are CIVIL servants, they serve us, the American people ONCE they have been nominated and approved by the Senate.

this is why our justice system is JUST. Do you disagree?

 

[Care4all]

Just search the site for one of the several threads pertaining to the US Attorney brouhaha (I'd recommend the search term "Goodling" and/or "McKay." That should get you going.

Frankly, I don't care WHY they were dismissed - it's irrelevant under the law. As I indicated, the US Attorneys are political appointees and not career civil servants, which means that they can be dismissed without stated cause. I think the GWB administration royally screwed up by making any comment on their dismissal at all. I approved of Sampson and Goodling leaving the DOJ, and I called for AG Gonzales' resignation on the grounds that he was either knowledgeable of what was going on and corrupt, or ignorant of the goings-on and therefore inept.

I also think that Congress should revisit the legislation covering the Attorney General being able to appoint a temporary US Attorney to fill a vacancy and either put some major restrictions on the use of such power, or remove it altogether. Congress should retain confirmation power regarding the appointment of full-time US Attorneys, no "ifs, ands or buts" about it. But from a Constitutional standpoint, Congress passed the legislation delegating such authority TO the Attorney General, which gives the law authority until/unless challenged at SCOTUS or repealed via Congress.

BTW, for someone claiming not to want to have hate and malice in the discussion, you came out of the gate making accusations that I somehow supported positions I do not. If you start out that confrontational, you're going to get it back in spades.

Stop LYING, I never accused YOU of any such thing. I asked you a couple of questions WHICH YOU have still managed to AVOID and not answer?

Truth is important, bullshit is just that Cocky, bullshit. And I don't get baffled easily by bullshit.

So answer my question, if you can, regarding WHY you think the Bush Administration decided to circumvent the Constitution and not bring these nominees before the Senate for their approval and for the Checks and balances you said our system had?

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

They will see no wrong doing in this administration.

Bush can change any law can shuffle attorneys arround to stop investigations such as the Abramhoff one in the Guam, the Foggo one in san deigo and the one in Nevada into my own govenor and they will just call it comepletely above board.

It means nothing that the ones who got fired were all involved in cases that would Hurt the GOP.

It means nothing to them that they made sure they were all Republicans and when even their own showed any independence they were fired.

It menas nothing that Bush snuck the law in the partiot act.

It means nothing to them the law snuck in went against the constitutional idea of checks and balances.

Laws , fairness, constitutions, election integrity are only for Dems and the New modern Republican has no need for these triffles.

All that stuff is needed only to keep the Dems in line in thier minds ad republicans are above them.