Meirs supoenaed

[Care4all]

Naw, I expect that was a Rove move. She was probably canon fodder for the process to set an initial low bar for GWB nominations, and later she could be pulled and legitimate candidates like Roberts and Scalia could be put forth looking all the better in comparison to Miers.

I could always be wrong though....

lol, i can't believe YOU thought this? i thought only dems (like me, admittingly)think of things like that? lol

u made my morning with that one! and who really knows, it could have been something like that.....but still, coming from you, it gave me a decent chuckle!

 

[Care4all]

She wopuld not prosceute illegals

That is why she was fired

the whitehouse/justice dept has reneged that accusation....guess it was proved to be not true....thus the reneging of such?

 

[red states rule]

link please?

 

[red states rule]

the whitehouse/justice dept has reneged that accusation....guess it was proved to be not true....thus the reneging of such?

In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals. On June 15, 2006, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein complained about Ms. Lam to Alberto Gonzales saying: "It is my understanding that Ms. Lam may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases."

That was Feinstein then. Here she is now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.: The White House is in a bunker mentality: won't listen, won't change. I believe there is even more to come out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260665,00.html

 

[CockySOB]

why do you say this about carole lamb? she had one of the highest ratings for successes out there according to all, one of the best prosecutors around!!!???

Care, you might want to check your terminology in the interest of clarity. There is a difference between "US Attorney" and "prosecutor:" one is a title of office, the other is a general job description. When discussing this particular issue, specificity would probably prevent any misunderstandings of what you post.

While Carol Lam's office was fairly successful in successful in the prosecutions they undertook, she had refused to place a priority on several types of crimes as her boss (POTUS) had directed. One of these types of crimes dealt with illegal immigration as I recall which she chose to place on a very low priority. Remember, the US Attorneys are the appointed heads of the Federal Districts and they are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch. So while her office was successful in some aspects, it was not in others.

 

[red states rule]

Care, you might want to check your terminology in the interest of clarity. There is a difference between "US Attorney" and "prosecutor:" one is a title of office, the other is a general job description. When discussing this particular issue, specificity would probably prevent any misunderstandings of what you post.

While Carol Lam's office was fairly successful in successful in the prosecutions they undertook, she had refused to place a priority on several types of crimes as her boss (POTUS) had directed. One of these types of crimes dealt with illegal immigration as I recall which she chose to place on a very low priority. Remember, the US Attorneys are the appointed heads of the 52 Federal Districts and they are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch. So while her office was successful in some aspects, it was not in others.

You mean if you do not do your job as the boss wants - the boss can fire you?

What a shocker!

 

[CockySOB]

You mean if you do not do your job as the boss wants - the boss can fire you?

What a shocker!

Pretty much. That's why the office of US Attorney isn't covered by the Civil Service Act, If it were covered, then no incoming POTUS could remove the sitting US Attorneys without demonstrating just cause for their removal AND, no incoming POTUS could then nominate new US Attorneys because the position would have to be filled using the guidelines set forth by the Office of Personnel Management.

BTW, for anyone who thinks Congress should have any say in the removal of the US Attorneys, I'd recommend reading up on the Tenure of Office Act which specifically gave Congress that kind of authority. Of course it was repealed (in two separate actions) fairly quickly, and SCOTUS even chimed in stating that the Act was un-Constitutional even when it WAS on the books.

 

[red states rule]

Pretty much. That's why the office of US Attorney isn't covered by the Civil Service Act, If it were covered, then no incoming POTUS could remove the sitting US Attorneys without demonstrating just cause for their removal AND, no incoming POTUS could then nominate new US Attorneys because the position would have to be filled using the guidelines set forth by the Office of Personnel Management.

BTW, for anyone who thinks Congress should have any say in the removal of the US Attorneys, I'd recommend reading up on the Tenure of Office Act which specifically gave Congress that kind of authority. Of course it was repealed (in two separate actions) fairly quickly, and SCOTUS even chimed in stating that the Act was un-Constitutional even when it WAS on the books.

Pre Bush fores eight attorneys the Dems act like the world is coming to an end

Clinton fires 96 attorneys and all that was heard was crickets chirping

 

[Truthmatters]

Did I take out affending material Gunny?

 

[Edward]

I’m starting to dislike the Bush’s cabinet but I am getting somewhat tired of this Gonzales investigation. He might have done something unethical – though I think that such is even a stretch. In all practicality, people can basically fire anyone at any time for any reason. Also the attorney general serves under the president. He is going to do what he thinks that the president wants him to do. He is going to serve the president. Okay. Perhaps he behaved too much in a partisan way. Maybe he fired people who were investigating things that made the president look bad. Was the firing illegal – yes or no? If the answer is “No”, then let us say that he still should not have fired them in such a partisan and selective way and MOVE ON. There are certainly more important issues that the congress should be resolving.

Once Congress decides whether his actions were inappropriate they can choose to impeach him and I suspect that Gonzales will either resign or be impeached. His actions will ultimately result in him voluntarily leaving office or his being terminated by the Congress.

 

[Edward]

Then throw him in jail. Yet, I doubt that it is illegal for an attorney general to fire whoever he wants to fire for whatever reason. I think that by now congress would have learned if the firing was illegal. It seems as if congress is just dragging this on for political reasons and that they have nothing concrete with which to nail him for a crime...unless he committed perjury or a similar small roffence (for which he should be sentenced if he is found guilty). Anyway, if even federal employees commit crimes, they should be punished under the law. I guess that I’m just surprised at how long this investigation is taking.

The Congress isn't necessarily investigating whether he committed a crime or whether his actions were legal but instead is investigating whether the actions of the Attorney Genera were appropriate and ultimately whether they constitute a "high crime" or "misdeamenor." I understand that Bush believes that the Senate can have a "no confidence vote" on Gonzales but that since it is "his" government they have no say in who is in "his" government. This idiot actually believes it is "his" government and somehow forgot about the Preamble to the Constitution which states that it is "our" government. But the Congress may decide to impeach the Attorney General.

 

[Edward]

Care, you might want to check your terminology in the interest of clarity. There is a difference between "US Attorney" and "prosecutor:" one is a title of office, the other is a general job description. When discussing this particular issue, specificity would probably prevent any misunderstandings of what you post.

While Carol Lam's office was fairly successful in successful in the prosecutions they undertook, she had refused to place a priority on several types of crimes as her boss (POTUS) had directed. One of these types of crimes dealt with illegal immigration as I recall which she chose to place on a very low priority. Remember, the US Attorneys are the appointed heads of the 52 Federal Districts and they are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch. So while her office was successful in some aspects, it was not in others.

Where the hell do you get the idea that the President is the boss of U.S. Attorney's because this isn't supported either by the Constitution or the law. He doesn't even hire U.S. Attorney's instead the Senate does that after he recommends to them the names of people who should be hired. He can only fire them because the Congress has authorized him to fill that function but it isn't inherently his as the President. So please provide support for your claim that U.S. Attorney's are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch other than your opinion that this should be the case. Please cite either the provision of the Constitution or law that gives credence to this assertion because it makes you look foolish to make such a statement.

 

[mattskramer]

The Congress isn't necessarily investigating whether he committed a crime or whether his actions were legal but instead is investigating whether the actions of the Attorney Genera were appropriate and ultimately whether they constitute a "high crime" or "misdeamenor." I understand that Bush believes that the Senate can have a "no confidence vote" on Gonzales but that since it is "his" government they have no say in who is in "his" government. This idiot actually believes it is "his" government and somehow forgot about the Preamble to the Constitution which states that it is "our" government. But the Congress may decide to impeach the Attorney General.

Okay. I think that I follow. Someone can be impeached even though he did not commit an illegal act. It can be a petty and minor indiscretion or even unethical behavior. Am I correct? Is it that this might be what congress is looking toward? I’m not trying to trap you. I’m just trying to understand your perspective on what congress is trying to accomplish.

 

[Edward]

Pretty much. That's why the office of US Attorney isn't covered by the Civil Service Act, If it were covered, then no incoming POTUS could remove the sitting US Attorneys without demonstrating just cause for their removal AND, no incoming POTUS could then nominate new US Attorneys because the position would have to be filled using the guidelines set forth by the Office of Personnel Management.

BTW, for anyone who thinks Congress should have any say in the removal of the US Attorneys, I'd recommend reading up on the Tenure of Office Act which specifically gave Congress that kind of authority. Of course it was repealed (in two separate actions) fairly quickly, and SCOTUS even chimed in stating that the Act was un-Constitutional even when it WAS on the books.

I suggest you read the Constitution as it gives the Congress the authority to appoint U.S. Attorney's, and to remove them from office. The Tenure of Office Act is a different issue entirely and the circumstances were different as what was being done was that the Congress decided that a Secretary of War could not be removed by the President without the consent of Congress and took action to not allow his removal. Of course this could be argued as the Constitution does not give the President the authority to remove the civil officers of the Government instead the Constitution grants this authority to the Congress through impeachment proceedings.

Also, it could be argued based on the wording of the Constitution that the only method of removing the civil officers of the government is through impeachment proceedings based on Article II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. We often hear conservatives argue for a strict interpretation of the Constitution but it is ironic that when such an interpretation doesn't benefit them that they choose to ignore the wording of the Constitution which a) does not give the President the authority to remove any civil officer of Government and b) only provides that the civil officers are to be removed through impeachment.

I am not arguing that this should be the case but that if you were to do as conservatives demand we do and interpret the Constitution in a narrow manner than the only way a civil officer can be removed is by impeachment and by Congress. Yet, there are laws which when applied to the Constitution are constitutional and which grants the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's from office but these laws do not say that he can do so for whatever reason he chooses.

The Tenure of Office Act was possibly unconstitutional as it required the President to obtain the approval of Congress before filling a vacancy that occured during a recess of Congress which under the Constitution he has the authority to do but such authority only extends to the recess and that person's appointment expires when Congress re-convenes and at that point the President has to nominate someone for the vacant position and they are confirmed by the Senate. Yet, the Tenure of Office Act was never declared unconstitutional and remained in affect until Congress repealed it so its constitutionality is open to debate but since this issue has nothing to do with a law that was on the books but has been repealed it is not a relevent to this issue.

 

[Edward]

Okay. I think that I follow. Someone can be impeached even though he did not commit an illegal act. It can be a petty and minor indiscretion or even unethical behavior. Am I correct? Is it that this might be what congress is looking toward? I’m not trying to trap you. I’m just trying to understand your perspective on what congress is trying to accomplish.

The word "misdeamenor" was used to denote a "mis-behavior" at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged that this was the case when he made the point that impeachment was political by virtue of the fact that the offense was against the people. A person can be impeached for a crime but they can also be impeached for other reasons as well including telling the American people to go to hell and giving the middle finger to Congress and to the elected representatives of the people. Our Founding Fathers did not want the only reason for people to be impeached to be one of them having committed a crime because than the people would not be protected at all since many things could be done to harm the country and the people which would not be illegal and therefore wouldn't be impeachable so they added a provision about civil officers mis-behaving.

To prevent abuse of this provision and to prevent people from being impeached simply because Congress doesn't like them the Founding Fathers decided that 2/3rds of members of the Senate would be required to convict. There is no reason or reasons listed in the Constitution other than they either commit a felony or have mis-behaved in some manner. The drafters of the Constitution understood that impeachment was a political issue therefore they required 2/3rds for that very reason. If the Attorney General has in fact inappropriately terminated U.S. Attorney's and Congress decides that such action warrants impeachment than they have the authority under the Constitution to impeach. It is doubtful whether they will obtain the 2/3rds necessary to impeach him but if his conduct is so egregious to cause 357 of our elected representatives to vote to remove him than he should be impeached, convicted and removed from office. Clinton's actions for example warranted impeachment but he wasn't convicted by the Senate and therefore retained his office but his actions almost got him removed from office.

 

[CockySOB]

Where the hell do you get the idea that the President is the boss of U.S. Attorney's because this isn't supported either by the Constitution or the law. He doesn't even hire U.S. Attorney's instead the Senate does that after he recommends to them the names of people who should be hired. He can only fire them because the Congress has authorized him to fill that function but it isn't inherently his as the President. So please provide support for your claim that U.S. Attorney's are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch other than your opinion that this should be the case. Please cite either the provision of the Constitution or law that gives credence to this assertion because it makes you look foolish to make such a statement.

Let's start by looking at the United Stats Attorneys' Manual published by the Department of Justice and providing everything you wanted to know (or in yoru case perhaps DIDN'T want to know) about the US Attorneys.

3-2.100 United States Attorneys

The United States Attorney serves as the chief law enforcement officer in each judicial district and is responsible for coordinating multiple agency investigations within that district.

There are currently 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Marianas. One United States Attorney is assigned to each judicial district with the exception of Guam and the Northern Marianas, where a single United States Attorney serves in both districts.
3-2.110 History

The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment "in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States . . . whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned . . ." 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att'y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the "general superintendence and direction duties . . ." While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att'y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States." See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519.
3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).​

So you now have some specific legislation and case law which supports my assertion that the US Attorneys should support the prosecutorial directives of the POTUS (via the Attorney General). You also have specific information regarding their removal at will by POTUS. If in fact, the specific US Attorneys in question here failed to properly prosecute various Federal offenses despite being informed by the AG that they should be prosecuting them, those US Attorneys would have failed to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States, " thus their dismissal would fall under the auspices of merit.

Now if POTUS or one of his assigns had indicated that particular cases should be pursued or dropped, there might be a question of obstruction, but as long as the instructions are based on general policy (such as "prosecute illegal immigrants" then there is no obstruction. At that point the only question would be if the policy would violate existing law in which the policymaker could be liable for acting illegally under the color of law.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Makes sense to me. I mean, why cant the president hire and fire who he wants, that would not make sense to me, if he had to beg congress, for their permission to fire or hire a prosecutor, then nothing would get done.

Let's start by looking at the United Stats Attorneys' Manual published by the Department of Justice and providing everything you wanted to know (or in yoru case perhaps DIDN'T want to know) about the US Attorneys.

3-2.100 United States Attorneys

The United States Attorney serves as the chief law enforcement officer in each judicial district and is responsible for coordinating multiple agency investigations within that district.

There are currently 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Marianas. One United States Attorney is assigned to each judicial district with the exception of Guam and the Northern Marianas, where a single United States Attorney serves in both districts.
3-2.110 History

The Office of the United States Attorney was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 which provided for the appointment "in each district of a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States . . . whose duty it shall be to prosecute in each district all delinquents for crimes and offenses, recognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned . . ." 1 Stat. 92. Initially, United States Attorneys were not supervised by the Attorney General (1 Op.Att'y Gen. 608) but Congress, in the Act of August 2, 1861, (Ch. 37, 12 Stat. 185) charged the Attorney General with the "general superintendence and direction duties . . ." While the precise nature of the superintendence and direction was not defined, the Department of Justice Act of June 22, 1870 (Ch. 150, 16 Stat. 164) and the Act of June 30, 1906 (Ch. 39, 35, 34 Stat. 816) clearly established the power of the Attorney General to supervise criminal and civil proceedings in any district. See 22 Op. Att'y Gen. 491; 23 Op. Att'y Gen. 507. Today, as in 1789, the United States Attorney retains, among other responsibilities, the duty to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States." See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547(1). This duty is to be discharged under the supervision of the Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 519.
3-2.120 Appointment

United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).​

So you now have some specific legislation and case law which supports my assertion that the US Attorneys should support the prosecutorial directives of the POTUS (via the Attorney General). You also have specific information regarding their removal at will by POTUS. If in fact, the specific US Attorneys in question here failed to properly prosecute various Federal offenses despite being informed by the AG that they should be prosecuting them, those US Attorneys would have failed to "prosecute for all offenses against the United States, " thus their dismissal would fall under the auspices of merit.

Now if POTUS or one of his assigns had indicated that particular cases should be pursued or dropped, there might be a question of obstruction, but as long as the instructions are based on general policy (such as "prosecute illegal immigrants" then there is no obstruction. At that point the only question would be if the policy would violate existing law in which the policymaker could be liable for acting illegally under the color of law.

 

[Care4all]

Care, you might want to check your terminology in the interest of clarity. There is a difference between "US Attorney" and "prosecutor:" one is a title of office, the other is a general job description. When discussing this particular issue, specificity would probably prevent any misunderstandings of what you post.

While Carol Lam's office was fairly successful in successful in the prosecutions they undertook, she had refused to place a priority on several types of crimes as her boss (POTUS) had directed. One of these types of crimes dealt with illegal immigration as I recall which she chose to place on a very low priority. Remember, the US Attorneys are the appointed heads of the 52 Federal Districts and they are supposed to follow the prosecutorial priorities set forth by the Executive Branch. So while her office was successful in some aspects, it was not in others.

she said to congress, and i believe it was under oath, that she never got this direction, that no one ever suggested that she change her work schedule to cover illegal immigrants over some of her other priority cases, no one even told her they were upset with her case loads....or mentioned illegals were a priority.

i believed her when she said this.... it was a hearing covered by c-span.

 

[red states rule]

she said to congress, and i believe it was under oath, that she never got this direction, that no one ever suggested that she change her work schedule to cover illegal immigrants over some of her other priority cases, no one even told her they were upset with her case loads....or mentioned illegals were a priority.

i believed her when she said this.... it was a hearing covered by c-span.

Why should a US Attorney have to be told to enforce all laws?

 

[CockySOB]

she said to congress, and i believe it was under oath, that she never got this direction, that no one ever suggested that she change her work schedule to cover illegal immigrants over some of her other priority cases, no one even told her they were upset with her case loads....or mentioned illegals were a priority.

i believed her when she said this.... it was a hearing covered by c-span.

Do you have any specific information regarding that testimony? Date and time? I'd like to check CSPAN's archives for it. I don't recall Lam testifying, but I could have missed it.

ADDED: Never mind, I think I found the information. That was when Gonzales showed himself to be either corrupt or inept in from of Congress, wasn't it? Yeah, I think I found it.

Gotta say, if she didn't know that her performance was under review and that the consequence of not pursuing more illegal immigration cases would be a definite removal, then either Gonzales or his assignees were totally inept. But it remains that Lam served at her post as US Attorney at the will of POTUS, and if GWB wanted he gone, she would be gone anyway.

ANOTHER ADD:

I do remember now and your recollection of her testimony is correct.