Meirs supoenaed

[Edward]

If facts had a liberal bias, you would think you guys would actually cite them sometimes.

You're right its never been done. no one has ever questioned the Presidents power to appoint and fire employees that serve at his pleasure.

How many times must it be driven home that U.S. Attorney's do not serve at the pleasure of the President anymore than they serve at the pleasure of Congress. Both the President and the Congress must act within their constitutional and legal authority when removing U.S. Attorney's. There is such a thing as the rule of law but I know conservatives don't respect the rule of law but some of us do. I have repeatedly cited facts including when your idiot friend RSR claims that U.S. Attorney's aren't appointed for four year terms like the ignorant ass that he is. I also have asked you repeatedly to provide proof of the claim that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President and I have pointed out that even though the law states that the President can remove U.S. Attorney's it does not say he can do so for any reason he wants instead the law even provides certain reasons that cannot be used to remove U.S. Attorney's. The whole claim that they serve at the pleasure of the President is false on its face and while it is true that he can remove them it does not go to support the claim that they serve at his pleasure.

The assertion that the President hires and fires U.S. Attorney's has been made here but this assertion has not been backed up by the facts and I wait for you to do so since you claim that U.S. Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President. If you have some proof other than the opinion of an Executive agency or department than please provide it. Being able to remove them or appoint them does not mean they serve at his pleasure anymore than the Senate being able to remove them and appoint them means they serve at the pleasure of the Senate. You people are retards and need to get a fucking brain.

 

[Edward]

Rsr, this HAS BEEN explained a thousand times over but I will do it again for YOU, because I like you!

That statement lowers my opinion of your intelligence but I will let it pass since everyone is allowed to make the mistake of liking retards. While I don't like RSR I do have sympathy towards his retarded ass because it must be hard to be retarded.

Attorney generals are appointed by the President, they serve a 4 year term or contract.

Apparently, RSR doesn't think so because he doesn't know the law an can't seem to grasp that U.S. Attorney's (you may wish to not use the term Attorney generals when describing this office as it can be confused with the role of State Attorneys General and the U.S. Attorney General) are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate which means that the Senate ultimately has the power of appointment while the President has the power of nomination. The term of office of an U.S. Attorney is clearly defined by statute so I am beginning to suspect that RSR is nothing more than an idiot.

When President Clinton became President, The prosecutors that had already served their 4 year term under President ghw bush, and for some strange reason unbenounced to me refused to follow protocol and did not resign? so Clinton fired them and replaced them.

This was his perogative and since U.S. Attorney's serve a 4 year term their resignations aren't even necessary by law instead the President would simply nominate and the Senate confirm a replacement and they would no longer be the officeholder and would have to vacate the premises and allow the new U.S. Attorney for the district to assume their term of office.

Under President gw bush, the prosecutors from Clinton who had served their 4 years all resigned, so Bush replaced 88 of them and kept 5. I believe with Clinton it was 89 that were replaced by him.

It is always a good idea to follow tradition and to ahve them resign because it is less messy and it appears more positive but it isn't necessary for them to resign since their term of office is expired and a replacement can be chosen by the President and the Senate.

So Clinton replaced 89
And Bush replaced 88

(or something like this)

That is interesting information. Do you have a source?

What's the difference on this? nothing imo.

There isn't a difference on this. Both Clinton and Bush had the right to remove the appointees of the previous President especially those who had serve their full term. As for those who had not, it was tradition to remove them and to appoint new U.S. Attorney's to replace them so it wasn't unusual for Clinton to do so.

These 8 that were fired were 8 prosecutors that Bush had already replaced Clintn's prosecutors with, and I am uncertain if they had already completed their 4 year contract, term?

It is doubtful that any of them had serve their full term or this wouldn't be an issue since the President would simply have nominated an U.S. Attorney to rpelace them and they would hold that term until their replacement is appointed and qualifed. Interesting enough, this goes to the issue of how the President was able to remove them prior to appointing someone to replace them and since the law and Constitution requires the President's nominations to be confirmed it makes no sense that we did not hear confirmation hearings on each of their replacements. This goes to the issue of whether Bush was attempting to bypass the constitutional process for appointing U.S. Attorney's.

It was OUTSIDE the norm. The replacement of the 93 or 89 of the 93 by Clinton when he first came on board as pres, was considered normal, with the exception of the fact that these prosecutors did not give him their resignation when asked?

Not only is it outside the norm but it makes me wonder exactly how these U.S. Attorney's could have been replaced without hearings since this issue goes to whether the President has the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's, and appoint interim U.S. Attorney's in order to bypass the Senate confirmation process.

 

[CockySOB]

28 USC 541 specifically states that POTUS appoints the US Attorneys and the Senate confirms. Yet little Eddie keeps insisting that the Senate "ultimately appoints" the US Attorneys. Moreover 28 USC 541 states that the US Attorney is subject to removal by POTUS.

In the DOJ documentation (United States Attorney Manual), we see specific citations of case law (Parsons v. United States, 167 US 314 (1897)) which further clarify that this dismissal can be "at will." Parsons has since been expanded on via Myers v. United States (272 US 52 (1926)) to clarify that the power to remove appointed officials in the Executive Branch rests SOLELY with POTUS.

Eddie, if you're bothering to read this here's the challenge - put up or shut up. You haven't provided jack or shit to back up your claims, while I have provided citations from the US Constitution, the US Codes, case law and internal documentation from the Department of Justice in the form of the United States Attorney Manual.

 

[Care4all]

I found this! Which is quite interesting, when I searched Parsons v. United States that was mentioned.

Here is just a clip of it:

3-2.140 Authority

Although the Attorney General has supervision over all litigation to which the United States or any agency thereof is a party, and has direction of all United States Attorneys, and their assistants, in the discharge of their respective duties (28 U.S.C. Secs. 514, 515, 519), each United States Attorney, within his/her district, has the responsibility and authority to: (a) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (b) prosecute or defend, for the government, all civil actions, suits, or proceedings in which the United States is concerned; (c) appear on behalf of the defendants in all civil actions, suits or proceedings pending in the district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to such officers, and by them paid into the Treasury; (d) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law unless satisfied upon investigation that justice does not require such proceedings; (e) make such reports as the Attorney General shall direct. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 547.

By virtue of this grant of statutory authority and the practical realities of representing the United States throughout the country, United States Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a party. They are the principal federal law enforcement officers in their judicial districts. In the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion, United States Attorneys construe and implement the policy of the Department of Justice. Their professional abilities and the need for their impartiality in administering justice directly affect the public's perception of federal law enforcement.

Well, here is the link, it also mentions the new law that was passed last March in the Patriot Act 2 bill. The wording is strange, not what I thought it to be....

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm#3-2.160

It is under "vacancy", as in: a prosecutor deciding to quit or was removed for malfeasance, but an "opening", a vacancy, IT MENTIONS NOTHING about firing them, to make the position so called "vacant" so the attorney general could bypass the Senate's advice and consent.

Maybe this is why the new Justice dept employee that resigned today, making it 5 of them now, a Mr. Elston, who was second in charge in Mcnulty's office.

He made threatening phone calls to 3 of the attorneys that they fired, saying he would make life hell for them if they discussed the conditions of their resignations! They wanted to make it as though, these guys "quit" on their own, perhaps?

The revelations about Goodling were among several developments yesterday in connection with the firings... and new accusations from two of the dismissed U.S. attorneys.

In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.

Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.

"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.

Continued here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050201569.html

and today we have this Michael Elston's resignation!

This is getting more interesting by the minute!

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

The vast power that the neocons held is crumbling and one of these people is going to split a gut.

There are too many who are paying the price of fall out and someomes going to sing and once one sings its going to turn into a chorus.

 

[CockySOB]

Care, it does get interesting and even a bit fun to delve into the actual law and the court cases wherein the law is tested, doesn't it?

The US Attorneys must perform their duties according to the law, I've never said otherwise. But they are also functionaries who can be dismissed by POTUS for any reason or even for no reason. If the US Attorney fails to place a priority on prosecuting cases deemed a priority by POTUS, then POTUS actually has a valid reason to dismiss them even though he does not in fact NEED such a reason as the Myers case shows (and codifies as settled law).

I would caution you that your interpretation of "vacant" is reading something into the law which is not there. Title 28, Section II, Chapter 35 of the US Codes is the chapter dealing with the United States Attorneys, and I see no clarification therein which qualifies the means by which a vacancy was created.

Discussing the section added in March 2006 as a provision of the Patriot Act 2, I think there is a valid Constitutional question as to whether Congress can pass legislation removing some of its inherent authority and transferring that authority from the Senate in the Legislative Branch to an entity in another Branch such as the Department of Justice in the Executive Branch. Congress most certainly cannot remove authority from the other branches of government without violating the Separation of Powers clause in the US Constitution. The question then comes as "can Congress transfer one of its Constitutional responsibilities to another Branch?" And I think the answer there is, "no."

But a question of Constitutional authority has to be presented to SCOTUS. While I would expect SCOTUS to rule the amendment as un-Constitutional as a branch of hte Separation of Powers, I think the best method of dealing with this would be for Congress to repeal that portion of the Patriot Act 2 on its own.

As to the manner in which the Department of Justice and the Attorney General's office handled the dismissals, I doubt the former US Attorneys have much (if any) recourse. Granted Gonzales and his staff handled the whole thing miserably and they should either resign or be dismissed themselves (another bone I have to pick with GWB).

 

[Truthmatters]

You are now wrong because Bush signed a law to change what they snuck in the patriot act.

 

[CockySOB]

You are now wrong because Bush signed a law to change what they snuck in the patriot act.

Be specific, or be quiet. The grown-ups are discussing things.

 

[Truthmatters]

oh quit your whining fortunately for this country you dont get to decide who can speak.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/bush-law/

 

[red states rule]

oh quit your whining fortunately for this country you dont get to decide who can speak.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/bush-law/

But libs want that job. They would love to get the Fairness Dorctine passed so they can shut up talk radio and go back to only the liberal media as the source for news and information

 

[CockySOB]

Care to clarify why you're trying to say TruthDoesntMatter? I won't bother visiting a site like ThinkProgress anymore than I would a site like Drudge. If you can't be bothered to say what you're thinking, then perhaps you'd do everyone the favor of reconsidering hitting that "submit" button.

After all, how difficult would it have been to actually say "Bush signed legislation 6/14/2007 which places specific limits on the appointment terms for interim US Attorneys." This is in reference to S. 214 with the short title of the "Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007."

Personally I like the move and I applaud Sen. Feinstein for sponsoring the bill, and I am glad to see it made it through both Houses of Congress. This is the type of response I was looking for - one which removed the need for SCOTUS to review the Constitutional question of the earlier legislation.

 

[Gunny]

oh quit your whining fortunately for this country you dont get to decide who can speak.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/bush-law/

I don't see any whining on Cocky's part. I see a pretty good argument going with a smattering of pointless, partisan one-liners in between. These members obviously went to the trouble to do their homework and present their cases, regardless which one you agree with.

You aren't helping anyone, nor the argument with your partisan quips.

 

[Gunny]

But libs want that job. They would love to get the Fairness Dorctine passed so they can shut up talk radio and go back to only the liberal media as the source for news and information

The previous post to TM applies to you as well. There's plenty of board here.

 

[mattskramer]

Any proof yet

No

That is why the Dems must keep the hearings going - they have to find something - real or not

If democrat congress takes too much time and come up with nothing, the interested voters will count it against them and vote them out of office. It might be to pro-Republican advantage to encourage the congress to keep searching.

It is impossible to find something that does not exist. If congress claims to have found something, the people will demand proof.

 

[red states rule]

If democrat congress takes too much time and come up with nothing, the interested voters will count it against them and vote them out of office. It might be to pro-Republican advantage to encourage the congress to keep searching.

It is impossible to find something that does not exist. If congress claims to have found something, the people will demand proof.

They already have wasted to much time - and found nothing

Perhaps that is one of the reasons the rating for the Dem Congress is 23% - and falling

 

[Care4all]

They already have wasted to much time - and found nothing

Perhaps that is one of the reasons the rating for the Dem Congress is 23% - and falling

I think the Democrats are mad at their leaders for NOT getting us out of the war in Iraq. They are mad at them for failing to get us out of Iraq... not mad at them for trying,

and certainly not mad at their leaders for this kind of "oversight" which had been lacking with the republican congress the last 6 years, RSR.

and good morning!

care

 

[red states rule]

I think the Democrats are mad at their leaders for NOT getting us out of the war in Iraq. They are mad at them for failing to get us out of Iraq... not mad at them for trying,

and certainly not mad at their leaders for this kind of "oversight" which had been lacking with the republican congress the last 6 years, RSR.

and good morning!

care

I hope the look left continues to have their temper tanturm

At 23% the Dems are doing a great job IMO

and good morning to you

 

[Stephanie]

I'm all for IMPEACHING............

Impeach......Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy........

 

[red states rule]

I'm all for IMPEACHING............

Impeach......Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy........

Ya hooo......Holley loooe ya...

They are all guilty of Arrogrance in the first degree

 

[Stephanie]

They are all guilty of Arrogrance in the first degree

Arrogrance is just part of it...

Stupidity, traitors, and elitism...sounds more like it...