Battle over fired US Attorneys

[frigidmagi]

CSM

The Bush administration's controversial firing of eight US attorneys sets up a major clash between the White House and the new Congress, as Democrats step up efforts to rein in new presidential powers.

At issue is whether the Justice Department's decision to replace these top federal prosecutors was a political purge and, if so, what Congress can do about it.

As a start, lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation. At the time, no lawmaker noticed. But dramatic testimony Tuesday from fired attorneys, who appeared only after Congress began issuing subpoenas, is fueling a push to strike the provision.

The back-to-back Senate and House hearings also raised questions about whether three Republican lawmakers tried to influence public corruption investigations, in violation of congressional ethics rules.

"This week, the House and Senate have launched hearings into two scandals – the neglect of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of several US attorneys by the Bush administration – that profoundly demonstrate just how important it is that Democrats have restored broad and vigorous oversight," said House majority leader Steny Hoyer, in a statement on Wednesday.

A first move is to revoke the single sentence in the USA Patriot Act that allows the president to replace a US attorney without Senate confirmation.

"For over 150 years, the process of appointing interim US attorneys has worked with virtually no problems. Now, just one year after receiving unchecked authority in a little-known section added to the Patriot Act last spring, the administration has significantly abused its discretion," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California at Tuesday's Senate hearing.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill sponsored by Senator Feinstein that limits the term for an interim appointment to 120 days – returning the law to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

"That's to create an incentive to go to the Senate for confirmation," says Feinstein. If a nominee is not confirmed by the Senate in 120 days, the appointment would be made by the district court.

So far, Senate Republicans have blocked moves to take the bill to the floor for debate. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle predict that this week's hearings will give the bill more traction.

What emerged from the hearings are two starkly different versions of events.

No one disputes that the president has the right to remove political appointees.

"Each of us was fully aware that we served at the pleasure of the president and that we could be removed for any, or no, reason," said Carol Lam of San Diego, in a joint statement for herself and other fired US attorneys who appeared before Senate and House Judiciary panels. "In most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations. This hearing is not a forum to engage in speculation, and we decline to speculate about the reasons."

But in a full day of questioning, lawmakers pressed witnesses on whether they felt pressured to lay off corruption cases against Republicans – or step up prosecutions of Democrats.

Ms. Lam, who served as US attorney from 2002 until this year, declined to speculate on whether she had been fired because of her prosecution of former GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for corruption.

In response to the same questions, US Attorney David Iglesias told lawmakers he had been contacted by Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, who wanted to know whether he planned to indict a local Democrat for corruption before last November's elections. "I suspect they believed that I was not a help to them during the campaign, and I just started to kind of put the dots together," he told the Senate panel.

Both lawmakers acknowledge the phone calls to Mr. Iglesias but deny that they tried to influence an ongoing investigation – a violation of ethics rules. Another witness, former US Attorney John McKay in Seattle, said a former aide to Rep. Doc Hastings (R) of Washington called to ask whether he would convene a grand jury to investigate voter fraud in the 2004 governor's race. Congressman Hastings chaired the House ethics committee in the 109th Congress.

In testimony before the House panel, Justice Department official William Moschella told lawmakers that no US attorneys were "removed [or] asked or encouraged to resign in an effort to retaliate against them." He also testified that the Justice Department never intended to use interim appointments to "circumvent the Senate confirmation process."

The sharp questioning was to be expected, observers say.

"Many of those US attorneys had very strong evaluations from the Justice Department, so it shouldn't be surprising that they're questioning why they were fired," says Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Republicans on both panels say they are troubled by the way the Justice Department handled the firings, especially its decision to inform seven US attorneys on the same day without citing a reason for the firings.

"To replace seven United States attorneys all at once is not exactly a discreet thing to do," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, who has been opposing moves to rewrite the rules on interim appointments of prosecutors, said he would have no objection to the bill proceeding if federal district courts were removed from the nomination process.

A bit of content for This thread

[SirNitram]

Someone IM me and get me to update this tomorrow. ALot has come over recently, and I want to try and cover some of it here after I get a chance to settle in and sift through the doubletalk, rumour, and BS.

As it is, I just sifted through government PDF's to prove someone wrong about the 'Clinton Did It Too' meme of firing all US-A's(The defense is that it's common practice and Clinton let all the US-A's go. They're half-right: It's common practice to let the US-A's go, but two presidents in recent history.. Reagan and Clinton.. Did not. Confirmation source? Judiciary PDF's.).

[SirNitram]

Alright. A quick and dirty of what's come out.

First off, the inevitable question is: Who made the call? No one should be surprised Karl Rove was deeply involved(One of his guys was tapped for the US-A position of one of the ousted ones.). However, it seems to extend higher, with a letter from Harriet Miers.. Bush's personal counsel.. proposing a sweeping purge of all the US-A's. Kinda odd to do that, in 2006, and not 2000.

The 'Clinton Did It Too' Defense: If you hear anything that sums up to 'Well, Bubba did it..' whined out, you should immediately check. Honestly, that's just become such an indicator of a lie that it's kinda sad. While many Presidents choose to let US-A's go when they enter office, and quite a few also do the same when they enter their second term, two in the twentieth century are notable exceptions: Clinton and Reagan.

Internal maneuvering: Lots of this. The first Repubican to call for Gonzales' resignation has come forth, Sununu. Some folks talking about how disquietening it is, as the purged were often conservatives, dedicated, team players, and party loyalists. And best of all, we have the beginnings of a 'Who, us? No, just him' meme being built. There's a few quotes being floated around about a 'distance' between Gonzales and the White House, how he's 'estrangled'. It all adds up to some PR guys being locked up for the weekend and told to find a way to avoid the taint spreading too far.

Oversight fun: Leahy will subpeona Rove if he doesn't come willingly. He'll be sending quite a few, it seems, to White House officials. White House Counsel, Dan Bartlett, insists they won't testify, and Snowe is already employing the 'As you know, Ed..' means of making up stuff.

Why were they fired?: Sorry, politics is looking likely. Carol Lam had just nailed 'Duke' Cunningham and was going for another. Frederick Black, who nailed Abramoff, is another one. As has been covered, all were doing their jobs well, according to the DoJ.

Dark Irony: US-A's serve 'at will' and can be let go basically on a whim. But the easily tracked political pressure, the lies under oath, and the continually changing explanations.. Also under oath.. Have turned this into a story.

Moral of the story? Karl Rove may have his fingers in alot of dirty snooker, but he is not the 'evil genius' memes would have you think for one reason:

Fucker keeps getting caught!

[SirNitram]

Thursday Update:

Subpeonas for the DoJ personnel have been issued. Under normal rules, because they were late additions, the White House personnel(Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, etc) have their subpeonas delayed a week before voting on them, at the request of the conservatives on the committee.

Tony Snowjob had an unpleasant morning as people kept pressuring him to actually answer whether the White House was going to try and bar testimony, a very unusual step, but one that the White House keeps hinting it'll do.

Gonzo is talking about coming to Congress sometime next week. No details yet, but this is a sign of desperation, I think.

More updates as I can sift the madness from the editorializing.

[SirNitram]

Evening correction:

Clinton fired two US Attorney's during his tenure.

One was, on camera, caught grabbing a man by the throat.

The other was accused to have bitten a topless dancer.

Yea. I think there was a somewhat stronger case there.

[frigidmagi]

To be honest at this point I don't much care what other Presidents did or didn't do.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Evening correction:

Clinton fired two US Attorney's during his tenure.

One was, on camera, caught grabbing a man by the throat.

The other was accused to have bitten a topless dancer.

Yea. I think there was a somewhat stronger case there.

Could you tell me where you got this info so I can use it in a debate on another forum?

[SirNitram]

Evening correction:

Clinton fired two US Attorney's during his tenure.

One was, on camera, caught grabbing a man by the throat.

The other was accused to have bitten a topless dancer.

Yea. I think there was a somewhat stronger case there.

Could you tell me where you got this info so I can use it in a debate on another forum?

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the small army of lawyers, researchers, and cataloguers who assemble data for the Congress. PDF here: Link

As you can see, only two resigned during Clinton's term, and both were under questionable circumstances, described in the PDF.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Thanks.

[SirNitram]

A week later, and things progress as we'd expect them to.

Monday, a document dump that started as 1,000 pages around noon, but by the time it finally hit the Judiciary, had ballooned into 3,000 pages. As we speak, it's being made into PDF's. I'm sure dozens of political pundits, online activists, and the rest, will find juicy details. I will bring more on those as I get ahold of them from reliable sources.

One thing you don't need a major in doublespeak and alot of time to see is the 'gap' in the dump. Mid-November, there's a sudden lack, and early December is when it picks up. From what we know, that's when the specific folks purged got targetted.

The White House's counsel has insisted no one in the WH testify under oath. In fact, he let out the conditions which he'll allow them to speak under: No oath, no transcript, no need to answer if they don't want to. Now, why would you want that unless you are going to lie?(Note the lack of requests that things not be made public; if it was classified material involved.. And I can't see how these folks could be involved with classified materials on the questions at hand.. They could simply do a closed door session. Been done before.)

Indeed, Bush reveals he does not like the Subpeona. He does not like it, Sam I Am.

We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.

First off... Bush, you wouldn't know Honor if the Marine Commandant had a month to beat it into you.

But it's fairly clear that he views Congress' subpeona power and oversight as 'political points'. Says so much...

Democrats on the relevent panels have made it clear they will go ahead with subpeonas. How nice of Bush to hand them a Constitutional Crisis because he's an arrogant fucker..

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I frankly want Gonzales not just sacked but if possible arrested and thrown in jail for something. I have come to hate his smarmy ass for the way he thinks he can arrogantly and condescendingly lecture on morality to the American people, and thinks it even more important than any other part of his job. We can only think whatever deities we hold dear that he was not nominated for the Supreme Court. Gods damn him and all, for he's certainly the only member of the administration other than Ashcroft that I've genuinely come to hate. Bush's Attorney General picks, for some reason, are the only ones who genuinely bring bile to my throat for me. They're horrific, contemptible, hateful individuals, who deserve every bad thing in the world, regardless of politics or the morality of the regime otherwise.

[SirNitram]

I frankly want Gonzales not just sacked but if possible arrested and thrown in jail for something. I have come to hate his smarmy ass for the way he thinks he can arrogantly and condescendingly lecture on morality to the American people, and thinks it even more important than any other part of his job. We can only think whatever deities we hold dear that he was not nominated for the Supreme Court. Gods damn him and all, for he's certainly the only member of the administration other than Ashcroft that I've genuinely come to hate. Bush's Attorney General picks, for some reason, are the only ones who genuinely bring bile to my throat for me. They're horrific, contemptible, hateful individuals, who deserve every bad thing in the world, regardless of politics or the morality of the regime otherwise.

I am shocked and amazed. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this subject, and it's even political.

Hang on, Satan's paging me, something about the AC being too high.

[Cynical Cat]

It's the smirk. Whether you think the Constitution of the United States is sacred and set in stone or could use major surgery with a chainsaw, wearing a greasy smile and making smart alek remarks while waving off trampling on the document goes down wrong.

[Josh]

It's the smirk. Whether you think the Constitution of the United States is sacred and set in stone or could use major surgery with a chainsaw, wearing a greasy smile and making smart alek remarks while waving off trampling on the document goes down wrong.

Especially given that the AG is, by extension of his superior, a direct servant of said document.

Gonzalez isn't popular with the Republicans- there was a lot of maneuvering behind the scenes to keep Bush from putting him up for the SCOTUS. We can hope that his resignation will be accepted soon. And next, we can hope that the replacement will at least be somewhat less odious.

[SirNitram]

Gonzales' support is now tanking across the board; when AP can only find one Senator and the President who support you, perhaps it's time to leave. Hell, the National Review is annoyed. The National Review. You don't get much more nuttily in love with the GOP than that.

From that big docu-dump, we learn alot of things. Like the term for those who should be retained? 'Loyal Bushie'. How high does it go? How about the President's personal counsel, Harriet Miers? And apparently, alot of big names refuse to use e-mail(Must be because you have to track that).

Of course, it's not a true Bush Administration scandal until someone contradicts the Constitutional duty of some branch on camera. Mr. Snow, would you do the honours?

MR. SNOW: There are -- in this particular case, the Department of Justice -- the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.

Actually, Congress does have oversight over the Administration, and among the things the Constitution does compel all government workers to do, is obey subpeonas. Some people are calling it the 'Executive Priveledge Theory On Crack', I think it's more in line with the idea that the Executive branch has just succeeded from the Union, or however you spell it.

Gonzales has announced he is staying. To combat terrorism? To clear his name? To make amends for his indiscretions? Nah. He's staying to 'protect the kids'; most likely a refer to the DOJ War On Porn, cited as an example in some of the docudump for a reason to ditch some of the ousted folks.

Finally, we have one curious little snarl in this. Executive Priveledge mostly accounts for internal White House correspondence, either face to face or what have you, with the President. There's also a variety of laws about preserving White House communications. So what do you do when the staff are using a private domain for their work?

Rove's E-mails

Alexis Simendinger writes in a National Journal story (subscription required): "White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have forfeited potential claims of executive privilege over the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys-- if he communicated about the latter outside the White House e-mail system, using his Republican National Committee e-mail account or RNC equipment. Or at least that's a legal possibility posed by rapidly advancing electronic technology and the evolving work habits of busy White House officials. . . .

"According to one former White House official familiar with Rove's work habits, the president's top political adviser does 'about 95 percent' of his e-mailing using his RNC-based account. Many White House officials, including aides in the Political Affairs Office, use the RNC account as an alternative to their official government e-mail addresses to help keep their official and political duties separate. Although some White House officials use dual sets of electronic devices for that purpose,

Rove prefers to use his RNC-provided BlackBerry for convenience, the former official said. . . .

"Some White House officials, including Rove, use the RNC's gwb43.com e-mail domain (an abbreviation for George W. Bush 43). Communications originating from that RNC domain written by White House political affairs aide Scott Jennings to officials in the Justice Department appeared in the first batch of e-mails given to the House and Senate Judiciary committees last week. The Jennings e-mails stamped with the RNC domain, as well as e-mails from then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and her deputy sent through the official White House system, were captured on Justice Department servers. . . .

"White House and RNC spokespeople did not respond to National Journal questions about Rove's use of the RNC e-mail system and the preservation of communications he created on its equipment."

That one was probably just an oddity, so why not close out this update with some silly?

Years before Bubba would redefine 'Is', the so-called Bush Brain demonstrates his stunning powers of misdirection when under subpeona.

"How long have you known an FBI agent by the name of Greg Rampton?" Glasgow asked.

Rove paused for a breath. "Ah, senator, it depends — would you define 'know' for me?"

Karl Rove: The Keystone Kop of political masterminds.

[frigidmagi]

Nah. He's staying to 'protect the kids'; most likely a refer to the DOJ War On Porn, cited as an example in some of the docudump for a reason to ditch some of the ousted folks.

Actually seems to be referring to Project Safe Childhood which is mostly aimed at pedophiles picking up kids on the net.

That being said, a pretty fucking weak excuse, a democrat AG would do just as well as NO ONE LIKES PEDOPHILES! Of course if he leaves, we won't get a democrat AG we'll get Jr's 3rd pick who will likely put Gonzales and Ashcroft to shame.

[SirNitram]

Another week, more preposterousness.

We could, of course, speak on Bush slipping into the First Person Plural during one of his 'I SUPPORT GONZALES HOW DARE YOU THINK HE'S NOT SPIFFY' pressers. Naturally, came off to me like the Royal We, but, let's move on to the actual scandal...

Another document dump, more contradictions. Big surprise, eh? Kyle Sampson(Recently under oath today) appears to be behind an attempt to mislead Congress. It also contains E-mails directly linking Rove and his prodigy to the effort.. Sure it wasn't political, Gonzo...

The head of the FBI has stated it's probably unprecedented when Monica Goodling, invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying to Congress. There's also the deeper question: Can you do that? Depends on if a Congressional hearing is a trial, I suppose... The reasons given? Oh, it's apparently a political witchhunt. Not, you know, Congress going after folks for perjury.

All through the White House, the effort to get away from the official E-mail's is intensifying. Another aspect of this little dance in questionable legal light, as various laws demand the archiving of such things..

Sampson's testimony was certainly a circus, though. We have him repeating the now thoroughly discredited idea that Carol Lam, the only purged prosecutor not in a swing state, was fired for poor work on immigration. Entered into the record afterwards was a letter of praise from the border enforcement in the area, to Mrs. Lam. Similarly, it was revealed that when Carol Lam was fired, the local FBI complained to the press. Kyle Sampson himself tried to shut them up.

When grilled on his use of the phrase 'Loyal Bushie' to define who should stay, he fumbled audibly when trying to explain that this was not political lapdogging, but loyalty to 'policies' and 'priorities', and that they must push forward those priorities.

Senator Whitehouse got him on the seat and asked about how much actual legal experience Mr. Sampson has. 1 criminal case, felonious gun possession. 2 years second-seating civil cases. Not... -quite- the experience I'd hope for. Monica Goodling, another DOJ bigwig, may or may not have had any experience. He understandly wants to know why the hell we should trust such unexperienced people to decide who gets thrown the fuck out when they're actually dealing with cases. Sampson also said the upper ranks were the ones who approved it.

There was the Senate Republicans utilizing a point of procedural rules to stop the hearing(Not close it down, just stop it). Then it was quickly reversed, claimed to be a mistake. I'm.. Just confused there.

Sampson got some of the contagious amnesia rushing through D.C., too. About the letter where he said it was important to 'Rove' that his prodigy be promoted. Now? He can't recall ever speaking to the man about it. Gosh.

There was also this gem.

"I don't remember hearing any complaints or anything about Mr. Iglesias' handling of corruption cases in New Mexico -- I do remember learning from, I believe, the attorney general, that he had received a complaint from Karl Rove about U.S. attorneys in 3 jurisdictions, including New Mexico. The substance of the complaint was that they were not pursuing voter fraud complaints aggressively enough."

Since the 'Voter Fraud' bit is being repeated so much in this, I think it's worth linking this story: Link

Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, "not dead yet."

Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names." After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.

And unless there's any big bombshells from Sampson tomorrow, this is it for the week. More insanity will no doubt follow.

[Stofsk]

It's the smirk. Whether you think the Constitution of the United States is sacred and set in stone or could use major surgery with a chainsaw, wearing a greasy smile and making smart alek remarks while waving off trampling on the document goes down wrong.

Smart Alek remarks? Most of just use smart ass remarks.

[Josh]

It's the smirk. Whether you think the Constitution of the United States is sacred and set in stone or could use major surgery with a chainsaw, wearing a greasy smile and making smart alek remarks while waving off trampling on the document goes down wrong.

Smart Alek remarks? Most of just use smart ass remarks.

And some are smart arses, too.

[Stofsk]

Well played, sir!