on the way out?

[46zilzal]

First GOP senator calls for Gonzales firing

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire on Wednesday became the first Republican in Congress to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' dismissal, hours after President Bush expressed confidence in his embattled Cabinet officer.

"I think the president should replace him," Sununu said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Gonzales has been fending off Democratic calls for his firing in the wake of disclosures surrounding the ousters of eight U.S. attorneys.

[delayjf]

Prime Example of Liberal media Bias

Clinton Administration fired all 93 Attorneys in 93, I don't even recall the story. Bush administration fires 9, and now there calling for Gonzales head.

I can just hear the three stooges theme in the background on this one :lol: :bang: .

[kenwoodallpromos]

How come the Dems seem to most want to get rid of Bush appointees who are Mexican, Black or Women? Rice, Meyers, Gonzales- is it so they can brag about having women, Mexicans, and Blacks running for president and brag about the Repubs being full of old white men?
Why is the liberal media not campaigning for Richardson like they are for CLinton and Obama?

[Secretariat]

Prime Example of Liberal media Bias

Clinton Administration fired all 93 Attorneys in 93, I don't even recall the story. Bush administration fires 9, and now there calling for Gonzales head.

I can just hear the three stooges theme in the background on this one :lol: :bang: .

You're not telling the whole story.

It is common for all Presdents to clean house when they take office including GW when he took office. Most of these attornies were put in place by him. What is uncommon is replacing them six years into a term especially in lieu of the majority of these guys having EXCELLENT performance ratings. These attornies are not "libs' that were fired, but many were Republicans appointed by the Prez. They simply beleived in following the law, rather than looking the other way which Gonazalez has been known to do with FISA and wiretaps and Patriot Act abuses. Even in "bad conduct" situations only 5 have been canned over the last 25 years during a term. So DJ, since you can't recall I'm providing the information. The Clinton firings are what every President does when he asumes office. This is not what happened here. Remember these attornies serve four year terms and GW has signed off twice on this group. Even he is irritated by Gonalez action, but apparently you are not. See below.

"Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common."

The irony is last year a Repub put into the Patriot Act a provision that allows the Attorney General to appoint US attorneys WITHOUT going to through the approval process in the Senate. So they screwed themselves over with this.

[delayjf]

It is common for all Presdents to clean house when they take office including GW when he took office

And what would be the purpose of "Cleaning House". If a US Attorney is doing a great job, why fire them? The answer is - it's all political, whether they are fired at the start of a term or in the middle.

[Tom]

Se Sec, tell us the whole story - what law was broken here?
Screw "usually" and "normally," and "historically."
What specific law was broken.

If no law was broken, this is EXECUTIVE branch business, not legislative branch.

And that's the bottom line.

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, Sec. please explain to us what right the legislative branch has to infringe on the powers of the executive branch? It is violation of the checks and balances system, plain and simple.

[delayjf]

It is common for all Presdents to clean house when they take office including GW when he took office. Most of these attornies were put in place by him.

Most Presidents replace some US Attorneys when taking office, both Carter and Reagan held some over and replaced them when their tenure was up. What's uncommon is to replace all 93 at once.

[Secretariat]

And what would be the purpose of "Cleaning House". If a US Attorney is doing a great job, why fire them? The answer is - it's all political, whether they are fired at the start of a term or in the middle.

Of course it's all political - ti's Washington. The issue here is Gonzalez is firing the ones Bush appointed twice without apparently Bush's own approval. These are not lib attornies btw, but ones who had excellent performance ratings. Gonzalez is now back tracking and saying he didn't know about all this. Bush is saying he knew nothing about it. So Tom, if someone indeed fired these attornies without the approval of the President or the AG who appointed them then there would be a violation. But Gonazelz is all over the place about this - just as he was about the Patriot Act and FISA wiretaps. He's another incompetent.

However, DJ you cited the Clinton firings, and I tried to update you on the history that this is something new. Firing your own appointments who have excellent performance ratings late in your term is different than bringing in new attornies as you take office which "every" President has done. I am amazed that GW is upset about this, but you are not. To me I'm not that interested in it. I'd prefer to see hearings from Sibel Edmonds in the House.

[Secretariat]

Yes, Sec. please explain to us what right the legislative branch has to infringe on the powers of the executive branch? It is violation of the checks and balances system, plain and simple.

I already did. These attornies fired required the advise and consent of the Senate to be hired. That is they did until a Repub modified the Patriot Act only last year which removed the advise and consent function of the Senate for US attornies.

The issue the Senate is asking is why are people who have excellent performance ratings being fired - the same people they consented for hire. After all unreasonable termination for someone they consented to hire is their business. The attornies, with excellent performance evaluations, have testified that they have been fired due to their not pursuing a partisan agenda. Though the Justice Department is under the auspices of the Executive, they are not supposed to be partisan in investigations. The recent Libby conviction is an example of a Republican appointed attorney Fitzgerald being free from partisan pressure from a Republican Executive to try a case against a Republican Executive member fairly. The Justice Department serves not just the Executive, but all people in the country.

Again I am amazed that GW is irritated by this, but perhaps you've been listening to too much of the Limbaugh/Hannity nutcases on this.

[Show Me the Wire]

I already did. These attornies fired required the advise and consent of the Senate. That is they did until a Repub modified the Patriot Act only last year which removed the advise and consent function of the Seante for US attornies.

The issue the Senate is asking is why are people who have excellent performance ratings being fired - the same people they consented for hire. The attornies, with excellent performance evaluations, have testified that they have been fired due to their not pursuing a partisan agenda. Though the Justice Department is under the auspices of the Executive, they are not supposed to be partisan in investigations. The recent Libby conviction is an example of a Republican appointed attorney Fitzgerald being free from partisan pressure from a Republican Executive to try a case against a Republican Executive member fairly. The Justice Department serves not just the Executive, but all people in the country.

Again I am amazed that GW is irritated by this, but you still keep supporting the Limbaugh/Hannity nutcases on this.

So by your own post, no laws were violated, the legislature gave up its advise and consent powers regarding the firing of U.S. Attorney's. The legislature in its wisdom made the the firing of these political positions solely accountable to the executive branch. Now they are infringing on the powers the legislature, itself, granted to the executive branch. A clear violation of the checks and balances system now being attempted by the legislature.

[delayjf]

These are not lib attornies btw, but ones who had excellent performance ratings.

I'm sure some of the 93 Clinton fired had good performance records as well. In fact one was fired that was investigating and 30 days away from handing down an indictment (Rostenkowski) a man Clinton later pardoned. One theory was that Clinton fired all US Attorneys to avoid the political scrutiny of firing the one investigating White Water.

[Tom]

Of course it's all political - ti's Washington. The issue here is Gonzalez is firing the ones Bush appointed twice without apparently Bush's own approval.....



Then is Bush's business and not congress's. But do you really think anyone would fire a presidential appointee without his approval? In any event, it is none of Congress's business. Just a blatant attempt at Rove again.. Instead of governeing, which none of the neo-libs have a cluse how to do, they all all 100% focused on vengence. Not troop support, not terror fighting, not min wages, not anything that wqould benefit the nation - strictly thier own personal power trips because Rove kicked thier butts for years and made it clear what mindless losers they are are.

And now they even ignore the constitution, which they have wrapped themselves in recently whenit suited thier evil needs.

:lol::lol: Even in victory, these guys are losers. I wonder how Pelosi is enjoying the "fancy eatin' room" and the "see-ment pond!" :lol:

[Secretariat]

So by your own post, no laws were violated, the legislature gave up its advise and consent powers regarding the firing of U.S. Attorney's. The legislature in its wisdom made the the firing of these political positions solely accountable to the executive branch. Now they are infringing on the powers the legislature, itself, granted to the executive branch. A clear violation of the checks and balances system now being attempted by the legislature.

I never said laws were violated. btw..the Senate did not give up its advise and consent, but Sen. Spector added that provision after the bill had been sent forward. Read up on it. It's easy to find.

You're still missing the point. THe man who appointed them - GW Bush - is also complaining about it.

[Secretariat]

Then is Bush's business and not congress's. But do you really think anyone would fire a presidential appointee without his approval? In any event, it is none of Congress's business. Just a blatant attempt at Rove again.. Instead of governeing, which none of the neo-libs have a cluse how to do, they all all 100% focused on vengence. Not troop support, not terror fighting, not min wages, not anything that wqould benefit the nation - strictly thier own personal power trips because Rove kicked thier butts for years and made it clear what mindless losers they are are.

And now they even ignore the constitution, which they have wrapped themselves in recently whenit suited thier evil needs.

:lol::lol: Even in victory, these guys are losers. I wonder how Pelosi is enjoying the "fancy eatin' room" and the "see-ment pond!" :lol:


Well, Tom, it's hard to get the story since the WH keeps changing it.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/15/roves-role-in-purge/

I see now Republicans Sununu and REpublicans Gordon are now calling for Gonzo to resign.

"If I were the president, I would fire the attorney general."

- Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.

btw...it appears Gonzales may have lied under oath.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/gonzales-lies


"I am fully committed, as the administration’s fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.

I think a United States attorney who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community — I think he has greater imprimatur of authority, if in fact that person’s been confirmed by the Senate."

- Alberto Gonzales

All of the above said, frankly it is typical business as usual from this WH, and IMO not the issue I am really concerned about in the press. I want hearings on Sibel Edmonds, athough I am glad these Repubs are now getting on record as not having the Irsqis accountable for any benchmarks. It'll do wonders for their congressional runs in 08. Spend and spend Repubs. They've never seen a debt they didn't like.

[46zilzal]

Rove implicated as we speak

[delayjf]

46

Implicated in what? There's no crime here. Demwits are attempting to manufactor a scandel that doesn't exist. Sununu is covering his ass in a state that Bush in not popular in. 35 town voting for Bush's impeachment, give me a break.

[Racer98]

Well, Sununu doesn't exactly have a clean record himself.

[Show Me the Wire]

I never said laws were violated. btw..the Senate did not give up its advise and consent, but Sen. Spector added that provision after the bill had been sent forward. Read up on it. It's easy to find.

You're still missing the point. THe man who appointed them - GW Bush - is also complaining about it.

I believe you are missing the point. President Bush can be upset about it as the matter is in his ball court. The executive branch makes these decisions. It is up to him and not the legislative branch to deal with his underling Gonzalez.

That is the point Sec. It is out of bounds for the legislative branch. Any interference on their part is a violation of the checks and balance system.

BTW Spector may have sponsored an amendment, but there still had to be a vote on it.

[46zilzal]

Rove Is Linked to Early Query Over Dismissals

By David Johnston and Eric Lipton / New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 15 — Karl Rove, the senior presidential adviser, inquired about firing United States attorneys in January 2005, e-mail messages released Thursday show. The request prompted a Justice Department aide to respond that Alberto R. Gonzales, soon to be confirmed as attorney general, favored replacing a group of “underperforming” prosecutors.

The e-mail messages, part of a larger collection that the Justice Department is preparing to turn over to Congressional investigators, indicate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, had considered replacing prosecutors earlier than either has previously acknowledged.

[delayjf]

Again, why is that wrong?

[46zilzal]

repeat:"Rove implicated as we speak"

[The Judge]

He tried this tactic it didn't work don't you remember when all this firs started he said " I serve at the pleasure of the President". This is called "stone walling". Now someone close to him said that won't work this was not Sec nor 46, no this was someone in his own camp. So later he came out with "some mistakes were make". The President said yes some mistakes were made ,and we are going to get to the bottom of this.

Not a legislative problem now there is a joke. The legislators can make it their problem they have subpoena power. Why use it ,well Gonzalez wasn't telling his attorney generals to lay off organized crime. He was saying go after some Democrats charge them with something. Now you have the nerve to get upset with the demos. Are you nuts?

Those seats were bought and paid for the same as the Rublicans. Now a civil servant is going to undo all the money all the votes all the lies told to get the seat. No way. Who will be the witnesses agaisnt Gonzalez, why the Presidents own now fired Attoney Generals. More then likely Republicans.

Do you think the Democrats can't smell this blood in the water its almost to easy, it was handed to them.

[chickenhead]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here...but why should I care about this? Even a little?

Thanks for NOT worrying aobut Social Security, Medicare, Immigration, or Trade Agreements Congresspeoples. I'd much rather have you focus on this.

[delayjf]

Or,

The investigations were legit and the US Attorneys would not pursue possibly due to their own political persuasion. I know it would be a Dem political fantasy come true to find evidense that Gonzales "instructed" them to fabricate or set somebody up. But I doubt that will happen.

Perhaps the good that will come of this is we might find out the 5 W's on the investigations in question.

[46zilzal]

what does F. O. G. stand for?

[The Judge]

If it's under oath I assume the Attorny General of The United States won't be taking the 5th nor will he be resigning as after all he was doing his job. He of course gave the local Atty. Gen some evidence that Demos where involved in some wrong doing or did he say if you don't start looking or You will be fired. You see these are some of the questions he is going to have to answer including some e-mails which I'm sure he never read.

Read the hand writing on the wall and stop defending a position that you don't believe.

Are you saying that you believe Gonzales and not 5 attorney generals with otherwise seemingly sparkling records. Why!

[JustRalph]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here...but why should I care about this? Even a little?

Thanks for NOT worrying aobut Social Security, Medicare, Immigration, or Trade Agreements Congresspeoples. I'd much rather have you focus on this.

Great post Chicken!!!

[Racer98]

Seconded....

[Tom]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here...but why should I care about this? Even a little?

Thanks for NOT worrying aobut Social Security, Medicare, Immigration, or Trade Agreements Congresspeoples. I'd much rather have you focus on this.

Get used to it. This is the agenda of the new congress - do nothing.
First, a non-binding resolutio.
Now, hearings into nothinh.
Next, another non binding resolution on withdrawl.

This congrsss is a sham. Afraid to tackle rail issues in a real manner.
Appropriate, the frist woman SOH heads a body without balls!:lol::lol::lol: The pussocrats.

[Boris]

what does F. O. G. stand for?


That is what you live in. :lol:

[Suff]

I'm not sure why any of you haven't done some reading on the issue.

Bush inserted a paragraph in the Patriot Act that allows him to replace US Attorneys without advise and consent of the senate.

That's the issue. The circumvention of the Constitution and the consolidation of power in the executive branch. The Unitary Executive theory. Tyranny.

Its a very significant usurp of one of the Pillars of our Governing Structure.

3 branchs, checks and balances.


If you don't think that's a big deal, that is your choice. Basketball on TV, American Idol Finals coming up, Anna Nicole Smith toxicology results coming out. I understand......lots and lots of important shit. No time to worry about the structure of the Country.

[Tom]

Gee, you mean the Congress might not have READ the bill THEY voted for?
I would suggest that being a lawmaker implies you read what you vote for.
That said, Congress has the power to pass a new law. What are they wating for?

So how did Clinton dismiss all 93 at once?

[Snag]

Bush inserted a paragraph in the Patriot Act that allows him to replace US Attorneys without advise and consent of the senate.


Suff, are you really sure about your statement?

[chickenhead]

No time to worry about the structure of the Country.

No time to watch Congress, who passed the new language 89-10 (in the Senate, last year), now act outraged. You make me laugh Suff...you think American Idol is more phony than the games these idiots play on CSPAN?

Please, have them change it back to 120 days. No one is stopping them. Tell them, on my behalf, to do it. STF up, do it, and move on to more serious matters. They are the ones that f'ed in up in the first place. Don't whine to me about it, just fix it.

Or have I missed something Suff...is there some big group of citizens who wanted this changed? Who exactly was your Senator representing when he voted yes on that language? I see both of mine voted for it to be changed. And now they are outraged? F them.

[Secretariat]

It is difficult to get to the truth of this story as the WH keeps changing it. First it was Harriet Meirs rsponsible for it, now it's not I guess. First Bush was agrravted by it, now he supports Rove's action who said there's nothing wrong with it. First Gonzalez said during confirmation that he would never forego the Senate's advise and consent, and now he does it. THen an assistant of his said he put the elimination of the advise and consent in the Patriot Act which is strange because Sen. Specter said one of his staffers inserted it into the bill after it was passed. Then later he recanted and said he did it without informing the rest of the Senate. It's like the Keystone Kops with the GOP.

And lastly, and this is the big one...the WH now says they don't know where the idea began!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[chickenhead]

The language was inserted during conference. It was there when approved by the Senate after it came out of conference. It was three months between conference and vote. Any of our Senators who cared to read the bill and object had three months to do so.

[The Judge]

WHY DO YOU CARE?

[Tom]

It is difficult to get to the truth of this story as the WH keeps changing it.
And lastly, and this is the big one...the WH now says they don't know where the idea began!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And what does it matter since no laws were broken?

[chickenhead]

WHY DO YOU CARE?

I don't care about this issue. I care that our congress and our executive are a mockery, a mockery enabled by our actions (or inaction) as citizens. I do care that this train we call America is headed full speed ahead into a brick wall we can clearly see ahead up on the tracks, and yet we choose to occupy our time debating drivel and nonsense.

But no, I see nothing important about this issue. The president fired a few of his employees. Big deal. If I'm supposed to be worried that the Congress passed a shitty piece of legislation called the Patriot Act...that train left the station years ago, and again last year when this particular incarnation passed (nearly unanimously). And I have no interest in hearing the very people who voted for it now proclaiming how bad it is. NONE.

[Secretariat]

And what does it matter since no laws were broken?

How do we know no laws were broken when we don't know from whom the idea began? If Rove is directly firing US attornies without the President's knowledge, yes it is against the law as he has no suich authority.

[Secretariat]

The language was inserted during conference. It was there when approved by the Senate after it came out of conference. It was three months between conference and vote. Any of our Senators who cared to read the bill and object had three months to do so.

I'd be curious how you know that for sure. (btw...even by Specter's account who headed the committee it was added later)

[Tom]

Another moot point. They voted on it.

Who knows what specific section of the Act it is in?
Who knows, without this section, how was Clinton able to fire 93 at once?

And Sec, do you think if ROVE fired on of them , they would not have been whining about it already? Now, it may well have been Rov'es idea - that's why they have consultants. Bush has had geed results from Rove so far, so why change now? :lol:

[chickenhead]

I'd be curious how you know that for sure. (btw...even by Specter's account who headed the committee it was added later)

Because I looked up what was filed by the conference committee. On Dec. 8th, they filed HR 109-133, which contained the text. It was passed the following week by the House, and several months later by the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03199:@@@R

The change happened in conference. If it happened outside of conference, you'd find an amendment.

Who did it you'll never know, as they are closed sessions. But any Senator who bothered to read the conference report (it's only the Patriot Act, right?) had three months to do so before voting on it.

[chickenhead]

btw Sec, I think you are confusing conference committee with the Judiciary Committee. Specter is chair of the latter, and he most certainly didn't make the change during judiciary. It was changed in conference committee...which happens later.

But all of that is really moot, because both House and Senate approved the Conference changes. It's all very well documented what happens to a bill and when. There is no big mystery to any of this. There is no one sneaking around with a sharpie changing things in the middle of the night.

People in the media and people in congress who act like this is some mystery, are playing you for a fool.

[Secretariat]

btw Sec, I think you are confusing conference committee with the Judiciary Committee. Specter is chair of the latter, and he most certainly didn't make the change during judiciary. It was changed in conference committee...which happens later.

But all of that is really moot, because both House and Senate approved the Conference changes. It's all very well documented what happens to a bill and when. There is no big mystery to any of this. There is no one sneaking around with a sharpie changing things in the middle of the night.

People in the media and people in congress who act like this is some mystery, are playing you for a fool.

Well, apparently there is a little more to the story. Read the update - interesting.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002487.php

Specter: "I Do Not Slip Things In"
By Paul Kiel - February 6, 2007, 10:50 AM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) angrily addressed his insertion of a measure that changed the law governing the selection of U.S. Attorneys during this morning's hearing on the issue.

As we reported last month, Specter inserted an obscure provision into the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act that made it possible for the administration to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for an indefinite period. The measure was inserted when the bill was in conference committee. "Specter slipped the language into the bill at the very last minute," we wrote.

....

Update: Uh oh. In remarks later in the hearing, Sen. Feinstein addressed Specter's insertion of the measure, making a point of saying that the language had indeed been “slipped in," adding that it had been slipped in "in a way that I don’t believe that anyone on this committee knew it was in the law... no Republican, no Democrat."

Later Update: OK. In later remarks in response to Feinstein, Specter said that he actually didn't know about the added provision until Feinstein approached him recently about the issue. After Feinstein's inquiry, Specter says, he asked his chief counsel about the issue, who then explained what had happened. So according to him, Specter's staff was responsible for the provision, but Specter himself didn't know about it.

,,,,

I [Specter] then contacted my very-able Chief Council Michael O’Neill to find out exactly what had happened. Mr. O’Neill advised me that the requested change had come from the Department of Justice, that it had been handled by Brett Tolman, who is now the US Attorney for Utah.

....

*Update: This post incorrectly originally stated that Tolman worked for the Justice Department. In fact, he[Tolman] worked as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Specter was Chairman at the time .
,,,,,

Now ,the bottom line is the following (They are going to reverse all of this.)


Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the meeting senators from the Judiciary Committee had with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this afternoon:

“While we didn’t get any better explanation for these unprecedented firings, two important developments came from this meeting. First, the Attorney General told us the Administration would not oppose our legislation requiring Senate confirmation for all U.S. Attorneys. Second, in one form or another, each of the five Department of Justice witnesses will be made available to us for questioning. The details and venue are still being worked out, but we are hopeful they will cooperate."

[chickenhead]

That jives with what I've been saying, it was changed in conference. And then sat for three months. And then was approved by the Senate.

The story not being covered here, is that apparently not a single House Member, Senator or Aide actually read the legislation before voting on it.

Congress is disgusting.

[Tom]

I think the point here is not how it got there, but is it there? What does it mean if it is?

This whole thing so far ia lemony snicket series of unfortunate events - but no one has yet shown me where it is illegal.

What happened might not be very desirable, like this, but not illegal:

[chickenhead]

exactly right Tom, nothing about it is illegal.

Suff says the story is about the President usurping the rights of Congress.

That is the only reason I looked into it, to find lo and behold that Congress gave up it's right -- it passed this bill. Anyone in congress who voted yes, and is now complaining, is basically proclaiming their own incompetence. Anyone who thinks the congress should have oversight, and is upset that they no longer do, should be upset at the Congress, not the President. The Congress passes legislation, not the President. There is no signing statement trickery here.

I'm not a fan of idiocy wherever I find it, and that is one of my biggest problems with the left, in their rush to blame everything on Bush they completely ignore the incompetence of their own Democratic representatives.

They are constantly proclaiming that A.) Bush is a moron, and B.) Bush is constantly tricking them and getting the better of them. I'm no genius, but I'm pretty sure that means they are morons too.

As for the couple of guys that got fired, I could care less. Let's remember that all of them will likely get fired real soon anyway, after next election.

[Tom]

And let's not forget, the court is still in operation. That is a check and balance. If the dems think this is violating the contstitution, shut up and do something about it.

I have to laugh - everyday we hear about Bush taking control of the government. 100 Senators, and what, 635 or so rat bastards, er, congressmen and one guy bullies them all over the place, this simpleton who beat them twice for the WH and has gotten his way ever since. What the hell is thier problem? :lol:

But the sad part is, the so-called reform people have failed miserable to step up to the plate and do anything since January. Very sad. I would for a fact be 100% behind many things they could be doing, but thier sole focus is get Bush.

[PaceAdvantage]

Excuse me while I pull a Racer98:

chickenhead and Tom, good posts!

[Secretariat]

That jives with what I've been saying, it was changed in conference. And then sat for three months. And then was approved by the Senate.

The story not being covered here, is that apparently not a single House Member, Senator or Aide actually read the legislation before voting on it.

Congress is disgusting.

Perhaps so as is the administration.

But I'm trying to figrue out exactly what happened here. When Feinstein states:

"...slipped in "in a way that I don’t believe that anyone on this committee knew it was in the law... no Republican, no Democrat."

Specter said he didn't know it was in there. So staffers can just insert language into a bill without a senator's knowledge? Some of these bills are huge in length. The fact that Bush signed it as well without knowing about it speaks volumes.

[chickenhead]

maybe Feinstein and Specter and these other idiots will use this as a wake up call that they need to control their process a little better.

I think I know a quality control guy who could whip them into shape. ;)

[hcap]

WP:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that [former San Diego US attorney] Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, on May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

[Racer98]

Excuse me while I pull a Racer98:

chickenhead and Tom, good posts!

Huh?

[Secretariat]

WP:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that [former San Diego US attorney] Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, on May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

Yes, this is the othe side of the story. Lots of questions here, and Chicknehead points out a good one.

1. Whatever posssessed Congress to pass a bill turning over legislature autority to the executive regarding the hiring and firing of US attornies?

2. Can a staffer insert material into a bill without the knowledge of his own Senator?

3. How do Senators go about reading a bill? Is it just broken down to them, or as chick says is a QA person on each staff there to decipher each recommendaiton in the bill?

4. On the Executive side...was there a political side to the firing of the US attornies? In other words was Lam above fired for pursuing and doing a good job in the investigation of Republican Cunningham? Lam had great performance evaluations so what was the reason for his firing? I suppose any employee can file a suit related to unjust termination.

5. What is the real story on the WH side? Gonzales has revealed various versions of the story which are conradictory. Bush seems confused as to what happens yet is responsible for actually dismissing US attornines. THe Senate wants to hear both Rove's and Meirs story as well. Honestly, there is incompetence in the Congress that passed this legislation with bipartisan support, but there is total confusion in the explanations provided by the WH in explaining who made the decisions and why.

[The Judge]

There was a time not to long ago that if you had to have a leg cut off in the hospital there was a good chance that the doctor might cut off the wrong leg. Even thou the leg to be cut off marked and labled right leg or left leg. The real problem was that once the wrong leg was cut-off the remaining leg would have to removed.

Then someone came up with the idea of marking the leg to be cut-off with orange day glow while the patient was awake and could particpate and watch which leg was being painted orange. This cut down on the number of wrong legs being removed. Why it didn't eliminate the wrong leg being remove all together is beyound me. I quess some habits are just plain hard to break.

Now my suggestion is that before some employee of a Senator goes and adds language to a bill that is about to become law and not tell his boss; that new language in committee or out of committee or in the bar or coffee house wherever its put in, be in a different color. Orange Day Glow seems find with me. Ater all a leg effects one person and his friends and family a law may effect millions of people for alot of years.

[Secretariat]

Good suggestion Judge. Seems if the revised encyclopedia was finished, and you just finished it reading it, and then a day later a clerk added a small paragraph, and said now re-read the whole encyclopedia to find it, one would be a little reticent to the task, instead one would like to know (a) there was an insertion and (b) where was the insertion and (c) why did you insert this since you were not part of the people authorized to make the insertion?

But I could see the color paper idea, or at least a hi-lighter and disclosure. :D

[Tom]

Sounds like congress should be investigating themselves. :p

Here's the point,though - no matter why the 8 were fired,it is the president's right to do so. So whatever the reason, it doesn't matter.
Are you telling me when Clinton fired 93, it was not political???

Now, I agree with you, it is not right, and both prezzy boys probably acted wrong but legal. And the only ones who can make it illegal are the ones walking around puffing chests and pointing fingers instead of legislating.

Hold these muffin heads to a higher standard.

[Secretariat]

Sounds like congress should be investigating themselves. :p

Here's the point,though - no matter why the 8 were fired,it is the president's right to do so.

It is "his" right (until the amendment is reversed which Gonzalez and the Prez have promised not to interfere with). The issue Tom, is the Prez was NOT the one who did it, he said he was unaware and surprised by the firings. So WHO in the WH did it?

[Tom]

Why is this such a mystery?
Ask the boneheads who were canned!
If they don'tknow who fired them, I can see why they were selected to have thier futures freed up.:lol:

[The Judge]

This man is the highest ranking prosecutor in the nation he knows that he can hide behind "what I did was legal" because the standard for Judges, prosecutors and attorneys is not whether something is legal nor laws broken the standard is whether or not the actions taken were ethical and if not you are in breach of your professional code of conduct.

This is grounds for dismissal, disbarrment or any punishment in-between. You will never hear Gonzales say my actions were legal because he knows thats not enough. Again his mistake was trying to get his attorneys to serve as hit men on the Democratic Party for this administration. He got caught doing it. Plain and simple now why this back and forth here I can't understand.

If you were a Democrat and 5 United States Attorney Generals showed up at you door step and said, hey Gonzales just fired 5 of us because we wouldn't go on a wild goose hunt for him and oh by the the way you were the goose, what should the Democracts do? Tell them well he has a right to fire you next time you should investigate us ,are you nuts?

It was legal it was unethical and stupid is what it was now you are going to sign on to this!

[Tom]

Great post. Now explain to me why it was OK for Clinton to fire 93 of them.
It was POLITICAL. PRobably Reagan, Bush41, Carter, etc.
They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the right to change his team. I support what Clinton did. His right to have the team he want and none of my business - they guy at the top should be granted wide latitude in who he wants on his team.

Anyone suggesting the replacement are not qualitifed, maybe more so?

Move on.......nothing happened here.

[The Judge]

I don't think it was right for Clinton to come in and fire 93 US Attorneys but if he fired that many I assume he fired some that were Democrats that were for him. What I would like to know is did he re-hire any of those fired. If so it was some sort of thing making them beholding to him not his predecessor. I don't think thats right.

All I can say is if you become a US Attoney General say in Northern Cal or a whole state you know when the Presidency changes you lose your job. They must know this and sign on anyway for reasons I don't understand. Its not a surprise where this is something completly different.

[chickenhead]

but they are political appointments. These guys aren't lily white as the driven snow. When they're hired an agenda is an understood. Why is it so bad to reign them in then if they move off the reservation then is the question.

Seems part and parcel of the process (which you might argue sucks).

Congress could probably write some rules as to under what circumstances a dismissal is alowed. Would probaly get declared unconstitutional, but they could try it.

[Tom]

One of the ones Billy boy fired was 30 days away from indicting Dan Rostenkosky. It then took 15 months to finally materialize.

Politics - plain and simple.

[delayjf]

Conservative also theorize that Clinton's real motivation was to get rid of the US Attorney in Arkansas investigating Whitewater - replacing him with a attorney a little more Clinton friendly. Clinton would have taken too much heat for just going after him.

From what I've heard so far, Rove wanted to clear house at the start of the new term.

[chickenhead]

We can all sleep easier now, especially Suff, as the constitutional crises has been averted, and the Senate has reclaimed its right to approve U.S. attorney appointments. No one is really sure why they gave it up in the first place...but they now have it back.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fired_prosecutors

Essentially, the Senate returned the law regarding the appointments of U.S. attorneys to where it was before Congress passed the Patriot Act, including the unilateral appointment authority the administration had sought in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.

[Tom]

Dosen't Bush have to sign off on this law?
How can the senate act unilaterally?

BTW, Nice speech Bush gave tonight - pretty much told congress where to stick it.

[Secretariat]

Dosen't Bush have to sign off on this law?
How can the senate act unilaterally?

BTW, Nice speech Bush gave tonight - pretty much told congress where to stick it.

Tom, even if he doesn't sign it, it becomes law. If he vetoes, you can see the margin's vote below. I have no idea who the 2 characters who voted against.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20cnd-attorney.html

"Democratic senators were in no mood to be conciliatory after the Senate voted by an overwhelming 94- to-2 margin today to revoke the authority it granted the Bush administration last year to name federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation."

[JustRalph]

nice to see Bush stand up and act like he has a spine for once.

Too bad it is a week late........................

I think they can make political hay out of this somehow.......or they wouldn't be doing it.

The Right side of the web has been screaming for Bush to tell Leahy to stick it up his Vermont ass! Apparently Bush heard the cry...............

[hcap]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/

???

[Snag]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/19/carol-lam-white-house/

???

Don't you find it interesting that the headline is about Lam's "Firing" but the article and the referenced email is about her replacement when her "term expires".

I have a feeling a number of other facts in this whole story are not being told correctly.

[46zilzal]

Listen how the brain stem that talks describes this situation: "Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. Attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. Attorneys and they served four-year terms. ...I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. Attorneys. ...I also want to say something to the U.S. Attorneys who [ B]resigned[/B]. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle."

Somehow resign and fire are not synonyms.

[Secretariat]

Listen how the brain stem that talks describes this situation: "Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. Attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. Attorneys and they served four-year terms. ...I recognize there is significant interest in the role the White House played in the resignations of these U.S. Attorneys. ...I also want to say something to the U.S. Attorneys who [ B]resigned[/B]. I appreciate your service to the country. And while I strongly support the Attorney General's decision and am confident he acted appropriately, I regret these resignations turned into such a public spectacle."

Somehow resign and fire are not synonyms.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Snag]

Somehow resign and fire are not synonyms.

Could it be because you want them to be fired when they really did resign or were replaced when their term expired?

Either way there is nothing here. Only the Libs want to act as if it were a crime. It isn't. There has been no law broken here.

[delayjf]

That's right, the only measure of a man is his public speaking abilility. Probably has no clue what the meaning of "is" is. :bang:

[Lefty]

pleny of rightwing pundits predicted the dems wouldn't get anything done when they took office but just use their power to constantly "rag" on the admin. They do it cause that's all they got.