More Attorneys Mischief.

[Patrick Degan]

"Mistakes were made".

Yeah.... They got caught.

[K. A. Pital]

"I do have confidence in AG Al Gonzales," Bush said during a joint news conference with President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico. "I talked to him this morning, and we talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decision it made."

Hahhahhaaa....

Also, on this meeting... on today's Russian TV, Calderon carefully inquired Bush at the meeting as to whether he would legalize the Mexican workers which is a very serious issue for Mexico (Bush's very arrival caused thousand-strong riots some of which turned violent, if I were to believe my eyes).

Bush... well, he said a lot of his "improve and progress" crap and invoked the common Palpatinian "ONLY TOGETHA" phrase that he's so keen on using recently.

Watching the said meeting on TV I got a strong feeling of a Tsar being kindly asked "pleeeese" by a very shy court official... ugh.

Cronyism at home, ridiculing demands of even countries that profess to be his allies... how much worse can Bush be?

[Glocksman]

Bush would fucking LOVE to legalize all of the illegal Mexicans in the US for Calderon, but there is serious resistance to the idea at the grassroots level in both political parties, despite the support of the 'mainstream' party leadership in each party.

In fact, my newly elected Democratic Congressman pledged to vote against any amnesty proposals for illegals.
If he'd said otherwise, he wouldn't be a Congressman right now.

IMHO, Bush and those of his ilk who favor legalizing the illegals can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

[FSTargetDrone]

Gonzales on whether or not he stays Attorney General--It's up to Bush:

US Attorney General Says His Future Up to President Bush

By VOA News

14 March 2007

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says whether he stays in office or resigns is up to President Bush.

During a series of televised interviews Wednesday morning, Gonzales continued to defend himself over the recent firings of eight federal prosecutors. He says the firings were part of a process to improve the job performance of all federal attorneys.

A number of prominent Democratic leaders are calling for Gonzales to step down - among them are presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Critics say the attorney general seemed to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his present duty to uphold the laws of the entire country.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett told reporters traveling with President Bush in Mexico Tuesday that Mr. Bush continues to have confidence in Gonzales. Bartlett said the president is satisfied that Gonzales has pledged to address concerns.

Several emails released on Tuesday show the White House initiated the process that led to the firings. Democrats say the dismissals were politically motivated.

Gonzales says he was aware of communications between his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers over the firings. Sampson has resigned as Gonzales's chief of staff.

Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees want to question Gonzales, President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, and Sampson about their role in the firings.

U.S. attorneys are typically appointed to four-year terms by the president on the recommendation of state political leaders and they serve at the pleasure of the president.

I say he's gone, sooner or later. If he's not gone I'll be surprised.

[K. A. Pital]

IMHO, Bush and those of his ilk who favor legalizing the illegals can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut

Ah, really safe behind the citizenship border. I personally think that if you advocate economic freedom (as the current US does, at least in theory, in practice it's often a one-sided fuckfeast towards LA), at least be consistent and advocated total freedom of labour movement and abolition of immigration barriers which are used to keep higher salaries for citizens of the country protected by said barriers and deter competition from possible large numbers of immigrants.

Besides, from a capitalist government point of view, isn't absolute, 100% free competition good?

Immigrants generate lots of goods and services and work in the economy like mad, but they're not allowed this amnest because...? What's the argument?

[FSTargetDrone]

Why am I hearing more and more stories that Gonzales was grossly unqualified to be Attorney General? Surely that cannot be true?

[SirNitram]

Why am I hearing more and more stories that Gonzales was grossly unqualified to be Attorney General? Surely that cannot be true?

Why not? He's clearly got no intention of upholding the Constitution, which would be a pretty strong disqualifying factor.

[Edi]

Why am I hearing more and more stories that Gonzales was grossly unqualified to be Attorney General? Surely that cannot be true?

Since when did Bush appoint ANYONE based on qualifications instead of cronyism?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Why am I hearing more and more stories that Gonzales was grossly unqualified to be Attorney General? Surely that cannot be true?

Since when did Bush appoint ANYONE based on qualifications instead of cronyism?

since I'm watching gangs of new york, during the reign of queen dick.

[Lord Zentei]

Note to prospective corrupt politicians: it might be better if you deleted emails where you discuss your unethical behaviour. Particularly if you intend to say later that you didn't know anything about it.

Rove, Gonzales discussed firings, e-mails show

POSTED: 10:14 a.m. EDT, March 16, 2007

• In e-mails, Gonzales and Karl Rove talk of U.S. attorney shakeup
• Subject broached at least a month before administration previously said it did
• White House said idea was Harriet Miers', who was counsel after Gonzales
• Rove, Bush's political adviser, says Democrats "want to play politics" with issue

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mails indicate the top presidential political adviser, Karl Rove, and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales were involved in discussions of a shakeup of U.S. attorneys before Gonzales became attorney general.

A January 9, 2005, White House e-mail shows the subject was broached at least a month before the administration previously said it was -- after Gonzales' February 3, 2005, confirmation as attorney general.

The e-mail discusses the prospect of replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys in President Bush's second term and notes that Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson talked about the matter with his boss "a couple of weeks ago." Gonzales was facing Senate confirmation as attorney general at the time.

Sampson's e-mail was responding to a forwarded message originally from another White House aide, Colin Newman. Newman wrote that Rove had asked "how we were going to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them or selectively replace them, etc." (Watch Rove defend the firings Video)

The White House said the idea for sacking federal prosecutors in Bush's second term came from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who wanted "new blood" in those offices. Miers became White House counsel after Gonzales moved to the attorney general's office.

'Rove was in the middle of this mess'

But the e-mails "show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said -- an assertion the White House disputed.

Eventually, the Justice Department pushed out U.S. attorneys in eight judicial districts, replacing them with interim appointees. This sparked outrage on Capitol Hill over the rare midterm shakeup and spurred calls for Gonzales' resignation from several Democratic senators and one Republican.

The interim appointments were made under a provision of the antiterrorist USA Patriot Act, which says the interim appointees can serve indefinitely without the normal Senate confirmation. (Full story)

Among those calling for Gonzales to step down was Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, who said Thursday that Gonzales lied about plans for the U.S. attorney's position in Arkansas. He said Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Bush administration planned to replace prosecutors appointed on an interim basis with nominees who would be confirmed by the Senate.

Gonzales said Tuesday that Sampson had managed the process and kept others in the dark, with the result that Justice Department provided "incomplete" information about the dismissals to Congress.

"As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware of a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all United States attorneys," he said. "That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive."

Thursday night, the Justice Department said Gonzales "has no recollection of any plan or discussion to replace U.S. attorneys while he was still White House counsel." (Watch the administration work on damage control Video)

"The period of time referred to in the e-mail was during the weeks he was preparing for his confirmation hearing, January 6, 2005, and his focus was on that," Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said in a written statement.

"Of course, discussions of changes in presidential appointees would have been appropriate and normal White House exchanges in the days and months after the election as the White House was considering different personnel changes administration-wide."

Though U.S. attorneys are political appointees who can be replaced at the president's discretion, it is rare for them to be replaced in the middle of a president's term. Suggestions they were fired for bad performance were rejected outright by the fired lawyers, some of whom have alleged political reasons for the dismissals.

The Justice Department later admitted that one of the eight -- H.E. "Bud" Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas -- was fired to make room for a former Rove aide returning from military service.

But earlier Thursday, Rove told an audience at an Alabama college that the administration had "reasonable and appropriate disagreements" with the remaining seven that justified their removals, and Democrats who control Congress "want to play politics with it."

Senate committee authorizes subpoenas

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to authorize subpoenas for five current and former Justice Department officials and six fired federal prosecutors. The subpoenas have not been served because the committee hopes the officials will testify voluntarily.

On Wednesday, White House counsel Fred Fielding held a half-hour meeting with leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees to discuss lawmakers' requests for testimony about the firings.

A senior administration official said Fielding gave no firm answers as to whether White House aides would testify. Democratic leaders gave him a Friday deadline to respond, but White House and administration officials said Bush was likely to invoke executive privilege and bar his advisers from giving public testimony.

[Edi]

"Play politics" is Republican code words for "they want to have oversight of our doings". With good reason too. It's about somebody started playing politics of responsibility and dragged the Bush administration over the coals for the blatant cronyism and abuse of power. This is the perfect issue for it, since it does not touch anybody too directly and thus eliminates a big chunk of the conflict of interest card that the GOP so eagerly uses.

[The Yosemite Bear]

kinda sad to be witness to the decline of America, and our collapse into barbarism and curruption.

[MKSheppard]

The Pot Calling the Kettle “Interim”
Democrats with short memories rail about Bush’s removal of U.S. attorneys.

By Andrew C. McCarthy


In lambasting the Bush administration for politicizing the appointment of the nation’s United States attorneys, Democrats may be on the verge of redefining chutzpah.

The campaign is being spearheaded on the Judiciary Committee by Senator Dianne Feinstein. She contends that at least seven U.S. attorneys — tellingly, including those for two districts in her home state — have been “forced to resign without cause.” They are, she further alleges, to be replaced by Bush appointees who will be able to avoid Senate confirmation thanks to a “little known provision” of the Patriot Act reauthorization law enacted in 2006.

Going into overdrive, Feinstein railed on the Senate floor Tuesday that “[t]he public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988 has said, ‘This is like nothing I’ve ever seen in my 35-plus years.’”

Yes, the public, surely, is about as “shocked, shocked” as Claude Raines’s Captain Renault, and one is left to wonder whether Mr. Nunez spent the 1990s living under a rock.

One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party’s own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats).

We like to think that law enforcement is not political, and for the most part — the day-to-day part, the proceedings in hundreds of courtrooms throughout the country — that is true. But appointments are, and have always been political. Does it mean able people are relieved before their terms are up? Yes, but that is the way the game is played.

Indeed, a moment’s reflection on the terms served by U.S. attorneys reveals the emptiness of Feinstein’s argument. These officials are appointed for four years, with the understanding that they serve at the pleasure of the president, who can remove them for any reason or no reason. George W. Bush, of course, has been president for six years. That means every presently serving U.S. attorney in this country has been appointed or reappointed by this president.

That is, contrary to Clinton, who unceremoniously cashiered virtually all Reagan and Bush 41 appointees, the current President Bush can only, at this point, be firing his own appointees. Several of them, perhaps even all of them, are no doubt highly competent. But it is a lot less unsavory, at least at first blush, for a president to be rethinking his own choices than to be muscling out another administration’s choices in an act of unvarnished partisanship.

Feinstein’s other complaint, namely, that the Bush administration is end-running the Constitution’s appointment process, which requires Senate confirmation for officers of the United States (including U.S. attorneys), is also unpersuasive.

As she correctly points out, the Patriot Act reauthorization did change prior law. Previously, under the federal code (Title 28, Section 546), if the position of district U.S. attorney became vacant, it could be filled for up to 120 days by an interim appointee selected by the attorney general. What would happen at the end of that 120-day period, if a new appointee (who would likely also be the interim appointee) had not yet been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate? The old law said the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would then shift to the federal district court, whose appointee would serve until the president finally got his own nominee confirmed.

This was a bizarre arrangement. Law enforcement is exclusively an executive branch power. The Constitution gives the judiciary no role in executive appointments, and the congressional input is limited to senate confirmation. U.S. attorneys are important members of the Justice Department — the top federal law enforcement officers in their districts. But while the attorney general runs the Justice Department, U.S. attorneys work not for the AG but for the president. They are delegated to exercise executive authority the Constitution reposes only in the president, and can thus be terminated at will by the president. Consequently, having the courts make interim appointments made no practical sense, in addition to being constitutionally dubious.

The Patriot Act reauthorization remedied this anomaly by eliminating both the role of the district courts and the 120-day limit on the attorney general’s interim appointments. The interim appointee can now serve until the senate finally confirms the president’s nominee.

Is there potential for abuse here? Of course — there’s no conceivable appointments structure that would not have potential for abuse. Like it or not, in our system, voters are the ultimate check on political excess.

So yes, a president who wanted to bypass the Constitution’s appointments process could fire the U.S. attorney, have the attorney general name an interim appointee, and simply refrain from submitting a nominee to the senate for confirmation. But we’ve also seen plenty of abuse from the Senate side of appointments — and such abuse was not unknown under the old law. Though the president can nominate very able U.S. attorney candidates — just as this president has also nominated very able judicial candidates — those appointments are often stalled in the confirmation process by the senate’s refusal to act, its imperious blue-slip privileges (basically, a veto for senators from the home state of the nominee), and its filibusters.

But that’s politics. The president tries to shame the senate into taking action on qualified nominees. Senator Feinstein, now, is trying to shame the White House — making sure the pressure is on the administration not to misuse the Patriot Act modification as an end-around the confirmation process.

Why is Feinstein doing this? After all, the next president may be a Democrat and could exploit to Democratic advantage the same perks the Bush administration now enjoys.

Well, because Feinstein is not going to be the next president. She is still going to be a senator and clearly intends to remain a powerful one. Aside from being enshrined in the Constitution, the confirmations process is a significant source of senatorial power no matter who the president is. Practically speaking, confirmation is what compels a president of either party to consult senators rather than just peremptorily installing the president’s own people. Over the years, it has given senators enormous influence over the selection of judges and prosecutors in their states. Feinstein does not want to see that power diminished.

It’s worth noting, however, that the same Democrats who will be up in arms now were mum in the 1990s. President Clinton not only fired U.S. attorneys sweepingly and without cause. He also appointed high executive-branch officials, such as Justice Department civil-rights division chief Bill Lann Lee, on an “acting” basis even though their positions called for senate confirmation. This sharp maneuver enabled those officials to serve even though it had become clear that they would never be confirmed.

Reporting on Lee on February 26, 1998, the New York Times noted: “Under a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act, a person may serve in an acting capacity for 120 days. But the [Clinton] Administration has argued that another Federal law supercedes the Vacancy Act and gives the Attorney General the power to make temporary law enforcement assignments of any duration.”

What the Clinton administration dubiously claimed was the law back then is, in fact, the law right now. Yet, for some strange reason — heaven knows what it could be — Senator Feinstein has only now decided it’s a problem. Like the public, I’m shocked.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[SirNitram]

Ah, the Right Wing 'CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' defense.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says: You're a lying peice of dogshit.

PDF Link

A grand total of two attorneys resigned before their four year employment under Clinton.

One was caught on camera grabbing a reporter by the throat.

One allegedly bit a topless dancer. Yes, I said bit.

So as usual, Shep posts the incoherent garbage that is claimed to exonerate the Right. And he can't even follow the basic forum rules of providing the source. Surprised? Not me.

[Lord Zentei]

I suspect that Shep's link is from here: linka.


Heh. McCarthy. Yeah, irrelevant, I know.