United States Attorney's

[michaeledward]

The firing of eight, possibly nine, United States Attorney's has been in the news quite a bit recently.

It has been quite interesting to watch the complete silence here in the Study on this topic. The silence, here, is broken.

Let the discussion begin.


One question I have, if the US Attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the President" ... how can it be that the President was not briefed on their dismissal? Doesn't that make these people as "Serving at the pleasure of the White House political operatives"?

 

[crushing]

I'm more surprised as to how big of a story this has become in the media.

I don't know that these eight served at the pleasure of Whitehouse 'political operatives' any more than the unprecedented 93 that were fired in 1993 did. I do think that the President should have at least been briefed, even if he isn't micromanaging the Justice Department.

Also, leave it to the Bush administration to turn a routine procedure of replacing Presidential appointees into a full blown political fiasco (with some help, of course).

 

[crushing]

Bad example between the 93 fired and the 8 as the 93 were at the beginning of the term and were therefore not really serving at the pleasure of the new President (or his representatives).

 

[Ray]

Bad example between the 93 fired and the 8 as the 93 were at the beginning of the term and were therefore not really serving at the pleasure of the new President (or his representatives).

Certainly they were; if they had pleased the new pres then he'd have kept them.

Besides, I'm glad the dems are wrapped up in drafting non-binding resolutions (re: the Iraq war) and the dismissal of the US Attorneys. It keeps them from doing anything "liberal" that would have any real impact on America.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

This issue has, for me, belonged to the relegated realm of the Great "So what?"

It niether harms nor assists the recovery of this nation's economic dumper, nor has any direct effect on how I'm gonna pay rent next month.

Is it possible that the powers that be used thier position to advance their agenda? OK...when has that ever NOT been the case?

 

[mrhnau]

I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.

I did not really see a reason to have "a discussion", since I consider the topic a complete non-issue and just political games. Get away from this stupid crap and get on with important things, like making sure our troops are funded. BTW, Ray, I think drafting and voting on "non-binding resolutions" is an absolute waste of time. I don't think they were elected to blow hot air. However, given the alternatives (them making more liberal laws), I do suppose I prefer the hot air So, I think I agree with you on your point

 

[Blindside]

Its only an issue because it is a remarkably bad idea to lie to congress, particularly if congress is controlled by the other party.

But now that subpoenas have been authorized, I'm very interested in the Constitutional ramifications of how Bush plays this.

Lamont

 

[Steel Tiger]

The firing of eight, possibly nine, United States Attorney's has been in the news quite a bit recently.

It has been quite interesting to watch the complete silence here in the Study on this topic. The silence, here, is broken.

Let the discussion begin.


One question I have, if the US Attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the President" ... how can it be that the President was not briefed on their dismissal? Doesn't that make these people as "Serving at the pleasure of the White House political operatives"?

I tried,
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=614448

but nobody seemed particularly interested at the time.

Some might say that eight or nine US Attorney's isn't that many, but it is about 10%. What I found quite disturbing is that the interim appointees, who can hold the post inperpetuity now, were not drawn from the same offices as those sacked but were sent from Washington. I know that there is a certain amount of nepotism involved in these appointments but this borders on the ridiculous does it not?

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.

I did not really see a reason to have "a discussion", since I consider the topic a complete non-issue and just political games. Get away from this stupid crap and get on with important things, like making sure our troops are funded. BTW, Ray, I think drafting and voting on "non-binding resolutions" is an absolute waste of time. I don't think they were elected to blow hot air. However, given the alternatives (them making more liberal laws), I do suppose I prefer the hot air So, I think I agree with you on your point

Hello, Clinton did not do this half way through his own administration. This is a new one.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Either way Tex lied and Bush is in trouble.
Sean

 

[jdinca]

As far as I'm concerned, this is the Democrats attempt to have a "Monica Moment". I'm quite pleased that they're all wrapped up in this. It prevents them from spending time trying to "make my life better", i.e., pass more silly laws and regulations and take more money out of my pocket to give it to someone else. BTW, I felt the same exact way when it was a Democrat in office and the Republicans in control of congress.

 

[michaeledward]

He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.

Clinton received the resignation of 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.

George W. Bush received the resignation of 91 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.

Please clarify what you mean when you say that President Bush did not clean house like Clinton?

 

[michaeledward]

I tried,
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=614448

but nobody seemed particularly interested at the time.

Some might say that eight or nine US Attorney's isn't that many, but it is about 10%. What I found quite disturbing is that the interim appointees, who can hold the post inperpetuity now, were not drawn from the same offices as those sacked but were sent from Washington. I know that there is a certain amount of nepotism involved in these appointments but this borders on the ridiculous does it not?

Steel Tiger ... when I click that link, I get a 'No Messages Found' message.

<shrugg>

 

[Steel Tiger]

Steel Tiger ... when I click that link, I get a 'No Messages Found' message.

<shrugg>

Odd, wondere why that happened?

 

[Don Roley]

One question I have, if the US Attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the President" ... how can it be that the President was not briefed on their dismissal?

Possibly because the president delegates authority. If he did not, he would be swamped with details.

Jdinca

As far as I'm concerned, this is the Democrats attempt to have a "Monica Moment". I'm quite pleased that they're all wrapped up in this. It prevents them from spending time trying to "make my life better", i.e., pass more silly laws and regulations and take more money out of my pocket to give it to someone else.

That is one way to take a cheery look at the situation. Instead of advancing an agenda to "help" the American people, they are making an effort to get in front of the cameras as much as possible. As long as they are doing things like this instead of passing massive health care reforms or giving more money to people that might vote for them, we may be in good shape.

 

[michaeledward]

Possibly because the president delegates authority. If he did not, he would be swamped with details.

According to the relevant statute, the President may dismiss a US Attorney. It seems however, the Attorney General does not have the ability to do so.

Asking for the resignation of a US Attorney resides with the President, as I understand the data.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm#3-2.120

3-2.120 Appointment


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

 

[Marginal]

I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.

It's typical for the start of a new president's term. It's unusual several years into the term.

Clinton also didn't sneak in legislation into a bill designed to circumvent any and all scrunity of his appointees. (How was this a national security issue?)

 

[crushing]

Clinton received the resignation of 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.

When presented with the choice of being fired or resigning, I think most people choose resignation. Previous to this most US Attorneys were allowed to serve much of their term before the political resignation.

George W. Bush received the resignation of 91 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.

Please clarify what you mean when you say that President Bush did not clean house like Clinton?

That doesn't surprise me. The precedent was set and there is an expectation of "turn-a-bout as fair" play in politics. Isn't that why congress will now investigate the hell out of President Bush, just like the Republicanistics did with President Clinton? Democratic Party loyalists will tell us how this is different, just as the Republican Party loyalists will agree that it is different.

 

[michaeledward]

US Attorneys are sworn in for Four year terms. When a President is re-elected, many US Attorney's stay in their position for the second term as well.

I think, if one looked, he would find that US Attorneys begin submitting resignations in the Lame Duck sessions of the Presidency (recognizing that this time period begins sooner or later in each Presidents' second term). I am willing to bet that GHW Bush also had a large number US Attorneys to name in his first few months in office. As, quite probably, Reagan did before him.

As you said, there is nothing unusual about changing US Attorneys' at the beginning of the term.

In Clinton's 8 years, he replaced 123 US Attorneys, total.
In GWBush's 6 years, he has replaced 128 US Attorneys, total.

When a President asked for a resignation, in the past, it has often been due to ethical challenges with the US Attorney.

What is interesting in this case, is the work the US Attorneys were either persuing, or not persuing. Ms. Lam had successfully convicted Congressman Cunningham for bribery. Hmm.

Also, something that I just re-read over at The Nation. One of the two US Attorney's President Bush did not demand a resignation from when he came into office, was the US Attorney serving in Guam. It wasn't until November of 2002 that he was asked to step down (to Assistant US Attorney). There is some speculation that this move came about because he introduced and investigation into Jack Abramoff's activities on the Northern Marinara Islands.

Incidently, the Attorney General does have the authority to fire / ask for the resignation of Assistant US Attorneys.

 

[Don Roley]

What is interesting in this case, is the work the US Attorneys were either persuing, or not persuing.

One of the attornies that was let loose according to CNN seemed to not be interested in pursuing immigration cases. It seems that if someone was an illeagle alien, they would not be pursued by this person. I will have to check as it was a broadcast. But the aurgument put forward was that if someone did not pursue cases that were important to the administration they would be let loose.

I guess that is legal. Is there something about this case that is illeagle, or even immoral?

Because congress is going to once again threaten people with jail time unless they drop what they are doing and go in front of cameras in a questioning session. I know courts can do that in cases where someone may go to jail or there will be a trial. But it has always distrubed me that congress can do this type of thing when we peons can't. This is not the first case, but it does seem to be the most blatent use of this threat for purely political gains.

Incidently, the Attorney General does have the authority to fire / ask for the resignation of Assistant US Attorneys.

Thanks for clearing that up. If the attorney general had oversteped his bounds, there would be a valid reason for a criminal probe by congress. As it is, it is obvious they are looking for their Monica Moment.