If Gonzalez had said, "We fired them for political reasons, so what?"

[NewJeffCT]

what could be done about it? "These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and we fired them for political reasons, so what?"

Yes, it looks bad, and it is unprecendented to fire USAs after six years... but, are the attorney firings more a controversy because the the Justice Dept & White House have kept changing their reasons why they were fired, or is it the actual firings themselves? Or, is it both?

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Both. Also the pressure put on the USAs while they served was illegal.

[SharonAnn]

5. The key is that the replacements don't have to have Senate confirmation.

That's the biggie here. Formerly, US Attorneys had to go through Senate confirmation. That could weed out the unqualified, the simple political hacks, etc.

Now, with the changes in the last revision of the Patriot Act, US Attorneys can be installed by "replacing" existing ones. The new US Attorneys don't have to go through Senate confirmation.

That way, the GOP can install the most incompetent and malevolent people and no one can stop them. And they will.

That's the big, huge deal here.

All this focusing on whether or not they can replace US Attorneys is bogus. The concern should be that they've found a mechanism to install apparatchiks without approval from the Senate.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Considering most Dems voted for the bill, I don't see that as something they can

make into a big deal.

Yes, "they've found a mechanism," the one many Dems voted for.

[Occulus]

17. let me know if you're even capable of reading a tome such as that

in the time congress had before they voted on it.

It's really about the only thing I can forgive them for regarding their vote on the Patriot Act. i don't think even a speed reader would have caught it all.

The Patriot Act is marbled through and through with shit, like a juicy roast. They would have needed weeks to read it all.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. They had years, the second time it was passed. And you are correct, it

(the act) is full of shit. Even more so the second time around. (that was when the USA stuff was put in)

I can't condone any lawmaker who fails to read and understand what they are making into law. That's just bad legislating.


But that's way besides the point I was making. My point is that, while sure, I'm glad the Dems want to remove that portion, that the significance of the purge is that it was in responce to failed attempts to illegally influence the office of the USA.

[NewJeffCT]

9. Yes, I realize they don't have to go through confirmation

However, the no confirmation part was legal when the revised Patriot Act passed...

So, if Gonzalez had come out and said, "we are appointing these 8 new US attorneys to replace 8 that President Bush did not like" what could have been done, other than senators slapping themselves on the forehead and saying "Doh!" that they had been had about the Patriot Act provision on USAs?

[bryant69]

2. I do know I keep hearing about Clinton Firing all the attorneys

When he came into power.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Robbien]

4. You also keep hearing that Plame was not covert

and that Iraq had WMDs.

GOPers pick a faulty premise as their excuse and stick with it no matter what.

[bryant69]

8. Fair enough - but I'd like more ammunition to refute that claim than

"Well they are Right Wingers - screw them."

Bryant

[Robbien]

14. Why? they won't hear it and still blame Clinton

How many times has it been proven that Plame was covert? About a billion? GOPers are still saying Libby shouldn't even have been charged because there was no underlying crime since Plame was not covert.

Well GOPers are going to keep saying whatever they want no matter how much "ammunition" you throw at them.

Plenty of ammunition threads available here at DU.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. The law says USAs serve 4 year terms. They coincide with the presidential terms.

When Clinton entered office, all 92 USA positions were vacant.

Clinton filled those vacancies by nominating people he wanted. The Senate confirmed those nominations.

Clinton didn't fire anybody. He filled vacancies. That's what he's supposed to do.

Just because right wing nuts (and some others) don't know the law isn't surprising, is it?

[bryant69]

15. Thank you for clarifying.

Bryant

[onenote]

24. Not exactly correct -- Technically, the positions were not vacant.

Just because US Attorneys serve four year terms doesn't mean that their terms exactly coincide with the President's term. For that to happen, they would have to have been appointed on the day the President took office. Not likely.

What typically happens is that US Attorneys (like many other political appointees) are expected to submit their resignations after the President is inaugurated and a new AG is confirmed. Moreover,even if the US Attorney's four year term had expired by then, the incumbent can stay in office until a new US Attorney is appointed and confirmed. The way it worked pre Patriot Act amendment (e.g., during Clinton's term) was that if the office was vacant the AG could appoint someone to fill the vacancy for up to 120 days or confirmation. Thus, the typical approach was to request the resignation of the sitting AGs and then appoint new ones to fill the vacancies and seek their confirmation within three months thereafter.

In short, while it is misleading to suggest that what Clinton did was in any way comparable to what chimpy and Gonzo have been up to, it also is misleading to suggest that Clinton merely filled vacancies -- those vacancies existed only because AG Reno requested resignations from the incumbent US Attorneys.

THe following, from a Duke Law Journal article, discusses the situation more fully:

After Clinton's inauguration, several sitting U.S. Attorneys balked at offering to resign their posts once the Senate confirmed Janet Reno as President Clinton's Attorney General. After becoming Attorney General, Reno had made what she thought was the routine request that sitting U.S. Attorneys submit their resignations to her, so she could consider whether to reappoint them. She did not expect negative backlash because similar requests had been made by her predecessors in the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations and honored by previous U.S. Attorneys. Their refusals to tender their resignations embarrassed Reno, and, in fact, the desire to cause Reno embarrassment may have been the impetus for the refusals. After sending mixed signals on whether all sitting U.S. Attorneys should proffer their resignations to Attorney General Ashcroft,33 President George W. Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft requested the resignations of all but a few of the nation's U.S. Attorneys. Not a single Republican leader questioned the propriety of Bush's and Ashcroft's actions.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+1687

[John Q. Citizen]

26. True. And thanks for the detailed analysis. I was "cutting the issue" so to

speak, so that it was considerably "kissed up," as in KISS (keep is short and simple.)

[blitzen]

13. As did Reagan, as did Bush, Sr., etc...those were not "firings"...

they were the routine wholesale changeover that takes place at the start of every administration. But FAUX News tells us this morning that Clinton "famously fired" all the US attorneys and "claimed" it was routine.

[Raven]

3. When administrations change

a new president from the other political party would not keep the sitting Attorney General...he would appoint his own. I think it's the same concept with US Attorneys. When a new president comes in the old ones generally go. This usually happens at the beginning of a president's term and these new appointments are vetted by congress. In the present cases, these attorneys were Bush appointments who didn't toe the line and refused to do some pretty nasty, unethical things. They were pressured and then fired. This was not business as usual.

[SharonAnn]

6. Also, it's that the replacements aren't vetted by congress. That's the biggie here.

They can install incompetents, malevolent party hacks, or whoever without any opportunity by the Senate to stop them.

And that's the big deal. Just think of who could be installed and the damage they could do.

The Senate confirmation of US Attorneys allows incompetents and party hacks with an agenda to be weeded out and not given the powers of the U. S. Attorney.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. It's both. They were apparently fired after they didn't succumb to

pressure to act in the way the administration wanted them to. First, Bushco tried to deny having any involvement. Then, when it was discovered that the orders originated at the White House, they tried to make it appear to be something it wasn't, which raises red flags as to what the real reason may have been. Maybe deceit is so much a part of their nature that they can no longer perform in a transparent, upright fashion. They have such a history of lying that they can't tell the truth anymore. It has gotten to the point that you take any statement they make and accept the direct opposite to be the truth.

[Buzz Clik]

12. The firings themselves were within the legal boundaries.

However, White House involvement was bad form. Worse, two Congress critters applying political pressure is worse -- and that's where the focus should be.

The rest is political hay.

[NewJeffCT]

16. That's what I thought

The problem is that every time they open their mouths, their explanation changes... so, Gonzalez & Justice have basically been digging their own graves on this one.

If they had come out & said, "we fired these 8 attorneys and are appointing Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, etc to take their place and their is nothing you can do about it because you dummies signed the revised Patriot Act into law!" And then thumbed their noses at Congress, there would have been outrage from Congress, but little they could do legally, other than re-revising the Patriot Act.

[Buzz Clik]

19. Legally, that's all true.

But the WH is suffering from a public relations crisis, and they're looking for a soft place to fall.

[NewJeffCT]

22. That is true

It would have been tough public-relations-wise. But, with all their allies in the media, they could have thrown enough BS out there that it would have confused most people into thinking it's just politics and everybody does it. At least they would have had a consistent story - the way it is now, the story is changing every day...

[Buzz Clik]

23. I agree. In fact, the defiant "We did this. So what?" used to be their style.

[gratuitous]

18. Keep in mind also

Don't forget that Carol Lam had already nailed Duke Cunningham and Kyle Foggo for corruption, and was preparing to move on Jerry Lewis (the representative, not the comedian) and Porter Goss. The investigation was yielding a great deal of evidence, solid convictions of criminals, and was leading in a direct arc to the White House. Her removal was the equivalent of a baseball manager saying he benched Barry Bonds because his shoes weren't shined properly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. So why did Gonzales lie to congress about it?

[Tesha]

20. The problem is, we try to maintain the fantasy that prosecutions...

> If Gonzalez had said, "We fired them for political reasons, so what?"

The problem is that here in America, we try to maintain
the fantasy that prosecutions, prosecuters, and, in fact,
our entire system of judisprudence are "above politics".
This is patent bullshit and has been so for years (as
Sacco and Vanzetti could testify to if we hadn't
executed them for being anarchists) but it is a
sweet little fairy tale that we love to tell.

Having Gonzalez admit that the whole system is politically
rigged would upset this fantasy.

And once the fantasy were upset, people might start to
question things like "Bush v Gore".

Tesha