The issue that is not being discussed about the US Attorney Purge Scandal

[Pachamama]

I've been watching the news on Cable TV today (CNN, MSNBC and gag, even Fox) and what I hear constantly on all the shows debating and discussing the issue is about their actual firing and whether its legal or not (all the talking points are how it is and has been done before in the Clinton Administration) and then the question asked is whether it was all politically motivated or not. There has been ofcourse some discussion about whether or not Gonzales lied to the Senate when he said the firings were poor performance related.

But the thing I haven't heard discussed or brought up at all in any of these discussions is to me what is the most outrageous of all about this story:

The fact that somehow, at the last minute, language was slipped into the Patriot Act vote that allowed the Administration and Justice Dept. to replace any of the fired/removed/exiting US Attorneys with appointees of their choice WITHOUT ANY CONFIRMATION AND OVERSIGHT BY THE SENATE!!!!

Why isn't anybody bringing this up and talking about that? To me, this is what should send chills down every elected official or any American that cares about our Constitution and the separation of powers and oversight. If anything, this is confirmation of the abuse of the Patriot Act, under the guise of being for "our protection from terrorism", that is being used for political purposes and control by the Executive branch of all aspects of our government and justice system. It also is in my opinion the "Smoking Gun" that this purge of US Attorneys was planned and the slipping in of this language allowing this "oversight elimination" was purposeful and strategized. I also want to know how Arlen Specter and whoever else put it in to the language of the Patriot Act, came to doing so.

Anyone else notice the lack of this discussion too? Any thoughts on this?

[ClintonTyree]

1. I've heard it mentioned...

Lou Dobbs was railing about it and I believe Olberman and Scarborough have mentioned it as well. They're not making a huge deal out of it but they have covered it. Dobbs especially, although he may piss us off about his other opinions, has been extremely vocal about the underhanded methods of the Bush administration is the handling of this issue.

So.....they have been mentioning it but they're certainly not giving it the attention it deserves.

[fasttense]

2. I noticed that congress is being quiet about that issue.

What I don't understand is if the enabling act (otherwise known as the patriot act) was changed with this zinger in the Senate then it would have had to go back to the house for a committee or something. Why didn't any house member mention this little zinger either? Do both bills from the Senate and House have the zinger in it? They had to match otherwise it could not be law. Yet no one seemed to notice this little change.

[flying_wahini]

3. yes! to me that is what this whole issue is about !!

the end run around the Senate for confirmation of cronies that
will look the other way when their buddies get hauled up for crimes, and to
prime the pump for election day fraud.
that's what pissed off Congress so much about it.

[Swamp Rat]

4. k&r

[Skidmore]

5. It's been mentioned but then too much attention would mean

that CONGRESS would have to do something about the Patriot Act.

[Disturbed]

6. Congress has to revisit Patriot Act 2 and take that

clause out. US Attorneys have to be voted upon by Congress.

[acmavm]

7. Someone needs to put the spotlight on Arlan Spector and leave it there.

That old hairball has been around for too many years doing too much underhanded shit.

[enough]

13. Dahlia Lithwick had an article on this a few days ago call "Specter Detector."

http://www.slate.com/id/2161260/fr/flyout

There hasn't been much about it since then that I have seen. I don't understand why Specter gets a pass on this.

[notadmblnd]

14. I believe specter said it was done by a staffer and he didn't know

yeah uh huh.. I also think I heard earlier in the week that AG Gonzales and admin would have no objection amending that part of the Patriot Act. Someone correct me if I heard wrong.

[donkeyotay]

25. Thanks. That helps a lot. Now we're getting somewhere.

Specter added that he only looked into how the provision was altered after Feinstein told him about it. As he explained, "I then contacted my very able chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, to find out exactly what had happened. And 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 U.S. attorney for Utah, and that the change had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota." . . .

Now, it's not necessarily outrageous that Sen. Specter didn't know what his subordinate slipped into the legislation. The Patriot Reauthorization was a long and hotly debated bill. While one might hope that the committee chairman would have read the legislation, you can understand that he might skip a clause or two in the melee. But this was not some minor technical amendment. It was a substantial enhancement of executive power. So, Specter now finds himself in an exceedingly strange position: His staff either lied to him or misled him about what he acknowledges to be a significant legal change. He himself observed at that same hearing: "I did not slip it in and I do not slip things in. That is not my practice. If there is some item which I have any idea is controversial I tell everybody about it."(bolding added)

http://www.slate.com/id/2161260/fr/flyout

[Justice Is Comin]

8. That hasn't escaped anybody's attention

Leahy is all over that, so is Schumer. There are just so many threads on this sweater, Gonzo is starting to look like a jellyfish.

That's what makes his lies all the sweeter. It shows underlying motive to cover the real reasons.

Lying before a duly constituted body of congress about a material fact is a b-i-i-i-i-ig no no.

And the thing I get a kick out of is that he out clever-ed himself. He didn't have to say anything but that we chose to replace them as an administrative decision.

That would not have riled the attorneys who started this whole ball rolling.

I'm buying a special popper for all that's about to hit the fan on this coverup. :popcorn: It's called the Whirly pop. An amazing little gadget I learned about on Amazon.

[WiseButAngrySara]

9. K&R. Great question and responses. ....n/t

[halobeam]

10. Doesn't the congress and senate look bad because they passed this?

Yes they do. Why would they rip their own selves a new one? It is out there however lightly reported and yeah Leahy did mention this most strongly.

If this was a signed statement from Bush, not having their names attached to passing this piece of crap legislation you bet they'd be saying a lot more regarding this issue.

[Hubert Flottz]

11. Nothing much about HookerGate and Dusty Foggo either.

Nothing at all the 30 or so Pubbies in Washington, who were getting serviced by the free hookers paid for by the same folks who bribed Duke Cunningham. Nothing much about Carole Lam's being fired in the group of eight.

Questions, Concerns Swirl around Politics of Prosecutor's Forced Exit

The head of the FBI's San Diego office and several former federal prosecutors are publicly questioning the politics behind the Bush administration's effort to force Carole Lam to resign as U.S. Attorney for San Diego.

Lam focused her office's efforts on public corruption, including the sprawling Duke Cunningham scandal. That investigation has touched several Republican lawmakers, leading some to speculate that Lam brought political heat down on herself with that probe, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The top FBI official for San Diego said that Lam's dismissal would jeopardize several ongoing investigations. "I guarantee politics is involved," special agent in charge Dan Dzwilewski told the paper. He did not speculate further.

“It will be a huge loss from my perspective,” Dzwilewski said.

Peter Nunez, who held Lam's post from 1982 to 1988, told the North County (Calif.) Times he was "in a state of shock" from hearing the news of Lam's forced ouster. "It's just like nothing I've ever seen before in 35-plus years. To be asked to resign and to be publicly humiliated by leaking this to the press is beyond any bounds of decency and behavior. It shocks me. It really is outrageous." More...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002335.php

[enough]

12. Recommend#5

[MLFerrell]

15. Off topic, but...

Who is the person in your avatar, Pachamama?

I've been trying to figure it out for years now!

[Pachamama]

16. Why, that is Coretta Scott King, the wife of MLK....

A beautiful soul indeed.... :hi:

[MLFerrell]

17. THANK YOU!

Maybe now I can get some sleep at night. :)

[onenote]

18. the change in the law was bad, but not quite as you describe

First, whether the revision in Section 546 of title 28, which addresses the filling of US Attorney vacancies, was slipped in "at the last minute" depends on what one considers "last minute" or "slipping in." The language was added during the House/Senate conference on the bill in December 2005 and was expressly referred to in the section by section anaysis of the conference bill as a "new section". Admittedly the description of the provision was misleading and incomplete, simply stating that the provision was intended to address an "inconsistency" in current law. In any event, the House approved the bill with the new section in December. The Senate didn't act until March. The language in question was there, in the conference report being considered, for three months. While adding language in the conference process avoids votes on specific amendments, its a pretty common procedure (as is the procedure of offering a substitute bill or a manager's amendment with numerous changes, also avoiding votes on each specific change).

Also, for what its worth, and I again state that amending the bill to get rid of the time limits for action on an interim US Attorney, the previous version of the law left a lot to be desired as well. For example, under the existing version, the AG could simply make successive 120 day appointments, accomplishing much the same result as the amended version allows. Or, the appointment could end up being made by the district court -- again with no requirement that the Senate ever get a chance to confirm the appointment or any requirement that the President submit that name or any other name as a permanent replacement.

My point is that if we're going to criticize the Patriot Act provision, we should be as accurate as possible in describing the process that was followed in making that amendment and should be as familiar as possible with what the pre-amendment law said.

[Eric J in MN]

19. I don't interpret the previous law that way.

I think the intent was after 120 days, the district court apoints someone.

Not that the Attorney General can announce a 120 day extension.

That is also how Dahlia Lithwick describes it:

http://www.slate.com/id/2161260/fr/flyout

"The background: When Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act last year, it included little-noticed language that changed the way U.S. attorneys would be appointed if their predecessors were removed in the middle of their term. Under the old regime, interim U.S. attorneys needed to be confirmed by the Senate after 120 days. If they weren't, federal district judges could select their replacement."

[onenote]

20. in practice, however, successive appointments have been made

And in at least one instance, a federal court suggested that such successive appointments were permissible: In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 673 F. Supp. 1138, 1142 n.11 (D. Mass. 1987) ("t is not clear . . . that the Attorney General himself would be foreclosed from making a second interim appointment under" section 546). In a subsequent case, the court specifically upheld a successive interim appointment. Admittedly, in that case, the name of the person appointed had been submitted to the senate for consideration, but since the senate hadn't acted on it, I'm not sure what legal difference that should make in determining whether successive appointments can be made.

Part of the problem was that certain district courts, out of concern about the constitutional implications of one branch of government having the power to appoint, for an indefinite period, a member of another branch of government (compounded by the fact that the person that they appoint may be bringing cases before them) simply refused to make appointments pursuant to section 546.

The fact is that the process for filling US Attorney vacancies has been an issue for some time. It is my understanding that until 1986, the only procedure was for the District Court to appoint an interim US Attorney, without Senate confirmation required and with no time limit. The procedure whereby the AG was authorized to appoint someone for 120 days subject to confirmation (or thereafter appointment by the court) was added in 1986.

In 2003, the DOJ produced a memo on the interim appointment issue.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinions/09052003_usaqanda.pdf
What I find interesting about this memo is that it doesn't seem to suggest that there were significant problems with the system in place. That fact alone is enough for me to question the Patriot Act revision.

[Eric J in MN]

21. by "successive appointments" do you mean a different person...

..or an extension for the first person?

[onenote]

22. same person, re-appointed for successive 120 day term

That was the situation in the case cited.

[Eric J in MN]

23. OK, you're right and the old law was lousy as well.

But the law should have been changed for more "advice and consent."

[onenote]

24. I agree 100 percent

They made it worse, not better.

[garybeck]

26. Nooooo! The real thing that's not being discussed is...

Carol Lam!

Yes, they can hire and fire the USA's at the "pleasure" of the president. Whatever....

But in her case, she was actively involved in a pending case, pursuing possible indictments against sitting legislators.

She was FIRED to END HER INVESTIGATION.

Her firing was OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Forget all the other lawyers. Her case alone should put some very high people in jail.

She wasn't fired for general political reasons, like she "wasn't pursuing enough democrats." She was fired to END an ongoing investigation.

It's literally as if they fired Fitzgerald, right before he indicted Libby. Specifically to prevent the indictment.

that is clear and plain obstruction of justice.

not only should the person who fired her go to jail, but her investigation should continue, and that alone will put many others in jail!

I barely hear her name mentioned in the MSM, not that I watch it a lot. But I'll tell you one thing, if/when you start seeing her name mentioned more, that's when you should grab your popcorn.

[Pachamama]

27. Actually, your right...that is definitely I think the "lynchpin"...I think that I was just pissed

about what I perceived to be really a lack of discussion on what I considered to be another outrageous issue around this whole scandal and that I seriously believe that its all linked.

The Carol Lam firing in San Diego and her investigation of Cunningham and others and the links of that whole thing to hookers and Gawd knows what is what I think may have been the real reason for the firings. Without a question, this was another attempt by an administration that considers itself above the law and tries to cover its tracks and punish whoever doesn't do what they want - regardless of their political affiliation. And the reality is that the US Attorneys, regardless of who appointed them and what their political party, their job is to uphold the law and remain neutral - and that isn't what the Bush Administration wants.

[progressoid]

28. That's an easy one

Discussing the Patriot Act requires a few grey cells and a backbone. That's asking a lot from the media.