NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/us.attorneys.firings/index.html

This is a good thing and one of the people being subpoened is Karl Rove. I can not wait to see how this is going to play out.

Well done Congressional Committee :)

Rove's only in their sights because Cheney didn't want them sniffing around his office, so he threw them a lovely bone.

1. Firing the attorneys is not illegal, so this is not an investigation of illegal acts. Hell, the Clintons fired ALL of the attorneys...

2. They want them under oath, so that if someone lies, misspeaks, or forgets to mention something, they can get someone for perjury.

Perjury is the classic Washington DC charge - the result of most investigations - and is usually the product of a fishing expedition.

I foresee that every administration, Democrat or Republican, will be subject to multiple fishing expeditions, ad infinitum.

Republicans did it with Whitewater, Democrats will do it with this.

And so on...

1. Firing the attorneys is not illegal, so this is not an investigation of illegal acts. Hell, the Clintons fired ALL of the attorneys...As usual, you only tell half the story. So did Dubya. So did Poppy. It's SOP to toss the US Attorneys at the beginning of a new presidency and replace them. And while this replacement isn't illegal, it's certainly ethically questionable, considering who they replaced and who they were thinking about replacing (your old friend, Patrick Fitzgerald). If you'd have just left Clinton out of it, you'd have had a strong point instead of a partisan rant.

2. They want them under oath, so that if someone lies, misspeaks, or forgets to mention something, they can get someone for perjury.
So you want Rove et al to be able to lie to Congress with no repercussions? I imagine that's why Bush's counter-offer was for Rove and Miers to be able to talk to the panel not under oath and with no transcript--so they could say anything they wanted and not face any punishment for lying.

As usual, you only tell half the story. So did Dubya. So did Poppy. It's SOP to toss the US Attorneys at the beginning of a new presidency and replace them. And while this replacement isn't illegal, it's certainly ethically questionable, considering who they replaced and who they were thinking about replacing (your old friend, Patrick Fitzgerald). If you'd have just left Clinton out of it, you'd have had a strong point instead of a partisan rant.


So you want Rove et al to be able to lie to Congress with no repercussions? I imagine that's why Bush's counter-offer was for Rove and Miers to be able to talk to the panel not under oath and with no transcript--so they could say anything they wanted and not face any punishment for lying.

They shouldn't have to answer any questions at all. It's not illegal.

Should Clinton have been questioned about a blowjob? No.

You gotta love Bush's counter offer here. I'll let you talk to Rove and Meiers, just as long as you don't write down what they say or make them tell the truth.

I'm smelling alot of 5th Amendment lines coming

Nazz, is it just me, or is it when I mention that both parties do this, that you call it a "partisan rant" unless I leave your party out of it?

Are you implying that they do no wrong?

Nazz, is it just me, or is it when I mention that both parties do this, that you call it a "partisan rant" unless I leave your party out of it?

Are you implying that they do no wrong?

Not at all. I actually agreed with your overall point. But why echo the whole "Clinton did it too" point? It's irrelevant whether or not Clinton did it.

Not at all. I actually agreed with your overall point. But why echo the whole "Clinton did it too" point? It's irrelevant whether or not Clinton did it.

I recall a hue and cry in the press when Janet Reno fired them all.

Who knows what kind of discussion was had within the White House then.

Should we go back to every previous adminstration, and investigate their firings?

I bet you would find the same sorts of discussions.

All of which are legal.

And if it's legal, it's fine. Period.

Someone should have to have probable cause before starting a Congressional investigation.

I recall a hue and cry in the press when Janet Reno fired them all.

Who knows what kind of discussion was had within the White House then.

Should we go back to every previous adminstration, and investigate their firings?

I bet you would find the same sorts of discussions.

All of which are legal.

And if it's legal, it's fine. Period.

Someone should have to have probable cause before starting a Congressional investigation.
Well, if the White House had come out and said "we fired them because we could," the story would have died, except perhaps for the Carol Lam firing. That one stinks--she nails Duke Cunningham, is continuing the investigation toward DC, and then she's tossed? That smells like powerful people protecting their own, and that's the reason people started asking questions in the first place. And now it comes out that another person on the list was Patrick Fitzgerald of the Libby case--only makes the situation stink more.

But they had to be too cute, and they went with the performance stories and were caught out, and now it's a big deal.

You gotta love Bush's counter offer here. I'll let you talk to Rove and Meiers, just as long as you don't write down what they say or make them tell the truth.

I know. To which I would say, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, do they?

One of the US attorneys was the one who sent Duke Cunningham to jail, I believe. Funny how her work suddenly deteriorated.

EDIT: Curses, the Nazz beat me to it. Was she the one who sent them an e-mail saying, "Fire me for politics but say that's the reason, at my age if you say I was doing lousy work I'll never get another job"?

I know. To which I would say, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, do they?

One of the US attorneys was the one who sent Duke Cunningham to jail, I believe. Funny how her work suddenly deteriorated.

And as I mentioned above, one of the attorneys who got the same "rating" as two others who were fired was Patrick "I got Scooter Libby convicted" Fitzgerald. What exactly was wrong with his job performance--I doubt it has anything to do with his not getting Rove or Cheney.

Well, if the White House had come out and said "we fired them because we could," the story would have died, except perhaps for the Carol Lam firing. That one stinks--she nails Duke Cunningham, is continuing the investigation toward DC, and then she's tossed? That smells like powerful people protecting their own, and that's the reason people started asking questions in the first place. And now it comes out that another person on the list was Patrick Fitzgerald of the Libby case--only makes the situation stink more.

But they had to be too cute, and they went with the performance stories and were caught out, and now it's a big deal.

Still not illegal.

I truly believe a lot of this fishing by both sides would stop if a Congressional investigation had to show probable cause that an actual crime had been committed before a judge before pursuing any investigation.

Show probable cause for each subpoena and each warrant. That would reduce the fishing to zero.

Still not illegal.

I truly believe a lot of this fishing by both sides would stop if a Congressional investigation had to show probable cause that an actual crime had been committed before a judge before pursuing any investigation.

Show probable cause for each subpoena and each warrant. That would reduce the fishing to zero.


Isn't obstruction of justice illegal?

So you want Rove et al to be able to lie to Congress with no repercussions? I imagine that's why Bush's counter-offer was for Rove and Miers to be able to talk to the panel not under oath and with no transcript--so they could say anything they wanted and not face any punishment for lying.

Exactly. Bush's moves are more transparent than air.

Exactly. Bush's moves are more transparent than air.

Exactly, and if they've done nothing wrong, nothing unethical, what are they afraid of?

Still not illegal.

I truly believe a lot of this fishing by both sides would stop if a Congressional investigation had to show probable cause that an actual crime had been committed before a judge before pursuing any investigation.

Show probable cause for each subpoena and each warrant. That would reduce the fishing to zero.

Doesn't have to be illegal for Congress to investigate--there's this little thing called oversight that's within their purview. And as Sumamba Buwhan noted, there is at least the suspicion of obstruction of justice in the Lam firing.

Besides, if Congress isn't investigating, they might make even more new laws, and do you really want that? ;)

Doesn't have to be illegal for Congress to investigate--there's this little thing called oversight that's within their purview. And as Sumamba Buwhan noted, there is at least the suspicion of obstruction of justice in the Lam firing.

Besides, if Congress isn't investigating, they might make even more new laws, and do you really want that? ;)

There was that little vote yestrday, 94 to 2, was it? that removed the bit in the Patriot Act that allowed the AG to appoint US attorneys without Senate oversight.

There was that little vote yestrday, 94 to 2, was it? that removed the bit in the Patriot Act that allowed the AG to appoint US attorneys without Senate oversight.

94 to 2 Wow. Even the Republicans hate the Patriot Act. Or at least are pissed off at Gonzales.

There was that little vote yestrday, 94 to 2, was it? that removed the bit in the Patriot Act that allowed the AG to appoint US attorneys without Senate oversight.

I hope it sails through the House as easily, because with votes that overwhelming, Bush would be hard-pressed to veto it.

I hope it sails through the House as easily, because with votes that overwhelming, Bush would be hard-pressed to veto it.

Or force a Presidential Veto override. I bet that is what he is going to do.

I know. To which I would say, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, do they?
Reminds me of the Administration's pro-wiretapping arguments. In the words of Jon Stewart: "It's nice to see them guarding their privacy." :rolleyes:

One of the US attorneys was the one who sent Duke Cunningham to jail, I believe. Funny how her work suddenly deteriorated.
But... but... they made him cry! On national television! Surely that's a fireable offense! :p

Still not illegal.

I truly believe a lot of this fishing by both sides would stop if a Congressional investigation had to show probable cause that an actual crime had been committed before a judge before pursuing any investigation.

Show probable cause for each subpoena and each warrant. That would reduce the fishing to zero.

Do you know anything about the law? You don't get a subpoena just because you want one, there must be just cause shown for why you want these things. There's things that happen before trials and they are called motions. Many of the motions result in subpoenas being handed down. Otherwise I 'd be able to subpoena your phone records because "I want to see who actually likes that rat bastard and who he talks to judge." So there will be (and the term is) just cause for these items, just you wait. Otherwise the judge will deny them and they'll move on.

Do you know anything about the law? You don't get a subpoena just because you want one, there must be just cause shown for why you want these things. There's things that happen before trials and they are called motions. Many of the motions result in subpoenas being handed down. Otherwise I 'd be able to subpoena your phone records because "I want to see who actually likes that rat bastard and who he talks to judge." So there will be (and the term is) just cause for these items, just you wait. Otherwise the judge will deny them and they'll move on.

This is Congress we are talking about here. They can subpoena anyone they want to talk to if that person does not want to come before them willingly.

Or force a Presidential Veto override. I bet that is what he is going to do.

...and with 94 to 2 an executive veto can easily be ignored.

Do you know anything about the law? You don't get a subpoena just because you want one, there must be just cause shown for why you want these things. There's things that happen before trials and they are called motions. Many of the motions result in subpoenas being handed down. Otherwise I 'd be able to subpoena your phone records because "I want to see who actually likes that rat bastard and who he talks to judge." So there will be (and the term is) just cause for these items, just you wait. Otherwise the judge will deny them and they'll move on.

Umm....this is not a judicial subpoena, this is a congressional one, different things really.

...and with 94 to 2 an executive veto can easily be ignored.

I know however they still have to override the veto which the probably will. I mean, he's already threatening veto because the House passed the bill that overturns his executive order about releasing documents. He'll probably veto both this and that but I'll lay odds that the Congress will overturn it.

...and with 94 to 2 an executive veto can easily be ignored.Assuming the Republicans hold to their yes votes, never an automatic assumption.

94 to 2 Wow. Even the Republicans hate the Patriot Act. Or at least are pissed off at Gonzales.

Halle-f*cking-lujah.
"Most misunderstood piece of legislation in modern history", my ass.

Just as an update:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiSi3moQAzb8&refer=home

The Senate Judiciary Committee has now approved by voice vote the subpoenas.

These U.S. Attorneys weren't fired as part of a political house cleaning. That would have been fine.

These attorneys were fired for political reasons under the guise of 'poor performance'. Their records have been stained by the unethical decptive acts of the Justice Department. The JUSTICE Department! :p

The attorneys are pissed, and rightly so. Congress decided to look into this and the first thing they see is deception. Well, now they're curiousity is piqued. :)

Just as an update:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiSi3moQAzb8&refer=home

The Senate Judiciary Committee has now approved by voice vote the subpoenas.

Well that is good. Thanks for sharing Deus Malum.

I know. To which I would say, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, do they?

One of the US attorneys was the one who sent Duke Cunningham to jail, I believe. Funny how her work suddenly deteriorated.

EDIT: Curses, the Nazz beat me to it. Was she the one who sent them an e-mail saying, "Fire me for politics but say that's the reason, at my age if you say I was doing lousy work I'll never get another job"?

im not too happy about david iglesias being put on the list to be fired only after phone calls to him about suits against democrats and complaints about him from our (nm) republican congressmen (well not MINE, he is not invovled but pete dominici and heather wilson).

Well, if the White House had come out and said "we fired them because we could," the story would have died, except perhaps for the Carol Lam firing. That one stinks--she nails Duke Cunningham, is continuing the investigation toward DC, and then she's tossed? That smells like powerful people protecting their own, and that's the reason people started asking questions in the first place. And now it comes out that another person on the list was Patrick Fitzgerald of the Libby case--only makes the situation stink more.

But they had to be too cute, and they went with the performance stories and were caught out, and now it's a big deal.

See, as I understand, this is where the problem lay. They fire eight attorneys with good job performance ratings who happened to have been investigating Republican Congressmen. Sheer coincidence, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Damn, others beat me to it.

1. Firing the attorneys is not illegal, so this is not an investigation of illegal acts.Well, that's not quite right.

While the President has the power to fire federal attorneys without cause, firing non-policy-making staff for their political stances, beliefs, "loyalty," etc. is actually a violation of the First Amendment's free speech clause. There is case law on this. Of course, it is a separate question whether U.S. attorneys qualify as "policy-making" staff or not.

The firings may also violate the law because some of the attorneys were investigating Republican politicians. If this was the reason for the firings, then the people responsible could potentially be charged with obstruction of justice.

2. They want them under oath, so that if someone lies, misspeaks, or forgets to mention something, they can get someone for perjury.Only one of these--lying under oath--is perjury. Misspeaking and forgetfulness are not.

That is no different than working for a Sherrif. You work at the pleasure of the Sherrif, and you know that you can be "fired" any time for no reason. Same thing when you are appointed by the Mayor, Governor, etc.

What Bush did was no different than asking a member of his cabinet for his resignation with no reason.

Where I have a major fit, is that the Executive branch does not want any of the issues to be public. Well Mr. President, you work for me, a voting citizen of this country!!! There is such a thing as check and balance doctrine between the executive-legislative-judicial branches. You are doing the same thing you criticize other administrations by keeping it closed.

This is one of the few times that I agree with the congress, and this should be brought out on the open, and let we the people decide.

Vic

That is no different than working for a Sherrif. You work at the pleasure of the Sherrif, and you know that you can be "fired" any time for no reason. Same thing when you are appointed by the Mayor, Governor, etc.Yes, but the power to terminate someone "without cause" does have limits. It means that you are not required to give a reason, but it does NOT mean that any reason is acceptable.

Look at it this way: you don't have to explain why you are firing a person... but if he/she can produce evidence that the termination was because he/she would not sleep with you, you're still in trouble.

Same deal, only here the issue is not sexual harassment.

Yes, but the power to terminate someone "without cause" does have limits. It means that you are not required to give a reason, but it does NOT mean that any reason is acceptable.

Look at it this way: you don't have to explain why you are firing a person... but if he/she can produce evidence that the termination was because he/she would not sleep with you, you're still in trouble.

Same deal, only here the issue is not sexual harassment.

Exactly; they didn't fire them without reason. They fired them for false reasons. Big difference. *nod*

Yes, but the power to terminate someone "without cause" does have limits. It means that you are not required to give a reason, but it does NOT mean that any reason is acceptable.

Look at it this way: you don't have to explain why you are firing a person... but if he/she can produce evidence that the termination was because he/she would not sleep with you, you're still in trouble.

Same deal, only here the issue is not sexual harassment.

You're mixing in labor practices which are legal with violations of EEO laws. The first paragraph is correct, up to the point where you require a reason for termination. I suppose there is always a motivation; the boss may not like the way you park, or how you arrange pencils on your desk are some trivial cases. But the reason doesn't have to be substantial.

The second paragraph is true and stands by itself.

These subpoenas are unnecessary, as is the investigation. The for the hearings are nothing more than a chance for a real partisan guy, Patrick Leahy, to inflict embarrassment on an administration that he doesn't like. These guys (the attorneys) were all political appointees -- appointed by Bush in fact -- there shouldn't be any more investigation needed than when he sacked Rumsfeld, Snow, or Card.

there shouldn't be any more investigation needed than when he sacked Rumsfeld, Snow, or Card.

Rumsfeld, Snow, or Card were not in the process of investigating republicans when they got fired.

That is no different than working for a Sherrif. You work at the pleasure of the Sherrif, and you know that you can be "fired" any time for no reason. Same thing when you are appointed by the Mayor, Governor, etc.

What Bush did was no different than asking a member of his cabinet for his resignation with no reason.

Where I have a major fit, is that the Executive branch does not want any of the issues to be public. Well Mr. President, you work for me, a voting citizen of this country!!! There is such a thing as check and balance doctrine between the executive-legislative-judicial branches. You are doing the same thing you criticize other administrations by keeping it closed.

This is one of the few times that I agree with the congress, and this should be brought out on the open, and let we the people decide.

Vic
Where do the limits on private Presidential decisions lie? In other words, what decisions can a President make without telling you? These guys are his employees -- we elected him and by doing so, delegated a lot of decision making to him.

You're mixing in labor practices which are legal with violations of EEO laws. The first paragraph is correct, up to the point where you require a reason for termination.You're misreading me. I don't require a reason for termination, I merely point out that if there is an accusation that the termination was unlawful then the employer can be held to account even when no reason was initially required for the termination

These subpoenas are unnecessary, as is the investigation.There are very plausible allegations that U.S. attorneys were fired because they were investigating friends or allies of the current administration. If this is true, then there may be indictable offenses involved. It is very necessary to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the accuracy of these charges.

Also, it's not clear to me that U.S. attorneys are political appointees in the sense the courts have used in First Amendment jurisprudence. The chief executive and his deputies appoint many offices (e.g. postmaster) that the courts have defended against reprisals for political "loyalty" issues.

The Subpoenas are necessary, because it appears that these firings occured to prevent investigations into Congresspeople, and even into the VP over Duke Cunningham. If this is the case, heads should roll.

How odd and sad that this issue is reduced to "sound bite" arguments. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions in this case. I will address them.

1. The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and may be fired for no reason.

Technically this is correct, but common practice has made this an "all or nothing" issue. Many Presidents have fired the entire slate of USAs, this is the most common practice. Firing an attorney for cause is justifiable and a common practice. Firing a USA for philosophical differences is, frankly, not that uncommon either. What is uncommon is lying about firing certain USAs under the guise of "performance related issues," something that will stay on that attorney's resume for the rest of their lives, when in fact the firings were politically motivated.

It is not allowed for MCs and Senators to communicate regarding active cases, and it has been clearly proven that this ethical line was crossed. Investigation by the Judiciary Committee in both bodies is both desirable and legally appropriate.

2. Offering interviews out of public, off the record, and not under oath is an "unprecedented" offer for White House Staff and Presidential Advisors.

This is decidedly not true, many Presidents have allowed advisors and White House Staff to testify before Congress in public and under oath. It was not treated as a big deal then, and it should not be a big deal now...that is, unless those advisors are privy to illegalities and irregularities that could threaten this President and his position on "Executive Privilege," Nixon lost his attempt at expanding EP and this one will too.

Are Eve Online and Cornelieu advocating that WH Staff and Presidential Advisors not be accountable in any way? Are these people to be so protected that they cannot go to jail for breaking the law? Are they above the law? The Supreme Court in the past has said "No, they are not above the law." It is also a rather tricky question about Harriet Miers, who is no longer employed by the White House. Is she STILL protected by the mantle of Executive Privilege? Doubtful to say the least.

3. This will cause a major Constitutional Crisis.

Hogwash. The world will still be around tomorrow if Karl Rove is forced to testify under oath. The President will still be able to receive good, sound advice from his advisors. He just doesn't want to feel threatened, and believe me, watching his press conference you got the sense he felt threatened.

It's good to remind a President he is not God and untouchable. Keeps em' sort of honest.

Keeps em' sort of honest.And sadly, "sort of" is the best we can hope for anymore.

It's good to remind a President he is not God and untouchable. Keeps em' sort of honest.

especially this one as he spent the first 6 years of his administration being effectively that, and look where it got us.

You're misreading me. I don't require a reason for termination, I merely point out that if there is an accusation that the termination was unlawful then the employer can be held to account even when no reason was initially required for the termination

There are very plausible allegations that U.S. attorneys were fired because they were investigating friends or allies of the current administration. If this is true, then there may be indictable offenses involved. It is very necessary to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the accuracy of these charges.

If there are indictable crimes, shouldn't a grand jury be issuing the subpoenas and hearing the testimony? From what I see here, the worst that can happen ranges from Leahy and the Democrats generating a little more unfavorable press for a feckless administration, to some perjury indictments if someone is stupid enough to pull a Libby.

I could look at the most sinister case, where we suppose that Congress is trying to usurp some Presidential decision making about the appointments of US Attorneys, but that couldn't be what the distinguished Senator from Vermont is trying to do -- I'm sure he understands the boundaries and divisions of power.

If there are indictable crimes, shouldn't a grand jury be issuing the subpoenas and hearing the testimony?

and maybe it will. Regardless Congress is still within its purview here.

I could look at the most sinister case, where we suppose that Congress is trying to usurp some Presidential decision making about the appointments of US Attorneys...Well, after all the usurping the Executive has done over the last half century (and I'm not just talking about Bush), any such attempt by Congress would be all but yawn-worthy.

Bush vetoes subpoenas.
When informed he can't do this, he points to the patriot act.
Nobody questions why the patriot act is 3 pages longer then it was this morning.

:D

Bush vetoes subpoenas.
When informed he can't do this, he points to the patriot act.
Nobody questions why the patriot act is 3 pages longer then it was this morning.

:D

Who needs to make it longer? The bill is so long that anything could be in there, and we'd never notice.

If there are indictable crimes, shouldn't a grand jury be issuing the subpoenas and hearing the testimony? From what I see here, the worst that can happen ranges from Leahy and the Democrats generating a little more unfavorable press for a feckless administration, to some perjury indictments if someone is stupid enough to pull a Libby.

I could look at the most sinister case, where we suppose that Congress is trying to usurp some Presidential decision making about the appointments of US Attorneys, but that couldn't be what the distinguished Senator from Vermont is trying to do -- I'm sure he understands the boundaries and divisions of power.

No.

What you fail to understand is that the Senate has the power of "Advise and Consent," this President has run roughshod over that power by his ruthless and frequent attempts to expand executive privilege beyond what is appropriate.

Senator Leahy is not some wet behind the ears idealist, nor frankly is he a raging liberal. Most Senators are moderate to conservative. Russ Feingold and the late Paul Wellestone are lone examples of falling to the far left of the political spectrum. There are certainly more conservatives than liberals in the Senate.

The Senate is traditionalist, slow to act and provides a balance to the ideological purists in the House. Most of all, the Senate is a pragmatic body.

Is Senator Leahy embarassing the White House? No more so than they do on their own. You can take issue with Chuck Schumer all you want, but Pat Leahy is moderately conservative on fiscal issues and moderately liberal on social issues.

Picking a fight with the Senate is like trying to punch someone through a layer of molasses. Bush acted like an ass yesterday, he was truculent, combative and childish. He no longer has a pet Congress to play footsie with, and he has no one to blame but himself.