Show Me the Scandal
Nothing wrong with the firing of the Gonzales Eight
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | Law — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Perhaps it is because I am not a lawyer, but I don't see the scandal in the alleged scandal over the firing of select United States Attorneys.
The Justice Department says that they were fired for poor job performance. At least one of the fired prosecutors says he felt pressured by Republican members of Congress to rush an investigation of alleged Democratic voter fraud to a conclusion for the benefit of Republican candidates in last year's Congressional election. Congressional Democrats have leapt to the defense of the prosecutors, holding hearings and demanding that the White House answer questions about its role in the matter. Today's supposed bombshell revelation is that Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers discussed dismissing all 93 US Attorneys before deciding to recommend only the dismissal of the now famous eight.
There seems to be an awful lot of selective outrage here. I don't see why this dust up should be all that embarrassing for the White House or Republicans. Furthermore, I don't see why the White House should be answering any questions about this matter at all, from Congress or from anywhere else.
Read on...
Soon after his inauguration in 1993, the Clinton Justice Department fired every Federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice. (sub. required) Every one. No reasons were given or required. This, even though in at least one case, there was more than enough evidence of political motivation to warrant at least as much scrutiny as the relatively benign dismissals that today's Democrats are having fainting spells over.
Attorney General Janet Reno today [March 24, 1993] demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.
Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.[...]
At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.
But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
"This case has been conducted with integrity," Mr. Stephens said, "and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations."[...]
Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton's efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.
Press accounts, like the one above and the one on CNN's web site today, acknowledge that Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, like Cabinet officials, and have no claim on their job absent pleasing the man in charge.
The U.S. attorneys, the chief federal law enforcement officials in their various districts, typically are appointed to four-year terms by the president on the recommendation of state political leaders, but serve at the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed at any time -- like the attorney general and other Cabinet officers.
So where exactly is the scandal? The CNN story reports that Miers sought the dismissal of all US Attorneys at the start of President Bush's second term. The Department of Justice objected to this and, instead, recommended the removal of just eight. Rove apparently advised against removing all of the attorneys en masse.
The most prominent case among the fired prosecutors is that of the former US Attorney for New Mexico. He says he felt pressured to speed up his ongoing investigation into allegations against Democrats because he received phone calls from Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both of New Mexico. But, he doesn't allege that he was pressured to find wrongdoing where there wasn't any or pressured to make up allegations of wrongdoing for the benefit of Republicans. Both lawmakers categorically deny that they put pressure on anyone. Just because the prosecutor says he felt pressured doesn't mean he was pressured. Bottom line, he dragged his feet and got canned.
Sen. Domenici recommended the former prosecutor for his job. Now Domenici is under fire for complaining about the prosecutor's performance to the White House and the Justice Department. It seems a little too precious to me that United States Attorneys can be appointed based in part upon the recommendation of politicians and politically connected people in the district, but they cannot be removed for the same reason. Either insulate all Federal prosecutors from the political process, or accept that they hold political positions and will sometimes become the victim of political winds.
As for Miers and Rove, They are (were) the two closest advisors to the president on matters legal and political respectively. Of course they were involved in this. Of course they had recommendations, that's in their job descriptions.
I ask again, where is the scandal here? Are we as Republicans and conservatives going to submit to the fact that there was wrongdoing just because the Democrats and the media say so? Rather, I suspect that this whole push by the Democrats is to make Federal prosecutors gun shy about investigating Democrats. There, I said it. It's all political backside covering in my estimation.
One argument against the Administration that I have heard advanced from the right is that the Department of Justice besmirched the reputations of the eight by publicizing that their firings were performance related. Too bad. Perhaps the Justice Department could have handled their removal more diplomatically. But, the attorneys took political positions willingly, and politics ain't bean bag. Some say that their replacements are wholly unqualified to be US Attorneys and that this is simply an effort by the Bush Administration to build a farm team of experienced conservative lawyers. I lack the qualifications to judge whether that is true or not, but I submit that a scandal over under-qualified attorneys is a far different thing from what this "scandal" is becoming. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with building a stable of conservative lawyers by sprinkling a few fresh faced young lawyers in the Justice Department. Someone did that once with guys named Roberts, Alito, Olsen, Giuliani, and Levin.
I am tired of Democrats and the media blowing everything that the Bush Administration does into an earth stopping scandal, like no US Attorneys were ever fired for political reasons and no Congressman ever contacted any US Attorney to check on his potential opponent's legal liabilities. What's next? A Congressional hearing into Bush's choice of tie color? I am disappointed that the right seems to have reached the point that it can't even gin up a modicum of a defense of its guys. The next two years are going to be bad enough without all of us crumbling into dust every time a Democrat or the media make some "bombshell" allegation.
The White House should be firing both barrels on this. Release some of the details of the New Mexico case and others that these prosecutors were dragging their feet on. Put the Democrats on the defensive a little bit. Don't roll over just because something "looks bad." No resignations, no scapegoats, and no testimony before any Congressional committee. Instead, counter with the facts and put an end to this media and Democratic created boomlet now.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | The Heavy Hand Of The Regulatory State Strikes Again — Comments (13) »
Show Me the Scandal 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But the Dems are trying to find a way to impeach Bush or force him from power.
Its got their power grabbing finger prints all over it.
So why is the administration in full back-pedal mode on this? All apologies and rolling-heads? It just doesn't make sense to me.
backpedalling on pretty much every accusation. They are afraid of the media and bad publicity, so they just apologize and move on.
I agree completely with the OP I am just not seeing much there, there on this one, it looks and feels like manufactured outrage.
If the complaint is that US attorney's shouldn't be political apointees, then fine, debate that, but the reality here is that they all serve at the presidents pleasure and he can fire any or all of them at will, and he doesn't even have to say why.
Unfortunately the media does not return the favor.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Because the administration are a bunch of pussies. A Giuliani
administration wouldn't get browbeaten by the media or the dems about this.
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
I cringe whenever I see the word "browbeaten".
--
See the Academy
The really controversial aspect of the Clintons firing all 93 at once and demanding their immediate resignation - which was unprecedented and for which the Wall Street Journal (rightly) hounded Clinton for years - wasn't Rostenkowski but rather the firing of Charles Banks, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, who was then investigating Whitewater, the Clintons, and perhaps most significantly Assistant Attorney General (and later, convicted felon) Webster Hubbell, who was involved in the mass firing, which took place March 23, 1993, shortly after Janet Reno was confirmed as Attorney General (much more on that here).
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A lot of nothing.
Southern Women are Naturally Conservative.
Schumer should be fired too, along with another 260 or so public employees in Washington, D.C.
The administration's rhetorical cowardice is irritating me. Bush should be the one pointing out the dems hypocrisy. Challenge them directly, ask why it was OK for Clinton to fire all US attorneys, but this is a scandal.
I am sick of defending the president, his administration, and his policies when he doesn't have the stones to defend himself.
Reagan would not have put up with this crap, neither will Giuliani or Fred Thompson.
Not to claim expertise, but I'm a 3rd year law student at Stanford. Unfortunately, this is a pretty big deal. It's true that when Clinton took charge in '93 he fired all the USAs (US Attorneys) ; Bush did the same thing. It's standard practice at the beginning of an administration to switch out the lead USAs in each district and get them all confirmed by the senate. What's almost unheard of is to switch them out in the middle of the term, especially when you don't have to send the replacements to the senate for confirmation. The reason for this is that USAs (unlike Assistant US Attorneys), are not just random government prosecutors; they are some of the most powerful DOJ officials around and they can make charging decisions that drastically effect entire industries. Firing them absent a huge public scandal involving the proverbial dead girl live boy and a sheep makes it look like an attempt to manipulate the justice system. The 8 people who got fired were all Bush appointees. Here's where it gets tricky and yucky: the people were fired have stellar reputations in the legal community. I personally know one of the USAs involved and this person is one of the most dedicated and sophisticated lawyers I know. For the DOJ to say that they were fired for poor performance is like pouring gas on a fire. It just doesn't make sense with respect to the people concerned. I'm curious to see how this plays out...
It's true that when Clinton took charge in '93 he fired all the USAs (US Attorneys) ; Bush did the same thing.
Not true. Clinton is the only president to have every demanded all 93 resign at the same time. Traditionally it may take 2 years, or more, to replace all USAs.
The reason for this is that USAs (unlike Assistant US Attorneys), are not just random government prosecutors; they are some of the most powerful DOJ officials around and they can make charging decisions that drastically effect entire industries.
Not really correct. USAs are supervised from DOJ and most high profile indictments must proceed under DOJ guidance. Charging, especially in death penalty cases, is controlled by DOJ. They are not independent warlords.
Here's where it gets tricky and yucky: the people were fired have stellar reputations in the legal community.
Just patently false. For instance. At least half the fired USAs could easily be fired for cause.
The fact is that these people are Schedule C appointees. They serve at the pleasure of the President. They aren't independent. The mistake the administration is making is by backing down.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
True, replacing USAs from one administration to another is a staggered process, but a process nonetheless - every president is entitled to have his own executive branch. It takes a while b/c the positions are important enough to need senate confirmation (at least until the latest iteration of the Patriot Act).
I hope you're not suggesting that the public corruption investigations in San Diego and elsewhere were "under DOJ guidance"...if so, you just don't know how the process works. If USAs were not given broad charging discretion and customarily not subject to capricious firings, the DOJ would have to hire a special prosecutor every time someone remotely related to the executive branch got into trouble. Not having independent prosecutors in each judicial district would quickly create complaints of selective enforcement against the administration's political opponents.
As for your take on the reputations of the USAs involved, you should probably hang out with more lawyers.
First, I assure you, the poor guy hangs out with enough of us as it is.
Second, having once been a third-year law student, allow me to suggest to you that neither other law students, nor law professors, make good survey samples to figure out "what lawyers think." For example:
I hope you're not suggesting that the public corruption investigations in San Diego and elsewhere were "under DOJ guidance"...if so, you just don't know how the process works. If USAs were not given broad charging discretion and customarily not subject to capricious firings, the DOJ would have to hire a special prosecutor every time someone remotely related to the executive branch got into trouble. Not having independent prosecutors in each judicial district would quickly create complaints of selective enforcement against the administration's political opponents.
This is funny. United States Attorneys turn over with some frequency; they know when they take the job that they're subject to being hired and fired "capriciously." They just know that the massive amount of bureaucracy protects them fairly well.
Take that as from a lawyer, one of whose partners is a former USA.
And what you say streiff said, isn't what he said.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
you're analysis of my opinion of "what lawyers think" would make sense were you *reasonably* certain that I never left the law school. Personally, I much prefer the company of practitioners to professors. What did you do with your summers anyway?
I was afraid someone would one day think I was a pompous law student dropping hints about things I didn't understand. Fortunately, they would never think I'd mess up straightforward homophones.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Children never really know all that they think they know. And even some of us who did step out into the real world spend a long time learning thngs we thought we knew but found out we didn't have the first blessed clue about. Or is that most of us?
Anyway, one day he will either learn that most of what he "knows" is wrong (even about what he has dedicated his short lfe to learning), or he will be a Liberal trying to explain why reality is wrong...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
As a law student who hates when other law students act like they have a monopoly on knowledge, it's always good when someone reminds them they don't.
public corruption cases are one of the categories that are supervised from DOJ. Think about it. Political appointees, politicians under investigation. Read a few newspaper articles and don't rely on other 3d year law students so much.
As to reputations, I've found the legal profession to be a very unsound barometer for assessing a man's reputation.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Perhaps you can help me. My neighbor has a fruit tree,(plum/nectarine), that hangs over my back fence. Every spring, it drops fruit in my pool. The local pack of raccoons like to jump in the pool to get the fruit. Now, if they would just wade in on the steps, it would be OK, but they like to go down the slide and jump off the board making noise that wakes up us, and the neighbors on both sides.
My questions for you A. If the fruit falls into my pool is it mine; B. Do you think the raccoons are peeing in my pool?; and, C. Why is it harder to find a good pool guy than a good lawyer?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
it becomes an issue because when you fire EVERYONE, it can't be claimed that you're singling out ANYONE.
Clearly these eight were singled out. Now, were they singled out for partisan reasons or because of poor performance?
Or was it poor performance that was done because of their partisan bend?
The answer is IT DOESN'T MATTER. "Serve at the pleasure of the President" means just that. He can change attorneys as often as he changes his underwear if he wants to.
that Gonzales wouldn't have seen the need to mislead Congress about the political involvement with the firings, if there was nothing there. Right?
And Sampson, who resigned today? He just didn't like his job much?
I believe that the White House hasn't come out 'swinging' on this one for reasons that have very much to do with protecting themselves.
Domenici called Iglesias -- at home -- during the election campaign -- and demanded to know if indictments of Democrats would be made "by November." Then he hung up. Then Iglesias got fired. Now Domenici says, yes, he contacted the White House regarding Iglesias (but, hey, it was only about "immigration issues" and such).
What Domenici did is, flat out, a violation of Senate rules against interference in judicial proceedings. As a member of Congress, you don't get to tell federal prosecutors to drop a case against your friend, or indict your partisan foes, or speed up or slow down indictments based on your own campaign schedule.
What did the White House do with Domenici's unethical request? Well, they fired Iglesias for not granting it.
And how are you responding, now that it's been brought to light? You're endorsing it.
You say: Just because the prosecutor says he felt pressured doesn't mean he was pressured.
What are you, a mob lawyer? I guess if he'd found a horse's head in his bed, that wouldn't mean he was being pressured either.
Bottom line, he dragged his feet and got canned.
Bottom line, the White House and some Republicans in Congress got caught trying to make U.S. Attorneys serve as parts of their political operations, and you're claiming -- perhaps honestly -- that you see nothing wrong with it.
If members of the Administration are panicking -- instead of "firing both barrels on this," as you demand -- it's because they still have to deal with reality, and the limits of what the public will tolerate. That's why they trumped up the claim about "performance issues" to begin with. And, bottom line, that's why Kyle Sampson just "got canned." He won't be the last.
Peel back the tone there, pardner. And be sure about facts before you represent them as true. Your contributions here have not been masterworks of logic and rhetoric by any stretch of the imagination; this is not a good way to stay beneath radar.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Unless you are Iglesias, please provide a citation for the "fact" that Domenici demanded indictments by November and then hung up. Wow, what pressuring. He hung up. If that we're me, I might have indicted my own mother after I got hung up on by a Senator.
Domenici says he didn't pressure anyone and asked only about the timeframe of the investigation. Also, Justice says that at no time did the Senator mention any specific probe in his discussions with DOJ officials about Iglesias.
Iglesias was so upset by the calls, that he didn't mention them to anyone until after he was fired. Imagine that.
Justice officials have said they were never notified that lawmakers had called Iglesias and have said the issue did not play a role in his firing. Iglesias has acknowledged he erred by not informing Washington officials about the calls, as Justice rules require.
And, yes, I am endorsing the firings, I'm not ashamed of that. These US Attorneys are political appointments. They are made for political reasons, they can be unmade for political reasons, as far as I'm concerned.
Get yourself some smelling salts and snap out of the vapors already. There is no scandal here. The president gets to hire and fire executive branch appointees at his discretion. Clinton did it, Reagan and Bush 41 did it. In fact the only recent president who didn't seek resignations of all sitting US Attorneys upon taking office is George W. Bush.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
The allegations being floated by the Dems is that some of these prosecutors were removed for either going after too many Republicans, or not going after enough Democrats.
IF that's true, would you still be cool with it? Is that the same thing as 'political reasons?'
or not taking prosecutions of democrats seriously enough.
Honestly, I would want to see more information that proves either of these before saying one of the other is bad.
I would like for the guy who let Sandy Berger off to be on the list, because Sandy Berger's prosecution was a miscarriage of justice for the American people.
And even more so-they serve in political positions, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Just because presidents don't traditional fire US attorneys that doesn't mean they can't. The nature of the beast is that political appointees serve at the pleasure of the person who appointed them, and last time I checked the appointer could give them their walking papers at will.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
You don't see any problem with the Attorney Generals of the US pursuing or not pursuing legal cases based upon the politics of the admin. that hired them, and their removal if they refuse to bring politically-motivated charges?
That's essentially what you are suggesting - that there's no problem with kicking out AG's who are going after your party too much or the other guys too little. This seems rather contrary to the notion of Justice that we prize here in America.
Some decades ago, some geniuses decided that the courts would be politics by other means. Around the same time, some guy possessed of real viguh and his bruthuh decided to take that to the U.S. Attorney General's office. For over four decades, five if you look at it a certain way, seven if you look at it yet another, the political appointees who do legal work have been politics by other means.
Would we prefer this was not so? Yes. Doesn't mean we have to unilaterally disarm.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I did not "essentially" say anything. I also didn't say anything about the AG. Here's what I did say:
Sen. Domenici recommended the former prosecutor for his job. Now Domenici is under fire for complaining about the prosecutor's performance to the White House and the Justice Department. It seems a little too precious to me that United States Attorneys can be appointed based in part upon the recommendation of politicians and politically connected people in the district, but they cannot be removed for the same reason. Either insulate all Federal prosecutors from the political process, or accept that they hold political positions and will sometimes become the victim of political winds.
And that's all I have to say.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
just to be clear, when asked:
"You don't see any problem with the Attorney Generals of the US pursuing or not pursuing legal cases based upon the politics of the admin. that hired them, and their removal if they refuse to bring politically-motivated charges?"
Your answer is "No, I don't see a problem with this." Am I incorrect in thinking this is the case?
A hypothetical - the next Dem president instructs all AGs that they must bring to him 10 times the indictments of Republicans then Democrats, or they are out the door. That's cool? It would seem to be if I understand your answer to my question. Perhaps I am mistaken about your answer.
I have yet to say anything about him. You, however, seem fascinated with him.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
and the Clinton IRS. We thought that was the way it was done.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
It was under oath in his senate testimony. Both he and Domenici are life long Republicans. Not sure who is more credible here. To me, this is a pretty serious accusation. I wish Bush or Gonzo would get to the bottom of it before the dems turn this into something it probably isn't.
A Senator allegedly hanging up on a prosecutor is a very serious accusation. One worthy of a full blown Congressional investigation. I retract.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
It was along the lines of:
"will you have indictments by Nov. 9?"
"Doubtful"
"Click"
Iglesias testified that it was highly unusual to be asked this at all, but unprecedented to be called at home. He said he felt like he was being pressured.
As you imply, this is probably just a mis-impression. But here's a guy who was commended for outstanding service in January 2006 and then fired for poor performance a year later. And now the media is chasing Rove with a noose. Wait a day and they'll spin Cheney into this.
I'm not saying this IS bad, I'm saying it LOOKS bad. If there's a lingering public doubt that USA's aren't above and beyond political pressure, there will always be charges that Dem investigations are just political witch hunts. That's why the President never had the power to appoint "indefinite" interims (and we should change that before a Dem takes office).
Republicans need to kick up a lot of dust over this issue and clear these people. If there really was something fishy going on, get rid of the guy responsible. We just don't need that stuff. No one wants Janet Reno in perpetuity.
IMHO, the worst thing we can do is stand idly by in denial mode while they act like they have some kind of moral high ground. We let them drag Hassert into the Foley fiasco and it cost us the election. This time, we need to get out front and prove that this is nothing and that we have nothing to hide.
When you get responses like "go away", or "watch your tone there", or "how about a citation" then you have a pretty good clue that you're on to something that is disturbing the echo chamber of like-minded commentary.
I say bring on your comments -- agree or disagree -- it's nice to have some variety.
As for the forced resignations... when the administration says "Move along folks - nothing to see here." then I immediately suspect that there's something to see.
"So you want to know why I fired those 8 USAs? The answer is because I felt like it."
And then left it at that, because that's all the answer they were entitled to.
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
Congress or the MSM an explanation. The USA's serve "at the pleasure of the President" end of story. Where was the uproar when Clinton fired 93 USA's under the black cloud of Whitewater and Dan Rostenkowski's crooked operation?
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
that Janet would send in the ATF to storm their offices looking for children to burn up protect.
--
See the Academy
Stones, glass houses, and all that jazz.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
I have a hard time thinking of a situation in which the Administration - any elected official - doesn't 'owe' an explanation to their constituents.
Even if the explanation is 'see, we have the right to do this,' it's still an explanation.
Statements like the one I responded to above don't reflect the Democratic process at all.
concurrent with elections. I just looked at my copy of the Constitution, I don't find a requirement to answer constituents anywhere.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The AG should have said, "shove it, its our right for whatever reasons we wish" It is sad that he instead had to grovel like a pimp slapped little biatch.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I have seen the right leaning blogs that mention this story bring up Clinton's firing of the US attorneys in 1993.
The liberal response to this is "GOP talking point" every president fires all the US attorney's when they take office, Bush did it in 2001. But this is stated without a link to prove the fact of this.
All my googling attempts result in the current Bush firings and the mention of Clinton's without any reference to every president doing it.
So, has anyone seen or found an actual link that backs up this response or is it a talking point?
But it's well-known and established that executive branch political appointees are replaced as a matter of course when there is a new administration, especially one from a different party.
What was unprecedented about Clinton was a single summary firing - and immediate removal - of all of the US Attorneys rather than replacing them all one at a time.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Basically Clinton fired them all, and had no US attorneys in place until they were all replaced, where other administrations fired and preplaced a few at a time. Do they all evantually get replaced or do the administrations keep some of the old ones around?
So the essential argument at this point, is that once appointed a US attorney can't be fired without cause? Or is it that they don't think this is justified cause, but that would turn US attorneys into civil servants rather than executive appointees.
Thanks for explaining.
Some do, and some don't. Some get rid of the current ones to replace them with previous ones. Such is the life of a political appointee...
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
The New Tone prevents firing people because you can, because they no longer serve at your pleasure. So instead, you have to make up stuff about performance which New Tone management is allowed to fire people over.
If I had a manager that had this much power in removing someone from their position and botched it this bad I'd fire him.
The utter incompetence of this White House when it comes to message and communications is doing more and more damage. Incapable of defending international intelligence gathering, incapable of defending the interrogation of unlawful combatants, incapable of defending fourteen truthful words in a State of the Union Address, and now incapable of defending the rightful use of executive power and a use that pales in comparison to past use. All because the New Tone requires we never go on offense and apologize on demand.
This administration has been a train wreck on communication since Karen Hughs left. They still had the numbers and strategy guy, Rove, but no message. Sort of like a company with great numbers people in pricing and strategy but no advertising department. It’s getting more and more pathetic! Shumer and the rest of the Dems must laugh their rear ends off at this stuff. It's easier than stealing a wimp's lunch money, or shooting fish in a barrel.
“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill
They never miss a chance to either; Wuss out, act stupid, insult the base of the party, or be incompetent. Sometimes they manage all four at once.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As yet another lawyer who thinks his two cents are worth at least a nickel, I begin by agreeing that there is, obviously, nothing legally or constitutionally wrong with a president's firing a USA for any reason under the Sun (including that he/she is not being political enough, either in prosecuting or failing to prosecute). That sort of thing has been going on since the country was founded.
It must also be said, however (and IMO), that the firings were meted out in a politically hamhanded way. When previous administrations (at least the politically adept ones) decided to pull the plug on someone they selected in the first place - an ostensibly loyal member of the same party after all - they normally made sure that another job was lined up for the person who was getting the axe. The position could have been anything from a spot on the federal bench to membership on a high-profile commission to a meaningless (but important-sounding) role in DoJ (or some other department or agency in D.C.). Sometimes a friend in the private sector stepped in, too, with the announcement of a sudden opening in a corporation's General Counsel's office. That way there were no (or at least fewer) hard feelings, and the people who were let go kept their mouths shut.
Why something like this was not done I'll never know. Why the firings had to occur all at once also escapes me. Add to these basic, political lapses an invocation of the Patriot Act's new provision on replacing USA's without Senate confirmation and you will get the "political upheaval" Gonzales's now-erstwhile CoS predicted (or worse). It all seems phenomenally boneheaded to me.
I've been reading a ton of viewpoints on this mess and your observations on what went down are top drawer. You got to know this kind of stuff happens in Washington all the time. Its just the smart players know how to take care of their own so the train continues to run on this time. Clearly this shows that Gonzales is politically outside of his league. He should have never allowed this to happen. Even if you spin this the best way possible from his perspective---I didn't know about the firings, it was Sampson and Mier's fault, he is guilty of gross political imcompetance. A simple mandate---fire them but make sure they get taken care of and don't talk--didn't happen. Instead the eight got trashed. Blind loyalty trumps political competence. Brownie, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Miers---I can't take it anymore. If they're this politically incompetent in the major departments that get the press, you wonder how bad the second team is in the other areas of this administration. If not for Karl we would be up the creek without a paddle.
I really don’t mean to plug Rudy again and again (I’d honestly leaning Romney). I’m trying to plug an attribute which I think is an absolute necessity in 2008, and that’s the ability to stand up to the press and the Dems when you’re right, and politely and skillfully run it down their throat. Anything less and the MSM will continue to define all the terms of debate, including the “defining” of all non-national stage candidates to the independents.
If Rudy were president, how would this go down, or Fred Thompson for that matter? Does anyone doubt each of those two would make it crystal clear they’re exercising a power that’s been used for over 200 years and they’ll fire any U.S. attorney anytime they like regardless of what Chuck Shumer or anyone in Congress thinks?
Enough of this rolling over, again and again and again and again!
“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill
... which I think is an absolute necessity in 2008, and that's the ability to stand up to the press and the Dems when you’re right, and politely and skillfully run it down their throat. Anything less and the MSM will continue to define all the terms of debate
You're absolutely right. It isn't enough for a Presdident to have the right policy opinions. One can't be an effective President without being a skilled politician with persuasive speaking skills. Bush's incompetence in this department has cost him a lot in losing support for fundamentally right policies, and cost his party and his country a lot.
I believe any of Giuliani, Romney or Thompson know how to make their case more effectively than Bush. 2008 is going to be a tough year for Republicans, so the nominee will especially need those skills to get elected in the first place, much less govern effectively.
how to defend its positions and choices and make a case for them. I have never understood why this administration is unable to deal with the media or criticism.
I agree that in 2008 the candidate who wins has got to be able to manage their message and to go to the mat on things they are convinced are the right thing to do. I agree that I don't see a Guliani administration backing down from a fight, when they know they are right, and while I have issues with some of Guliani's positions, I think backing down and offering up apology after apology after apology isn't a pattern he would fall into.
When he thinks he is right, he is as stubborn and loyal as they come. And I mean both of those in an admirable way. A McCain Administration would not deal with this nonsense.
http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/
"In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
-John McCain
McCain works fine with an adoring media. Maybe that's why he sucks up to the media so much, because he couldn't stand not having their approval.
What McCain has not demonstrated, and what both Giuliani and Romney have demonstrated, is the ability to persuade the public even with a press that hates their guts and spins every story in the most unfavorable way against them.
What McCain has not demonstrated, and what both Giuliani and Romney have demonstrated, is the ability to persuade the public even with a press that hates their guts and spins every story in the most unfavorable way against them.
Sounds like what you are describing is what John McCain is doing right now and has been doing with the Iraq War. Stumping for Bush's troop surge, blasting the Democrats for retreatism, and telling the public just how deadly the consequences of defeat are. All this with the MSM and general public very much anti-war.
http://michiganformccain.blogspot.com/
"In war, my dear friends, there's no such thing as compromise. You either win or you lose."
-John McCain
Sounds like what you are describing is what John McCain is doing right now and has been doing with the Iraq War.
On the fundamental issue of supporting the war, McCain has stood fast. That's the basic reason I'd vote for him over some pro-surrender Democrat if we're unfortunate enough to have him as our nominee, even though I have a real problem with McCain's media antics in favor of new rights for unlawful combatants.
And get about thirty-five blog and MSM entries on how AG Gonzales should get the heave-ho. Redstate is about the only blog with an interesting take on the whole affair, and an excellent editorial in the WSJ Opinion Journal has been excluded from memeorandum.
The reason the Repubs need to nominate a guy like Giuliani is that weak B-List politicos like GWB and Gonzales are and were never quite ready for prime time in the political trenches.
Achance had a wonderful piece here recently on how Democrats used their "old mole" skills to dominate the permanent bureaucracy. The hijacking of the Washington State governorship is a perfect example of Gonzales' hanging back [perhaps this delusional thinks he will get a SCOTUS nomination some day?]. The refusal to have Sandy Bergler take a polygraph is another example of feckless DOJ activity with AG Gonzales at the helm.
Rudy is a lawyer. Almost all the Dem candidates are lawyers [cognate with liars] and the pomaded Breck-boy is a TRIAL Lawyer---one of those beasts from the Book of Revelations. Rudy knows how to handle the phalanxes of professional desk-jockeys and ambulance-chasers and so-on infecting the American civil service---and he convicted Michael Milken and Marc Rich, so Rudy is ready.
The media are mau-mauing GWB furiously, the Repubs are ceaselessly dropping the ball in returning any of the many fly-balls coming in their direction. GWB has his father's wobbly gene and AG Gonzales just can't cut it.
I agree. This is not news.