I dunno about you, but in the crush of news I sometimes lose track of specific points of specific issues and the dismissal by the Justice Department of federal attorneys and the ensuing investigation of it is a good example. To sort it out, here’s an overview.
At the center of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee (from which I snagged the title of this post) into the firings and resignations of U.S. Attorneys are these three questions:
Were federal attorneys intimidated, in particular by members of Congress, into resigning?
Is the Justice Department using an obscure provision in the newly reauthorized USA Patriot Act to reward Republican political allies with jobs as federal prosecutors?
Can the Justice Department appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation?
In the year since the reauthorization of the Patriot Act took effect, 11 federal prosecutors have resigned or announced their resignations and of those, the circumstances of 8 are being closely examined:
Carol Lam, San Diego, CA, who successfully prosecuted former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham.
Bud Cummings, Little Rock, AR, who resigned and was replaced by a former Karl Rove assistant.
Paul Charlton, AZ, who resigned at the end of January.
John McKay, Seattle, WA, who stated he was ordered to resign by the Justice Department.
Kevin Ryan, San Francisco, CA, who resigned in January.
Daniel Bogden, NV, who resigned in February.Â
David Iglesias, NM, who resigned in December.
Margaret Chiara, Grand Rapids, MI, who resigned this month.
Six fired U.S. attorneys have testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that they had separately been the target of complaints, improper telephone calls and thinly veiled threats from high-ranking Justice Department officials or members of Congress, both before and after they were abruptly removed from their jobs. Carol Lam, speaking for herself and three other dismissed federal attorneys, gave this statement. David Iglesias gave his account (video) of phone calls he received from Senator Domenici (aka Pajama Pete who has hired a lawyer) and Representative Heather Wilson - Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo gives a good breakdown of the defensive prattle of Domenici & Wilson. John McKay has given vigorous Senate testimony about the pressure he received from the office of WA Rep. Doc Hastings.
The intent of the provision of the Patriot Act which Alberto Gonzales sites as his authority for these dismissals was to ensure continuity of law enforcement when federal prosecutors are lost in terrorist attacks or other crises. Under it, the attorney general would be permitted to appoint replacements, indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.
From the CSMonitor:
“For over 150 years, the process of appointing interim US attorneys has worked with virtually no problems. Now, just one year after receiving unchecked authority in a little-known section added to the Patriot Act last spring, the administration has significantly abused its discretion,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California at Tuesday’s Senate hearing. Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill sponsored by Senator Feinstein that limits the term for an interim appointment to 120 days – returning the law to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
Full article here
Soooooo, along with the SJC hearings Ms. Feinstein is working on a big phat No to an executive power grab by Gonzales. Do I need to tell you that Republicans are blocking this bill?
And now with sworn testimony and threats to bar sworn testimony and lawyer hirings and Democrats fulfilling some of their duties and subpoenas and threats of subpoenas flying above Capitol Hill, comes this new development as reported by the AP:
Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried. Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an ”overblown personnel matter,” a Republican senator Thursday mused into a microphone that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.
”One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later,” Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said during a Judiciary Committee meeting.
A short time after Spector’s remarks, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:
President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general’s power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales’ Justice Department had previously dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.
There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales’ aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.
Full (and unchopped) article here
Ok, there’s more but this is the gist of it. I think. Feel free to add what you have learned.
One last thing…
Gonzales = :flush_tb:
*****UPDATE*****
From McClatchy Newspapers:Rove was asked to fire U.S. attorney
March 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Pajama Pete and H Wilson and Hastings (R-WA) risk, at the least, congressional reprimands for their strong-arming of Iglesias and McKay…and that deliciousness will definitely get its own post. Spector’s musings about Gonzales’ job security are delightful and may come to fruition and if so we’ll also be shouting that here at ETR.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hiya Mirth,
I followed you home from Kay’s a while back and kept telling myself i didn’t have time to register. Today I kicked myself in the butt and made time.
Great blog, and great post. I think this may may take down several in the GOP. Careful, though, about flushing Gonzales. Mustn’t pollute the sewage.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Was that you, TomCat? You should have said something! I would have turned around and we could have strolled together. lol
Ok, fair is fair…now I’ll follow you home.
I’ve reached the point where these individual cases, like Pete & Heather & Doc, hardly matter. It’s the totality of documentation against these evil ones that is becoming as important as who goes to jail. Historians will not be kind.
Of course reining in Gonzales is critical, as is smacking down the enablers. The hubris of them! Pick up a phone and threaten federal prosecutors! Well, guess what? :nono_tb: Now that the Dems control congressional committees, you can’t do that.
Thanks for taking the time to register and read and comment.
:clap_tb:
March 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Great post! (as usual)
Gonzales has been relishing his opportunity to be an evil prick and it’s about damn time the dems are taking a strong look at him and what he’s been up to. I wonder if the Justice department’s audit of the FBI coming out today has something to do with him trying to deflect attention away from himself. Just a thought.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Hi DMan!
Hmmmmm, the FBI thing is kinda timely. I hadn’t thought about a connection. Don’t think that’s gonna save Gonzales, ‘tho.
*fingers crossed*
March 10th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Hi everybody, thanks for stopping by. Hastings HAD been the chair of the “ethics” committee during the time of Delay, Ney, Foley and of course the dukester. He’s an asswipe from here in the Spokane area that rode the ‘94 junta of congress. ONE of his (many) campaign promises was to only serve two terms if elected because of his heartfelt belief of term limits. So much for that and his support of a balanced budget amendment etc,etc. To this day, wherever he comes back here to Washington, there is a guy who follows him around in a weasel suit.
I have been keeping an eye on articles about the FBI lately and these guys must have been taken over by the three stooges. Not only do they mis-use the power of the “patriot” act, they are having a hard time keeping track of other things. Ya know, those little things like their laptops with secret files, and their guns…. little things like that.
It’s hard to figure out if this is yet ANOTHER case of GROSS incompetence from the worst administration in history, or another sign that the DOJ is under control of the most America-hating, evil, fascist,power-mongering,terroristic, monster EVER!. “Sleazy” gonzolez has done more to undermine OUR constitution than any AG during any war, than anytime in our nation’s history.He make John Mitchel look like Clarence Darrow.
Either way, these bastards have to go, while there is at least the APPEARANCE of a free nation left. They know the walls are starting to close in on them, now that the American people are waking from their terrified state of shock. There is no more dangerous rat than a cornered rat. They are starting to react to the pressure. I believe they fear a blow-back, and are taking steps to control damage.
March 11th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Hi All
This is only a quick driveby.
Check the UPDATE at the bottom of the post:
Rove Was Asked To Fire US Attorney
“”Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?” Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event that month.
“He’s gone,” Rove said, according to Weh.”
Of course I left you a link to the story…
March 11th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Mirth, I see the firing of the Attorney’s as part of a pattern, which the reichwing is working to undermine the democracy in this nation. The fire those attorney’s who refuse to help them attack democratic opponents(check out New Jeresy US Attorney Chris Christie WHO DID NOT GET FIRED, but did try to indite Sen Menendez).
This slimy attack on the possible Dem candidate for Governour here in Kentucky:
(WHAS 11 NEWS HAS LEARNED THAT INFORMATION ABOUT POSSIBLE FEDERAL LAW VIOLATIONS BY STEVE HENRY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE U-S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN LOUISVILLE.
U.S. ATTORNEY DAVID HUBER CONFIMS HIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED WHAT HE CALLS QUOTE “A MATTER” INVOLVING THE FORMER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR.
HUBER WOULDN’T SAY WHAT INFORMATION HIS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED ABOUT HENRY — BUT TELLS US IT’S BEEN REFERRED TO THE U-S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON.
WHAS ELEVEN NEWS HAS OBTAINED THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICH SHOW HENRY GOT CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR WHAT HE SAYS WAS N EXPLORATORY CAMPAIGN FOR U-S SENATE.
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ARE ILLEGAL AND ARE USUALLY INVESTIGATED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.
Henry’s campaign manager C.D. Marshall says this is old news. He says Henry followed the law when he was collecting donations for his exploratory committee. Henry earlier told WHAS11 News that he was returning those contributions.
More info for you blog readers: Huber says a “matter” does not imply that there’s any sort of investigation going on, only that his office has received information it has agreed to look into. Also, Huber says he’s in the process of personally recusing himself from any matter involving Henry because he doesn’t want to be accused of playing politics. Huber used to work for Sen. Mitch McConnell.)(Which says a hell of a lot to me)
And it’s interesting, isn’t it, how Huber (a US Prosecuting Attorney) decides to recuse himself from the case after exposing a prominent democrat who is running for a seat held by a re-pubiue disc=graced with a scandal of his own with a local reporter and possibly giving him copies of the documents in question. The attorney decides he can’t bring it to court, BUT can smear a democrat with bad press which McConnell and his machine of re-pubie corruption will continue to spread through out the campaign. (I wonder if McConnell called HIM?)
That is probably why Rove got the US Attorney Bud Cummings from Arkansas fired to replace him with Tim Griffin a former Rove aide. Rove is scared of the Clinton’s and with a US Attorney in his pocket, Rove has the power of the subpeona to dig dirt and legitimately threaten people who don’t play along with jail, (like they did to Susan McDugal) Here is a good run down of Roves justification.
Getting interesting, it would lead you to think that maybe;
The re-pubies saw just how bad scandal undermined their election chances in 2006, but were behind the 8-ball in trying to use it. In 2008 they do not plan on getting caught again, and understand how the attorney’s announcements can be played in the press for political gain.
Bush, Rove and Gonzoles have no problem with throwing the Constitution away if they can get some political gain out of it. Especially since they will be the ones getting MORE power as they trash the protections of the constitution for the rest of us. Removing the checks of senate confirmation after they lose the senate is just what they are willing to do to keep the way they operate humming alone just fine…….
If the have to use the FBI illegally or undercut the constitution to get more power so be it. After all they know they are right and the rest of us are just a silent fifth column which wants to destroy this country and sell out to the communists er .. (too old)…. illegal alien Mexicans … (shhh, the corpora lists don’t want you to make waves about this) … er islamist terrorists … ( won’t work, they’re seeing through this one) … er environmentalists … (the religious right is starting to buy into thids one also) … er SATAN, that’s it SATAN is behind everything so what ever the re-pubies do is justified since they are fighting Satan and his army in the battle of Armageddon. and since that is the holy crusade they are engaged in everything they do is justified…………(snark off)
March 12th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Awesome comment, Clif.
Disseminating news in individual states that doesn’t get national coverage is one of the best things about the Net. This situation with Huber/Henry in KY is a perfect example. Until now, I had read nothing of this.
You’re right; the firings of US attorneys is another step in the coup our country is experiencing…getting power only works if you can keep the power.
The story about the US Attorneys firings continues to this:
“White House Says Rove Relayed Complaints About Prosecutors”
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16878479.htm
Schumer has called for Gonzales to resign.
March 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I was listening to John Dean on the Randi Rhodes show and HE said that these (unprecedented) firings and subsequent crony-hires were done to pad the resumes for later appointments to Federal benches.I plan to do a post on this latest outrage later today. You can tell these bastards weren’t circumcised because there just ain’t no end to these pricks.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
by Mirth
President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general’s power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales’ Justice Department had previously dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.
Of course, Bush wouldn’t stand in the way. He wants the next Dem pres to have to run every federal prosecutor through the Senate subject to the 60/40 filibuster rule. Are you guys forming another circular firing squad??
March 12th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
No, Busboy, no circular firing squads. Instead we want accountability in government, regardless who is president.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Oops….I didn’t notice you there, Frank.
*waving*
Makes perfect sense to me. I’m looking forward to your post it.
There is soooo much in the news, but we don’t need a trail of breadcrumbs to follow this one right to Cheney.
MHP: This is THE STORY.
Go get ‘em!
:furious_tb:
March 12th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Mirth Says: No, Busboy, no circular firing squads. Instead we want accountability in government, regardless who is president.
So, why did Bill Clinton demand and receive the resignation of every Federal prosecutor when he came in to office; subject to his re-appointment approval?
March 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Appointment of US Attorneys
The U.S. Attorney is appointed by and serves at the discretion of the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Discretion of the president means Clinton when he comes to office he can appoint who he wants,(just like George w Bush did) however it is ILLEGAL for any body use that threat of dismissal to force a political prosecution.
So sitting members of congress may NOT call them up and ask for politically motivated prosecutions like Heather Wilson did (with Pete Dominaci’s help), nor can they fire a prosecutor just because they find re-pubie criminal activity, like Carol Lam did in the duke Cunningham case which stretched to Brent Wilkes and Kyle Foggo at CIA and even possibly Jerry Lewis and Dolittle both Calif re-pubie congrisscritters….
Seems they are trying to influence the prosecutions of re-pubies, which is illegal BTW…
March 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Clif, thanks for making my point.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Well son I will elaborate on you MISSING the point as usual…..
We agree on this;
Look, by law and by Constitution (sic), these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term.
This is also true;
And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys - there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys - that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123.
This is where we disagree,
I mean, this is normal and ordinary.
BTW this quote is by KKKArl Rove, if ya didn’t know….
Now, Here’s former Clinton chief-of-staff John Podesta:
Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in - as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 - is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.
So Rove lied again, what else is new?
According to the Associated Press:
Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?
A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.
Thus Reagan 1 known for cause,
Clinton 1 known for actions not appropriate for a federal Prosecuter,
NONE until Bush for political partisan reasons to abuse the system.
Seems what you claim as normal is not , so your WRONG again son, but then again that is normal isn’t it?
Thanks for MISSING the point.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:50 am
BTW pusboy, interfering with an investigation by a US Attorney is considered Obstruction of Justice…..by the US Justice Department.
At least it was until the Bush consigliare was appointed Attorney General…..
Alberto Gonzales, who still thinks he is Bush’s personal lawyer not the chief law enforcement official of this country, which is why Bush ET Al think the have free reign to break any laws they want.
Firing prosecutors who refuse to preform acts of political skull duggery or retribution is just part of the price of working in the Bush Criminal Empire.
Of course with true oversight by the new democratic congressional committees that might just be changing.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Great post Mirth! Hey, I’ve got an idea: if Gonzales and the rest of the cabal DID NOT FIRE THESE US ATTORNEYS FOR POLITICAL REASONS, then I think they should make amends and hire them back and their power to fire these judges should be taken away!!
Of course, that will never happen because they were fired for political reasons and love having the power they’ve given themselves.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Clif, I have to admit that my immediate reaction to Clinton “firing” US prosecutors threw a kink into my thinking about these current firings. I didn’t questioned Gonzales’ evil intent in carrying out his orders from the White House, but I wondered if Clinton’s actions could prevent legal action re the Congress against what Gonzales has done. As usual, your analysis of the facts straightens all that out. You are an asset to any blog that looks at complicated issues and attempts to enlighten its readers.
Hi Kay! I agree…if sound legal reason to remove these attorneys can’t be proven, then all of them should be reinstated. But that would require action and honor and…well, the country doesn’t have much of that going on.
Busboy: On this one issue, now is a time to show your obvious intelligence and leave NeoCon talking points out of your thinking. I respect that Liberals and Conservatives think differently, in fact I think we’re wired completely different and can’t think alike, but these firings are in no way comparable to Clinton’s dismissals at the beginning of his presidency.