# United States Attorney's



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

The firing of eight, possibly nine, United States Attorney's has been in the news quite a bit recently. 

It has been quite interesting to watch the complete silence here in the Study on this topic. The silence, here, is broken. 

Let the discussion begin.


One question I have, if the US Attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the President" ... how can it be that the President was not briefed on their dismissal? Doesn't that make these people as "Serving at the pleasure of the White House political operatives"?


----------



## crushing (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm more surprised as to how big of a story this has become in the media.

I don't know that these eight served at the pleasure of Whitehouse 'political operatives' any more than the unprecedented 93 that were fired in 1993 did.  I do think that the President should have at least been briefed, even if he isn't micromanaging the Justice Department.

Also, leave it to the Bush administration to turn a routine procedure of replacing Presidential appointees into a full blown political fiasco (with some help, of course).


----------



## crushing (Mar 21, 2007)

Bad example between the 93 fired and the 8 as the 93 were at the beginning of the term and were therefore not really serving at the pleasure of the new President (or his representatives).


----------



## Ray (Mar 21, 2007)

crushing said:


> Bad example between the 93 fired and the 8 as the 93 were at the beginning of the term and were therefore not really serving at the pleasure of the new President (or his representatives).


Certainly they were; if they had pleased the new pres then he'd have kept them.

Besides, I'm glad the dems are wrapped up in drafting non-binding resolutions (re: the Iraq war) and the dismissal of the US Attorneys.  It keeps them from doing anything "liberal" that would have any real impact on America.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 21, 2007)

This issue has, for me, belonged to the relegated realm of the Great "So what?"

It niether harms nor assists the recovery of this nation's economic dumper, nor has any direct effect on how I'm gonna pay rent next month.

Is it possible that the powers that be used thier position to advance their agenda? OK...when has that ever NOT been the case?


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 21, 2007)

I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.

I did not really see a reason to have "a discussion", since I consider the topic a complete non-issue and just political games. Get away from this stupid crap and get on with important things, like making sure our troops are funded. BTW, Ray, I think drafting and voting on "non-binding resolutions" is an absolute waste of time. I don't think they were elected to blow hot air. However, given the alternatives (them making more liberal laws), I do suppose I prefer the hot air  So, I think I agree with you on your point


----------



## Blindside (Mar 21, 2007)

Its only an issue because it is a remarkably bad idea to lie to congress, particularly if congress is controlled by the other party.

But now that subpoenas have been authorized, I'm very interested in the Constitutional ramifications of how Bush plays this.

Lamont


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The firing of eight, possibly nine, United States Attorney's has been in the news quite a bit recently.
> 
> It has been quite interesting to watch the complete silence here in the Study on this topic. The silence, here, is broken.
> 
> ...


 
I tried,
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=614448

but nobody seemed particularly interested at the time.  

Some might say that eight or nine US Attorney's isn't that many, but it is about 10%.  What I found quite disturbing is that the interim appointees, who can hold the post inperpetuity now, were not drawn from the same offices as those sacked but were sent from Washington.  I know that there is a certain amount of nepotism involved in these appointments but this borders on the ridiculous does it not?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 21, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.
> 
> I did not really see a reason to have "a discussion", since I consider the topic a complete non-issue and just political games. Get away from this stupid crap and get on with important things, like making sure our troops are funded. BTW, Ray, I think drafting and voting on "non-binding resolutions" is an absolute waste of time. I don't think they were elected to blow hot air. However, given the alternatives (them making more liberal laws), I do suppose I prefer the hot air  So, I think I agree with you on your point


Hello, Clinton did not do this half way through his own administration. This is a new one.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 21, 2007)

Either way Tex lied and Bush is in trouble.
Sean


----------



## jdinca (Mar 21, 2007)

As far as I'm concerned, this is the Democrats attempt to have a "Monica Moment". I'm quite pleased that they're all wrapped up in this. It prevents them from spending time trying to "make my life better", i.e., pass more silly laws and regulations and take more money out of my pocket to give it to someone else. BTW, I felt the same exact way when it was a Democrat in office and the Republicans in control of congress.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.


 
Clinton received the resignation of 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.

George W. Bush received the resignation of 91 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term. 

Please clarify what you mean when you say that President Bush did not clean house like Clinton?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I tried,
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=614448
> 
> but nobody seemed particularly interested at the time.
> ...


 
Steel Tiger ... when I click that link, I get a 'No Messages Found' message. 

<shrugg>


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Steel Tiger ... when I click that link, I get a 'No Messages Found' message.
> 
> <shrugg>


 
Odd, wondere why that happened?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> One question I have, if the US Attorney's serve "at the pleasure of the President" ... how can it be that the President was not briefed on their dismissal?



Possibly because the president delegates authority. If he did not, he would be swamped with details.

Jdinca



> As far as I'm concerned, this is the Democrats attempt to have a "Monica Moment". I'm quite pleased that they're all wrapped up in this. It prevents them from spending time trying to "make my life better", i.e., pass more silly laws and regulations and take more money out of my pocket to give it to someone else.



That is one way to take a cheery look at the situation. Instead of advancing an agenda to "help" the American people, they are making an effort to get in front of the cameras as much as possible. As long as they are doing things like this instead of passing massive health care reforms or giving more money to people that might vote for them, we may be in good shape.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Possibly because the president delegates authority. If he did not, he would be swamped with details.


 
According to the relevant statute, the President may dismiss a US Attorney. It seems however, the Attorney General does not have the ability to do so. 

Asking for the resignation of a US Attorney resides *with the President*, as I understand the data.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title3/2musa.htm#3-2.120



> *3-2.120 Appointment *
> 
> 
> United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. _See_ 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. _See_ _Parsons v. United States_, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).


----------



## Marginal (Mar 21, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I'll have to agree with Kembudo-Kai Kempoka. So what? It's a non-issue that the congress is trying to make into an issue. He did not clean house like Clinton did when he got elected. This is a fabricated issue.


It's typical for the start of a new president's term. It's unusual several years into the term. 

Clinton also didn't sneak in legislation into a bill designed to circumvent any and all scrunity of his appointees. (How was this a national security issue?)


----------



## crushing (Mar 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Clinton received the resignation of 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.


 
When presented with the choice of being fired or resigning, I think most people choose resignation.  Previous to this most US Attorneys were allowed to serve much of their term before the political resignation.



michaeledward said:


> George W. Bush received the resignation of 91 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term.
> 
> Please clarify what you mean when you say that President Bush did not clean house like Clinton?


 
That doesn't surprise me.  The precedent was set and there is an expectation of "turn-a-bout as fair" play in politics.  Isn't that why congress will now investigate the hell out of President Bush, just like the Republicanistics did with President Clinton?  Democratic Party loyalists will tell us how this is different, just as the Republican Party loyalists will agree that it is different.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2007)

US Attorneys are sworn in for Four year terms. When a President is re-elected, many US Attorney's stay in their position for the second term as well.

I think, if one looked, he would find that US Attorneys begin submitting resignations in the Lame Duck sessions of the Presidency (recognizing that this time period begins sooner or later in each Presidents' second term). I am willing to bet that GHW Bush also had a large number US Attorneys to name in his first few months in office. As, quite probably, Reagan did before him. 

As you said, there is nothing unusual about changing US Attorneys' at the beginning of the term. 

In Clinton's 8 years, he replaced 123 US Attorneys, total.
In GWBush's 6 years, he has replaced 128 US Attorneys, total.

When a President asked for a resignation, in the past, it has often been due to ethical challenges with the US Attorney. 

What is interesting in this case, is the work the US Attorneys were either persuing, or not persuing. Ms. Lam had successfully convicted Congressman Cunningham for bribery. Hmm.

Also, something that I just re-read over at The Nation. One of the two US Attorney's President Bush did not demand a resignation from when he came into office, was the US Attorney serving in Guam. It wasn't until November of 2002 that he was asked to step down (to Assistant US Attorney). There is some speculation that this move came about because he introduced and investigation into Jack Abramoff's activities on the Northern Marinara Islands.

Incidently, the Attorney General does have the authority to fire / ask for the resignation of Assistant US Attorneys.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> What is interesting in this case, is the work the US Attorneys were either persuing, or not persuing.



One of the attornies that was let loose according to CNN seemed to not be interested in pursuing immigration cases. It seems that if someone was an illeagle alien, they would not be pursued by this person. I will have to check as it was a broadcast. But the aurgument put forward was that  if someone did not pursue cases that were important to the administration they would be let loose.

I guess that is legal. Is there something about this case that is illeagle, or even immoral?

Because congress is going to once again threaten people with jail time unless they drop what they are doing and go in front of cameras in a questioning session. I know courts can do that in cases where someone may go to jail or there will be a trial. But it has always distrubed me that congress can do this type of thing when we peons can't. This is not the first case, but it does seem to be the most blatent use of this threat for purely political gains.



> Incidently, the Attorney General does have the authority to fire / ask for the resignation of Assistant US Attorneys.



Thanks for clearing that up. If the attorney general had oversteped his bounds, there would be a valid reason for a criminal probe by congress. As it is, it is obvious they are looking for their Monica Moment.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> One of the attornies that was let loose according to CNN seemed to not be interested in pursuing immigration cases. It seems that if someone was an illeagle alien, they would not be pursued by this person. I will have to check as it was a broadcast. But the aurgument put forward was that if someone did not pursue cases that were important to the administration they would be let loose.


 
I understand that in January of 2006, Attorney General Gonzales listed the Bush Adminsitrations priorities for the Justice Department. On that list, immigration was not near the top. 

While one can make the argument that the US Attorneys should persue the priorities of the Administration, one needs to examine closely what the published priorities are; if one wishes to credibly make that argument.





			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> I guess that is legal. Is there something about this case that is illeagle, or even immoral?
> 
> Because congress is going to once again threaten people with jail time unless they drop what they are doing and go in front of cameras in a questioning session. I know courts can do that in cases where someone may go to jail or there will be a trial. But it has always distrubed me that congress can do this type of thing when we peons can't. This is not the first case, but it does seem to be the most blatent use of this threat for purely political gains.


 
Well, there's some hyperbole, isn't there. Who exactly was threatened with jail time. By whom?  And, I note you use the phrase "once again": please clarify for me, when did we establish the prior time that Congress threatented people with jail time? 

It seems that when the Administration has given information to Congress about this subject, there have been some pretty notable "errors". One method of reducing "errors" is to put the information provided to Congress under oath.

Now, if you are arguing that asking someone to swear an oath *is the same* as threatening them with Jail time, I guess I would have to ask, many of the people in question have sworn oaths to protect and defend the United States Constitution, should we expect them to honor those prior oaths. 

Now, as I understand the Constitution, each branch of government provides some measure of oversight toward the others. Seeking testimony under oath seems, to me anyhow, as an important part of that oversight. 




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Thanks for clearing that up. If the attorney general had oversteped his bounds, there would be a valid reason for a criminal probe by congress. As it is, it is obvious they are looking for their Monica Moment.


 
The United States attorney in New Hampshire, by the way, was not dismissed. In 2002, there was some pretty serious accusations of the Republican Party jamming the telephone lines of the Democratic Party's Get Out the Vote centers. Our US Attorney did a wonderful job investigating that activity at a very slow pace. Nothing was released from the US Attorney until after the 2004 elections.

Lastly, don't pass this off on the Attorney General. US Attorneys are appointed by the President; and the President is the person with authority to remove them. The Attorney General does not have the authority to remove US Attorneys.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Well, there's some hyperbole, isn't there. Who exactly was threatened with jail time. By whom?  And, I note you use the phrase "once again": please clarify for me, when did we establish the prior time that Congress threatented people with jail time?



I am talking about the use of subpoenas. If you are called and don't submit, you are put in jail. That just does not go over well with me. You see if from time to time with congresspeople eager to be shown going after evil dooers for the public good. Of course, in this case, everyone seems to be agreed that there was nothing illeagle going on. So it is pretty obviously a fishing expidition. It is not like someone lied under oath to avoid a little shame for their personal actions and thus commited a felony. 

I saw this sort of things with other congresses going on witch hunts. This is just another case, but a bit more blatent.


----------



## crushing (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As you said, there is nothing unusual about changing US Attorneys' at the beginning of the term.


 

You say there is nothing unusual and another person called it typical, but from what I have read in various new articles is that such a sweeping dismissal at the beginning of the term was unprecedented until 1993 when 93 were removed.  Previous to 1993, US Attorneys would be replaced as each US Attorney's term ended, not as the President's term began.

One benefit of the partisans manufacturing such 'scandals' is that it keeps them busy attacking each other rather than messing with the people.  I would much rather see them bicker about a non-issue like this than work towards a definition of marriage or some 2nd Amendment infringement.  One downside, however, is that it may delay years overdue and much needed improvements to VA programs and hospitals.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> One of the attornies that was let loose according to CNN seemed to not be interested in pursuing immigration cases. .


 
link

According to this WP link, two Democrats complained about Prosecutor Lam's lack of immigration law enforcement.  

Last June, for example, Justice officials painstakingly drafted soothing responses to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who had expressed concerns that Lam was not aggressive enough in prosecuting immigration violations in her San Diego district. "Please rest assured that the immigration laws in the southern district of California are being vigorously enforced," said a draft of a letter from Moschella to Issa.

Lam is the same Prosecutor who convicted that Cunningham guy.  

From what I can tell, these people serve under the same terms as the President's Cabinet who can be dismissed at any time for virtually any reason.  I don't think there is anything illegal about asking these people to resign unless it was to obstruct justice.  Even then, as President Nixon proved with his Saturday Night Massacre, they can sometimes get away with it.

What I don't understand is why the President is fighting the testimony under oath thing but allowing them to talk off record.  If you are going to tell the whole truth, why not do it under oath?  If you think that Congress has no authority in this matter, then why talk at all?  It just doesn't pass the smell test with me.


----------



## crushing (Mar 22, 2007)

Shuto said:


> What I don't understand is why the President is fighting the testimony under oath thing but allowing them to talk off record. If you are going to tell the whole truth, why not do it under oath? If you think that Congress has no authority in this matter, then why talk at all? It just doesn't pass the smell test with me.


 
I wondered that too, but then I thought of how many politicans get in trouble.  Sometimes they don't get in trouble for doing something wrong, but because in hours and hours of testimony they may have said things that appeared to be contradictory, they misunderstood a question, or misstated an answer.

While there may have not been anything illegal in regards to the dismisal of the US Attorneys, in fact, the dismisals may have been warranted due to the poor performance, but the person testifying could still get slammed with obstruction of justice and perjury.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I am talking about the use of subpoenas. If you are called and don't submit, you are put in jail. That just does not go over well with me. You see if from time to time with congresspeople eager to be shown going after evil dooers for the public good. Of course, in this case, everyone seems to be agreed that there was nothing illeagle going on. So it is pretty obviously a fishing expidition. It is not like someone lied under oath to avoid a little shame for their personal actions and thus commited a felony.
> 
> I saw this sort of things with other congresses going on witch hunts. This is just another case, but a bit more blatent.


 
Anyone who is *agreeing* that nothing illegal is going on, is doing so *without* a full set of facts. Obstruction of Justice is a crime. 

If these US Attorneys were removed because they were persuing criminal activity that would have been unpleasant for the Bush Administration, it would be a crime. At this point, we have some facts that could lead us to this conclusion. Of course, upon *truthful* testimony, we may learn that nothing illegal has occured; but we would be coming to that conclusion based on actual evidence. 

And now, issueing a subpoena is the same as putting someone in jail? Wow! I'm wondering why you would argue that some men in our society are above the law?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

crushing said:


> You say there is nothing unusual and another person called it typical, but from what I have read in various new articles is that such a sweeping dismissal at the beginning of the term was unprecedented until 1993 when 93 were removed. Previous to 1993, US Attorneys would be replaced as each US Attorney's term ended, not as the President's term began.
> 
> One benefit of the partisans manufacturing such 'scandals' is that it keeps them busy attacking each other rather than messing with the people. I would much rather see them bicker about a non-issue like this than work towards a definition of marriage or some 2nd Amendment infringement. One downside, however, is that it may delay years overdue and much needed improvements to VA programs and hospitals.


 

It takes but a moment to check the facts. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html




> It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. *Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney* when he appointed his first Attorney General.


 
Unprecedented?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

crushing said:


> I wondered that too, but then I thought of how many politicans get in trouble.  Sometimes they don't get in trouble for doing something wrong, but because in hours and hours of testimony they may have said things that appeared to be contradictory, they misunderstood a question, or misstated an answer.
> 
> While there may have not been anything illegal in regards to the dismisal of the US Attorneys, in fact, the dismisals may have been warranted due to the poor performance, but the person testifying could still get slammed with obstruction of justice and perjury.



Not only that, but in a real court case when you are under subpoena and _required_ to testify, you can fall back on the fifth ammendment to the constituion if applicable. You also can raise an objection if the lawyer is going off topic and using leading questions, etc.

What kind of control is there over congress once they get you in front of the cameras? Are you legally obliged to answer, even if they start asking about things totally unrelated to the topic at hand and couching the questions as if there was a crime already commited? And all this in front of cameras?


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Anyone who is *agreeing* that nothing illegal is going on, is doing so *without* a full set of facts. Obstruction of Justice is a crime.
> 
> If these US Attorneys were removed because they were persuing criminal activity that would have been unpleasant for the Bush Administration, it would be a crime. At this point, we have some facts that could lead us to this conclusion. Of course, upon *truthful* testimony, we may learn that nothing illegal has occured; but we would be coming to that conclusion based on actual evidence.
> 
> And now, issueing a subpoena is the same as putting someone in jail? Wow! I'm wondering why you would argue that some men in our society are above the law?



Is there any sign that there has been any illeagle activity? Anything that would stand as reason to hold a civil trial? If not, then what kind of precedent is there for hitting someone with a subpoena and threaten them with jail time if they do not respond?

We do not know if you or I commited any crime as well. I for one would not want to be treated like this when no one can seem to find even the slightest hint that someone against the law was done. And prior to this, you seemed to think that even certain non obtrusive investigations should not be held unless there was a heck of a lot of evidence to justify it. Now it seems you have changed your outlook.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

crushing said:


> I wondered that too, but then I thought of how many politicans get in trouble. Sometimes they don't get in trouble for doing something wrong, but because in hours and hours of testimony they may have said things that appeared to be contradictory, they misunderstood a question, or misstated an answer.
> 
> While there may have not been anything illegal in regards to the dismisal of the US Attorneys, in fact, the dismisals may have been warranted due to the poor performance, but the person testifying could still get slammed with obstruction of justice and perjury.


 
The White House is opposing sworn testimony because they claim the Executive is an Independent Branch of Government. It needs to be free from undue influence from the other branches of government. There is some credibility to this argument. It ignores, however, the Constitutional responsibility of oversight. 

This is a manufactured Constitutional Crisis. Inflicted in an attempt to transfer authority to the 'Unitary Executive'. If this ends up in the Courts - as the White House seems to desire - and the Courts rule in the White House's favor, the Congress becomes an outdated, weakened body; which, by definition, will strengthen the authority of the President. 

In past incidents, the White House has gotten around the current argument by 'waiving Executive Privilege', and it could do so again here, if it chose.

The White House course of action is not reasonable. It is destructive the the fabic of our Constitution. 

But, the more simple argument is ... what do they have to hide, that they haven't already lied about, and been caught?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Is there any sign that there has been any illeagle activity? Anything that would stand as reason to hold a civil trial? If not, then what kind of precedent is there for hitting someone with a subpoena and threaten them with jail time if they do not respond?
> 
> We do not know if you or I commited any crime as well. I for one would not want to be treated like this when no one can seem to find even the slightest hint that someone against the law was done. And prior to this, you seemed to think that even certain non obtrusive investigations should not be held unless there was a heck of a lot of evidence to justify it. Now it seems you have changed your outlook.


 
Yes ... there is such sign. 

It was stated before Congress that officials would not be removed for political reason. Facts have emerged that indicated officials were removed because they were not 'loyal Bushies'. 

It was stated before Congress that officials were removed for performance reasons. Facts have emerged that the removed officials had excellent performance reviews from their superiors. 

It was stated that officials were not following the Administrations priorities. Facts have been shown that what are now called priorities were never listed as priorities in the past. While this may not be any sort of violation, it is spin; which begs the question, why is spinning occurring? 



And, as you are accusing me of something specific, please tell me where and when I made such a claim as ... *I* _seemed to think that even certain non obtrusive investigations should not be held unless there was a heck of a lot of evidence to justify it._



And you keep conflating a subpoena with jail time. Why is that? A subpoena is not synomous with jail time. Only by disobeying the laws of the country is one subject to jail time.


----------



## crushing (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It takes but a moment to check the facts.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/03/13/DI2007031300985.html
> 
> Unprecedented?


 
Michael, Thanks for the lead.  I found that the difference was resignations versus firings.  The mass firings in 1993 were unprecedented.  If they won't resign like good little US Attorneys did for Reagan and GW Bush, then they must be fired.  The result was about the same though.

So now the 'typical' and 'not unusual' behavior has increased to three presidents.  Has anyone dug up any more about the history of these types of turnovers, whether they be resignations or firings?  It's very interesting.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

I haven't looked much farther, myself. The term of the United States Attorney is Four years. Often, a US Attorney will be invited to serve another four year term, if the appointing President is re-elected. 

As I understand it, as the appointing President's term winds to a close, US Attorneys will, at that closing period, begin to move from the Public office to private employment. So, there are often positions open when a new President takes office. Often, the resignations come in during the time between the election and the swearing in. So, I think we would find that the vast majority of US Attorneys take office very early in the term of a new President; and their terms expire very close to the end of the term of a President.

As all US Attorneys are appointed by the President, they are often political creatures; and by so saying, I do not mean to imply that they are not competent officers of the law. But, the positions are often filled by lawyers who were beneficial politically to the incoming President, and his party. 

But, once in office, they are expected to serve independently from the political bodies. The phrase I have heard much recently, is that they 'serve without fear or favor'. A good example of this can be witnessed in the behavior of Patrick Fitzgerald. He is a registred independent. But was appointed by President Bush. In his case against Mr. Libby, he prosecuted to the law. Where many 'loyal Bushies' end up arguing 'there is no underlying crime' - which is false. 

It would be easy for a political appointee to overlook Mr. Libby's obfuscation for political favor, don't you think? But, Mr. Fitzgerald prosecuted the crime, and provided excellent reasoning as to why the crime needed to be prosecuted. One can only hope the other US Attorneys are as dedicated to the principle of 'serving without fear or favor'.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Yes ... there is such sign.
> 
> It was stated before Congress that officials would not be removed for political reason.



That is hardly the type of thing that even raises an eyebrow on capital hill. If you want to say that there is somehow some obstruction of justice, then you will have to do better than the examples you have given. It is clear that is merely a fishing expedition by the rival party. The white house may have not done something for reasons we would want, but there is no indication that anything illeagle was done.




michaeledward said:


> And, as you are accusing me of something specific, please tell me where and when I made such a claim as ... *I* _seemed to think that even certain non obtrusive investigations should not be held unless there was a heck of a lot of evidence to justify it._



Oh, it is just your comments about the patriot act and such. You make so many posts about the intrusiveness of the government into our lives and the potential for abuse that it is strange to hear you argue that people should be dragged in front of national tv on the grounds that there have been accusations (politically motivated it seems) that there *might* have been some reasons for certain actions.




michaeledward said:


> And you keep conflating a subpoena with jail time. Why is that? A subpoena is not synomous with jail time. Only by disobeying the laws of the country is one subject to jail time.



No, if you refuse to testify after being served with one, you will be held in contempt by the court and held in jail until you do testify. That type of power IMO should only be used when a very high bar for reasonable cause has been raised. The idea that the current congress would use it for other causes should scare the hell out of us.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> That is hardly the type of thing that even raises an eyebrow on capital hill. If you want to say that there is somehow some obstruction of justice, then you will have to do better than the examples you have given. It is clear that is merely a fishing expedition by the rival party. The white house may have not done something for reasons we would want, but there is no indication that anything illeagle was done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
For some reason, I do not equate a person with a paid position inside the White House, and their official activities in that positioin, as quite the same thing as what Mr. Everett next door may do. 

Seems to me that Mr. Everett's personal life is entitled to some measure of protection and privacy - you know, the Fourth Amendment. 

Whereas, the official activities of people in government positions should have some measure of oversight ... on account they work for us. Unless, you are arguing we should abandon our Constitutional Republic in favor of a Dictatorship? 



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> No, if you refuse to testify after being served with one, you will be held in contempt by the court and held in jail until you do testify. That type of power IMO should only be used when a very high bar for reasonable cause has been raised. The idea that the current congress would use it for other causes should scare the hell out of us.


 
If the officials follow the laws of the land, there is no possibility of jail time just because a subpoena is issued. Only if they do not follow the law is there jeopardy. 

As for whether the bar in this case is high enough ... it seems that if a Jury of his peers convicted Representative Cunningham there is a pretty high bar invovled. US Attorney Lam was continuing her investigation into the bribery charges against Representative Cunningham when she was removed from office. There was a Mr. Wade involved. It is unclear where her continued investigation would lead.

The US Attorney for Guam was removed immediately after beginning and investigation into the activities of Mr. Abramoff. Who has since been convicted on a number of charges, and is currently serving time. 

There *are* legitimate questions to be asked about the removal of these US Attorneys. While Correlation does not equal Causation, it is appropriate to find out if there is a causation among these facts.


----------



## Ray (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Whereas, the official activities of people in government positions should have some measure of oversight ... on account they work for us. Unless, you are arguing we should abandon our Constitutional Republic in favor of a Dictatorship?


Absolutely correct, there should be some oversight.  By the way, the pres is the guy who oversees the hiring and firing of the US Attornies....he oversaw them.

Next election, you can excerise your oversight as a citizen and elected someone more to your liking to the white house.


michaeledward said:


> There *are* legitimate questions to be asked about the removal of these US Attorneys. While Correlation does not equal Causation, it is appropriate to find out if there is a causation among these facts.


Yes, there is a legitmate question...the question is: did the pres authorize it?  If he did then case closed.

And since he hasn't re-appointed them, then it looks like he approved. Ergo, case closed.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> Absolutely correct, there should be some oversight. By the way, the pres is the guy who oversees the hiring and firing of the US Attornies....he oversaw them.
> 
> Next election, you can excerise your oversight as a citizen and elected someone more to your liking to the white house.
> 
> ...


 

Ray, it is unclear that the President authorized the firing. From the communications, this looks like it all took place below the level of the President. 

But, even if the President did authorize the firing, that does not mean the case is closed. If the firings were done to hinder prosecution, that could be a crime.

The day after the US Attorney began an investigation into Jack Abramoff, he was demoted, and later removed.
A US Attorney notified the Justice Department she was about to issue warrants against Kyle Foggo. The next day the Attorney General wrote there was a 'real problem' with this US Attorney.
Others point to Richard Cheney's contract for $140,000.00 for office equipment, paid to Mitchell Wade, the contractor that bought 'The Duke-ster' yacht for Representative Cunningham. - Price of the yacht $140,000.00
Coincidences and more coincidences. Words President Bush might not want in the same sentence: Cheney, Cunningham, Yacht.
 
And to say that I can provide oversight by voting for someone else is a bit petulant, don't you think? Isn't Congress supposed to provide oversight in our Constitutional Republic? Aren't they my representatives in Washington? 

Are you going to tell me I am lecturing you again? 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Gee, Dad. Thanks, I'm glad we had this talk.


http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750271&postcount=544

I don't know why you are making this about me?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

Ray said:


> Yes, there is a legitmate question...the question is: did the pres authorize it? If he did then case closed.
> 
> And since he hasn't re-appointed them, then it looks like he approved. Ergo, case closed.


 
And, I just saw this in the Washington post ... 



> Asked yesterday about the nearly three-week gap in the e-mails and whether Bush had to sign off on the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "*The president has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.*"


 
Don't you suppose that if the President authorized the firing of 8 United States Attorneys, three months ago, he would have a recollection of it? 

I mean, this is not like asking about the whereabouts of a certain pilot some 30 years ago.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 22, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> For some reason, I do not equate a person with a paid position inside the White House, and their official activities in that positioin, as quite the same thing as what Mr. Everett next door may do.
> 
> Seems to me that Mr. Everett's personal life is entitled to some measure of protection and privacy - you know, the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> Whereas, the official activities of people in government positions should have some measure of oversight ... on account they work for us. Unless, you are arguing we should abandon our Constitutional Republic in favor of a Dictatorship?



Actually, I think equal treatment under the law is the key to avoiding a dictatorship. One of the biggest things that troubled me with the Monica thing was that Clinton lied under oath for which people have gone to jail for, and yet the general public seemed to think that it was not important enough to remove him from office over. If we treat one different from another, then we run some really big risks.

And of course, since the president and his delegated authorities have the right to fire these people at any time, there is no fire to all this smoke. There are some strange conspiracy theories going around, but they are just plain silly.

All the Dems seem to want is to get some folks in front of cameras and facing time in jail on contempt if they don't ask any question they want on thier little fishing expidition.

That type of power is not something I want anyone in government to have unless they can show damn good reason for it. Imagine if a private company were to face congress because the folks that give money to the party in power were backing a rival. Just being in front of the cameras like that could do damage. And it would be silly to think that it could not happen in America, no politician would do it or that no one in congress would abuse their position to benefit a contributor.

Of course, if you throw enough dirt, get enough camera time, then some of it will stick in the  minds of the voters next election. I predicted that all the democrats would do in office would be to try to get as much hint of scandel in front of the cameras. Even if nothing they accuse or hint at has any substance to it, just the images for the next year and a half will get them what they want.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 22, 2007)

As one Senior Democratic Senator said, (I'm paraphrasing), They have had the power of oversight for about six weeks, and every tree they barked up has had a cat up it. 



You say that if someone is going to testify, they should be able to show a damn good reason for it. 

You don't think that Criminal Justice in the United States qualifies? 

You claim it is all smoke ... 
are you acknowleging there seems to be some impropriety? 


Congressional Representative Duke Cunningham was convicted of recieving bribes from Mitchell Wade - one of which was a $140,000.00 boat. 
Mitchell Wade received a contract *two weeks earlier* to provide office equipment of the Vice President of the United States for exactly $140,000.00. The US Attorney that put Representative Cunningham in Jail was not through with her investigations and prosecutions. You don't think that Mr. Wade might have had to answer some uncomfortable questions, do you?

I agree ... that's some serious smoke. 

And the people who investigate smoke for criminal justice purposes in our society are the United States Attorneys. That US Attorney is the one who determines if the is any fire underneath that smoke. 

It is strangely convenient for the Vice President that Ms. Lam no longer has a job. - and a 'loyal Bushie' has been, or will be called upon, to fill that vacancy.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As one Senior Democratic Senator said, (I'm paraphrasing), They have had the power of oversight for about six weeks, and every tree they barked up has had a cat up it.



Lord forbid someone would admit that they were on a fishing expeidition by saying there were no cats.

That is one of the problems that the left faces over things like this. They have been screaming about scandels and secret take overs for so long that it is getting obvious that they are just crying wolf. The very thin reasoning for the moves now make good speculation, but lack realsubstance. They join the conspiracy theories that Bird flu  was a way to divert attention away from the war, that the elections were going to be stolen, etc.

I have always had problems with congress pulling some guys up in front of them to show the public that they were going after the big bad softwear makers or whoever was in the publics eye. For you or me, we would need to get a impartial judge to issue summons and such. If the  criteria we laid out was not enough for him, no one could be forced to testify. But there is no such oversite in this case. One political party is the ones seeking and serving as judge for issuing them. Once this blatently partisan plan goes through, they may keep using it against others.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Mar 23, 2007)

This should have been less of a deal than it is. "The AGs work at the pleasure of the President". They could have been fired for anything. The brain stems that run the white house should have come right out and said we fired'em cuz the president doesnt like them. Yes it would bring up the question of a biased enforcement of the law, but who actually believes anyone is really unbiased. Now they have been caught in a cover up. 

What was a another dumb Monicagate, now gets blown up because somebody lied to congress. If it gets tied back to President Brain Stem, we ahve another impeached prez
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... You know what that means... bad TV for another 6 months. :rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Lord forbid someone would admit that they were on a fishing expeidition by saying there were no cats.
> 
> That is one of the problems that the left faces over things like this. They have been screaming about scandels and secret take overs for so long that it is getting obvious that they are just crying wolf. The very thin reasoning for the moves now make good speculation, but lack realsubstance. They join the conspiracy theories that Bird flu was a way to divert attention away from the war, that the elections were going to be stolen, etc.
> 
> I have always had problems with congress pulling some guys up in front of them to show the public that they were going after the big bad softwear makers or whoever was in the publics eye. For you or me, we would need to get a impartial judge to issue summons and such. If the criteria we laid out was not enough for him, no one could be forced to testify. But there is no such oversite in this case. One political party is the ones seeking and serving as judge for issuing them. Once this blatently partisan plan goes through, they may keep using it against others.


 
To say there is no oversight within Congress demonstrates a lack of understanding of the structure of the Body. A place to start might be Article I Section 5.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It is strangely convenient for the Vice President that Ms. Lam no longer has a job. - and a 'loyal Bushie' has been, or will be called upon, to fill that vacancy.


 
Yes, it's convenient,.  But I also find it curious that Feinstein and Issa were both concerned about the job Lam was doing in regards to enforcing immigration laws according to the WP link I included earlier.  Maybe there really was a problem with her performance.  Maybe she neglected doing an important part of her job.  I truly don't know if that was the case but the fact that two Democrats had issues with her makes me hesitate in attributing this firing to nefariously motivated actions on the part of the administration.  There appears to be other viable explanations, at least in this case. 

Firing that prosecutor in New Mexico still seems suspicious to me.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Shuto,

Records are a available that show the fired US Attorneys were among the top performers. An article I saw yesterday, put 6 of the 8 fired United States Attorneys in the top third of that group as far as successful prosecutions and other internal standards. 

While the concerns of the State Senators do deserve a look or two, equally important is looking toward the documents provided by Kyle Sampson and the rest of the Department of Justice Staff - and the White House Staff. 

A couple of basic questions - Where are the communications between November 17 and December 4th? Why does Mr. Rove use a Republican National Committee email address? What other email addresses are being used for communication inside the White House and among White House Staff? 

Mike


----------



## Shuto (Mar 23, 2007)

link

Today's WP link talks about the replacement of the Little Rock Prosecutor.  

"This was a very loyal soldier to the Republicans and the Bush administration, and they wanted to reward him," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). "They had every right to do this, but it's the way they handled it, and the way they tried to cover their tracks and mislead Congress, that has turned this into a fiasco for them."

I find that an interesting quote.  I don't like this idea about misleading Congress.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Are you going to tell me I am lecturing you again?
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750271&postcount=544
> 
> I don't know why you are making this about me?



I thought I addressed that posting by apologizing in the "is anyone still a republican" thread from whence you linked:


			
				ray said:
			
		

> I hope you will forgive me for what you thought was a personal attack. I was just trying to make a funny. Please accept my apology.



To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists.  Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.

Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway.  It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.

If you feel hurt and my apology wasn't enough, maybe we can get congress to suboena me.


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists.  Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.
> 
> Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway.  It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.



Yes, so truely sad in so many ways. Those who try to put getting into power second to doing the best for America are left in the dust by those who work solely for the purpose of getting political power. Ever read _The Prince?_ But as we can all see, it is effective.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing things that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists.  Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.
> 
> Clearly partisan politics, designed to stir up the American voters to vote the Republicans out of the white house next election...however, I believe that American voters will vote a dem into the white house anyway.  It's how the pendulum swings, it's a pattern and it'll keep repeating.
> 
> If you feel hurt and my apology wasn't enough, maybe we can get congress to suboena me.



Love the subpoena comment! LOL

You are right though... its just politics and breaching of congressional powers. From my understanding, they have no oversight into these matters. Then again, since we have government that can mandate hiring practices and regulate firing (ie minority rights, gotta love those quotas!), I can see why they want their fingers into this mess.

This kind of crap is one reason I've been keeping out of the study, at least political discussions. There is never anything constructive discussed, just people whining on both sides. People never have a clear picture of the situation, because more often than not, we don't have all the details, just conjecture. But, for those desperate for another Watergate or those still upset over the Clinton impeachment, its all fun and exciting. The same people crying about the perjury crime by Clinton are the same ones screaming about possible contradictions in statements to congress. Apparently, the Democrats congress thinks its fine for Clinton to lie to the judicial branch, but you better not lie to congress! BTW, not that it matters to the left AT ALL, but were the supposed liars even under oath?

Legally speaking, what weight does a subpoena have? Are they forced to go? Consequences if they don't comply? I assume they can always plead the 5th, especially since congress has no jurisdiction in this situation. Since they have no jurisdiction in this case, this could make for an interesting legal battle in the courts.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 23, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Legally speaking, what weight does a subpoena have? Are they forced to go? Consequences if they don't comply? I assume they can always plead the 5th, especially since congress has no jurisdiction in this situation. Since they have no jurisdiction in this case, this could make for an interesting legal battle in the courts.


 
I believe that they are in contempt of Congress if they don't comply.  Who would enforce such a violation?  The Dept of Just?  Hmm...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> I thought I addressed that posting by apologizing in the "is anyone still a republican" thread from whence you linked:
> 
> 
> To me it is almost comical that congress keeps doing *things* that are outside of its scope and constitutional authority; while at the same time it does almost absolutely nothing in the area for which the body explicitly exists. Maybe they can draft some more non-binding resolutions.
> ...


 
When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible. 

The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> Yes, so truely sad in so many ways. Those who try to put getting into power second to doing the best for America are left in the dust by those who work solely for the purpose of getting political power. Ever read _The Prince?_ But as we can all see, it is effective.


 
I think your analysis is a bit wrong. 

Putting getting into power above all other considerations worked (for a while at least) for Mr. Rove and Mr. Delay. Delay & Co. named their fundraising arm "*Texans for a Permanent Republican Majority*", for pete's sake. 

Is there nothing nefarious the Political Right actually does, that they will not accuse the Political Left of doing?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Love the subpoena comment! LOL
> 
> You are right though... its just politics and breaching of congressional powers. From my understanding, they have no oversight into these matters. Then again, since we have government that can mandate hiring practices and regulate firing (ie minority rights, gotta love those quotas!), I can see why they want their fingers into this mess.
> 
> ...


 
I will take a moment to remind you that President Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives, tried before the Supreme Court of the United States, with a Jury of 100 United States Senators. 

The results of that trial are on the record. 

So, whether the people you describe scream about anything, it is almost irrelevant, as the process was followed with Clinton. And the argument here is to abort the process for Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers, and Mr. Bush.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible.


"...that congress keeps doing things that are outside its scope..."

"that congress keeps taking actions that are outside its scope"

"that congress keeps making fantasy issues out of actions under the legal and proper auspicous of other branches of the gov't"


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.


The amount of clarity can be due to different reasons.  

I think that you are honest and sincere in your beliefs.  I think that your political beliefs are as valid as mine or anyone elses.  I believe you have a right to have them and voice them.

I see the current democratic strategy to be a real world example of a lesson I teach some of my students:
  1) The answer is 1089.
  2) Pick any 3 different digits  (e.g 123)
  3) Reverse them (eg 321)
  4) Subtract the smaller from the lager: (eg 321-123 = 198)
  5) Reverse the answer (eg. 891)
  6) Add the two (eg. 198 + 891 = 1089).
The lesson:  I can ask carefully constructed questions (or give carefully constructed demonstrations) to make you arrive at the solution I desire.
The cure: Analyze the what and the why of the what we're doing in light of our goal.  Don't be afraid to get other opinions; create your own tests and examples.

How does this apply to what congress is doing?  Pretty soon every non-thinking American will believe that there is a crisis and that the White House needs to be quickly razed.  And many thinking Americans will be fooled, as well.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I will take a moment to remind you that President Clinton was indicted by the House of Representatives, tried before the Supreme Court of the United States, with a Jury of 100 United States Senators.
> 
> The results of that trial are on the record.
> 
> So, whether the people you describe scream about anything, it is almost irrelevant, as the process was followed with Clinton. And the argument here is to abort the process for Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Rove, Ms. Miers, and Mr. Bush.


Perjury is a crime. Firing these attorneys is not a crime. It is within his constitutional rights to do so, regardless if he did it himself or delegated power to do so. This is outside of the jurisdiction of congress to prosecute. Impeachment is within the jurisdiction of congress. Congress is just trying to grab power, and dreaming of concocting another Watergate type situation. Congress is full of Democrats that simply can't stand Bush and are trying to get out the proverbial microscope to analyze his every fart and stray hair. It's just silly... however, as stated earlier, at least they are not causing damage by actually writing laws  This is moderately entertaining and non-binding resolutions are just a fun way for congress to feel self-important and look like they are doing something... I doubt thats what their constituents voted for them to do.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> When pronouns like 'things' are used to substitute for actual thoughts, substantive discussion becomes difficult, if not impossible.
> 
> The adverb 'clearly' is often used when the subject being discussed is anything but clear. It is used to announce a bias when one has insubstantial or no evidence. Perhaps its closest synonym in discussions such as this in 'trust me'.


you are complaining about his choice of words? Give me a break! If you don't like what he is saying, address the substance, not his verbage. BTW, I'm sure you have never used subjective terms in your posts...



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Putting getting into power above all other considerations worked (for a while at least) for Mr. Rove and Mr. Delay. Delay & Co. named their fundraising arm "*Texans for a Permanent Republican Majority*", for pete's sake.


More worrying about choices of words  Would you prefer something like the Democrat leaning people tend to do? How about "Texans for a Better America", or perhaps "Texans for a Better Way". They would of course still believe this is produced by permanent Republican majorities. That way, we can hide our intentions behind judiciously worded organizations! Isn't that clever! *snorts* At least these guys are straight forward and don't hide behind the names of their organizations.


If they think something naughty was done, why don't they appoint an independent counsel? Why is congress wasting time dealing with this? Isn't their job to write laws? Isn't there a judicial branch to do this kind of stuff? Not every attorney/judge is a Bush lackey or appointed by this administration. Hiring an independant counsel is the logical next step. Perhaps the FBI? This was done in the firing of the travel office in the Clinton administration. However, I have a fairly good idea this too would be a waste of time, since no law was broken.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

mrhnau - just a couple of thoughts 

If the firing of the US Attorneys was done because too many Republican Operatives were being thrown into jail - after being convicted by a jury of their peers (see - Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, and others) - then these firings could very well be illegal. Without the facts, we don't know. Congress is trying to find the facts. The Department of Justice has offered statements that have been shown to be false and misleading. 

The point about the pronoun 'things', is that I am unable to determine the 'substance' of his argument. Use of a noun, rather than a pronoun would aid in the discussion ... because then we would all have an idea of what he was talking about. 

Maybe, like Presidential Spokesperson Tony Snow, you, and Ray believe that Congress has no oversight authority in regards to the White House. If that is the case, I refer you to the Constitution of our nation. 


Lastly, if someone is going to accuse the Democratic Party of Machiavellian behavior ... I refer them to the Bible; something about not talking about a speck in your neighbor's eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If the firing of the US Attorneys was done because too many Republican Operatives were being thrown into jail - after being convicted by a jury of their peers (see - Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, and others) - then these firings could very well be illegal. Without the facts, we don't know. Congress is trying to find the facts. The Department of Justice has offered statements that have been shown to be false and misleading.


Then, as I suggested, appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

You are correct though, we don't have enough facts, just conjecture. The news shows love that though, so they can speculate and try to make news rather than report news.


> Maybe, like Presidential Spokesperson Tony Snow, you, and Ray believe that Congress has no oversight authority in regards to the White House. If that is the case, I refer you to the Constitution of our nation.


Boy, that is just about as ambiguous as "things". From my understanding, the office of the president has the authority to fire these attorneys at will. Of course the Congress has some degree of oversight. The hiring and firing of attorneys, from my understanding, is not one aspect over which they have oversight. I guess there is precedent with Travelgate in Clinton's presidency, so I'm guessing there will be an analogous investigation.



> Lastly, if someone is going to accuse the Democratic Party of Machiavellian behavior ... I refer them to the Bible; something about not talking about a speck in your neighbor's eye whilst ignoring the plank in your own.


No offence, but your biblical references are not that meaningful here, considering your stated religious beliefs. As to the insinuation, both parties and their affiliates do it, but I find it odd that you criticize someone for being blunt in naming their organization. I MUCH prefer that to the ambiguous naming of parties and groups by BOTH parties. I find it dispicable by both sides. Name them honestly. That's all I'm saying. This groups placed their intentions in their name. If every organization was so honest and forthcoming!


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The point about the pronoun 'things', is that I am unable to determine the 'substance' of his argument. Use of a noun, rather than a pronoun would aid in the discussion ... because then we would all have an idea of what he was talking about.


Mr. Edward - 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=754656&postcount=54


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Then, as I suggested, appoint an independent counsel to investigate.
> 
> You are correct though, we don't have enough facts, just conjecture. The news shows love that though, so they can speculate and try to make news rather than report news.
> 
> ...


 

The independent council law has expired. No independent councils can be appointed as the law stands today.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The independent council law has expired. No independent councils can be appointed as the law stands today.


Are you serious? When did it expire? I had no idea it was a temporary fixture...


----------



## Shuto (Mar 23, 2007)

link

I knew it needed to be renewed periodically but I missed it expiring as well.  

The Independent Counsel law expired Wednesday, June 30, 1999. First passed in 1978, the act was designed to deal with the inherent conflict of interest that an attorney general has in investigating or 
prosecuting high-ranking government officials.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

Shuto said:


> link
> 
> I knew it needed to be renewed periodically but I missed it expiring as well.
> 
> ...


Thanks Shuto... also of note, the Wiki for Independant Counsel. Gosh, I like Wikipedia


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Are you serious? When did it expire? I had no idea it was a temporary fixture...


 
Yes, I am serious. It seems in the wake of the Whitewater Investment investigations, members of Congress felt they would be able to police their own. 

I have seen the Shuto's response and your own reply to him. 

This is an interesting example. The fact that the independent council law had expired is so well known to me, I often find it amazing that people are not aware of this fact. As Donald Rumsfeld might have said -- it is a known, known -- that this law was no longer in effect. And, under the Republican Congressional leadership, a deal was brokered to neuter the House Ethics Committee. For the last six years, there has been very little introspection among government. 

Even if the minority raised an issue, the majority could choose not to act on it; no hearings, no votes. And there was no place to file a complaint. 

The only place items of possible criminal behavior could be investigated was from the Justice Department - by the United States Attorneys. 

In the past six years, the US Attorney's - political appointees of George W. Bush - investigated Democratic party members seven times more frequently than they investigated Republican party members. This presents to possible scenarios:

A - Democratic Political operatives are seven times more corrupt than Republican.
B - Republican Appointees are seven times less likely to investigate their own party. 

If we look to the success of the Department of Justice, we find several high profile Republican Political Operatives have been convicted. From the numbers and investigations, we should expect to have 14 Democratic Congressmen convicted of criminal wrongdoing (measured as the two Republican Congressmen, Cunningham and Ney times the 7 times more frequent Democratic Investigations by the DoJ).  For some reason, that is not what we are seeing. 

And, what do we do if there is no Independent Council law? Answer - Congress should receive testimony. 

It is not a fishing expedition. It is not a Witch Hunt. It is Governing.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 23, 2007)

Well, lets start by reinstating that law! You can't have an honest investigation here, and if the house/senate/presidency are all controlled by one party, you are going to have issues, regardless if its the Dems or Reps. You need some kind of independant review that does not depend on everyone getting reelected in two years or at least relatively soon. I don't think these kind of things should be used to make political points, by either side. Instead of a House Ethics committee, how about an independant operating body whose entire purpose is to investigate and monitor ethics issue? The problem is, the creation of that body or the Independant Counsel law has to be done by the body that will be investigated... it sucks!


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> As all US Attorneys are appointed by the President, they are often political creatures; and by so saying, I do not mean to imply that they are not competent officers of the law. But, the positions are often filled by lawyers who were beneficial politically....


Since you conceed that the pres hires and fires them; and in other posts suggest that someone in the White House other than the pres acted without authority then we must conclude that (if some one in the White House acted w/o authority) the pres could reverse the decision and take appropriate measures against the underling.

So the US Attornies issue is still a non-issue since congress has no place in the internal goings-on at the White House and enforcment/oversight is within the hands of the pres.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> Since you conceed that the pres hires and fires them; and in other posts suggest that someone in the White House other than the pres acted without authority then we must conclude that (if some one in the White House acted w/o authority) the pres could reverse the decision and take appropriate measures against the underling.
> 
> So the US Attornies issue is still a non-issue since congress has no place in the internal goings-on at the White House and enforcment/oversight is within the hands of the pres.


 
The Law governing the United States Attorneys indicates the President shall appoint persons to these positions with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The Law also states the *PRESIDENT *can remove United States Attorneys. The Attorney General has the power and authority to hire and fire assistant United States attorneys. While I am not a lawyer, it would appear to me that powers given to the President and not given to the Attorney General indicate that the President has the power, and the Attorney General does not. 

Yes, if an underling took an action to which he or she was not legally entitled to, the President *could* reverse the decision. It does not follow that the President *must* reverse the decision. Who benefits from these Attorneys going away, regardless of the process of them going away? 

If you are arguing that Congress has no oversight of the White House, I would point out that the United States Attorneys are not members of the White House. They are members of the Department of Justice. 

I would further disagree with the unspoken premise that Congress lacks oversight in the activities of the White House. Congress has the authority to impeach the President. It seems that oversight is implicit in the impeachment process. How could Congress file articles of impeachment if they could never review the activities of the White House. (This is the exact argument put forth by Tony Snow in the lead up to the Clinton Impeachment).


----------



## exile (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> Since you conceed that the pres hires and fires them; and in other posts suggest that someone in the White House other than the pres acted without authority then we must conclude that (if some one in the White House acted w/o authority) the pres could reverse the decision and take appropriate measures against the underling.
> 
> So the US Attornies issue is still a non-issue since congress has no place in the internal goings-on at the White House and enforcment/oversight is within the hands of the pres.



Ray, wait a second... think about what logically follows from your comment. If it turns out that there was a partisan agenda implemented by said underling, and the President had the option to reverse the decision, _and didn't do so_, then doesn't that mean that the underling's decision (and the other stuff that goes with it, the false statements to Congress, etc.) pass up to the President and become, in effect, _his_ actions? Because, by not reversing them, he thereby endorsed them (since the power to change them was his)? What you're saying would then get the White House _more_ deeply implicated, not less.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If you are arguing that Congress has no oversight of the White House, I would point out that the United States Attorneys are not members of the White House. They are members of the Department of Justice.
> 
> I would further disagree with the unspoken premise that Congress lacks oversight in the activities of the White House. Congress has the authority to impeach the President. It seems that oversight is implicit in the impeachment process. How could Congress file articles of impeachment if they could never review the activities of the White House. (This is the exact argument put forth by Tony Snow in the lead up to the Clinton Impeachment).


That is an excellant post with which I only have slight disagreement.

The Congress has no oversight over the white house as in it "is superior" to the White House.  The 3 branches are equal.  Congress can impeach the pres for treason, bribery, high crimes and other misdemeanors.  Courts can try the pres or congressmen (oops, congress-people).

It's the jockeying and fighting between the branches that keeps us all safe.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

exile said:


> If it turns out that there was a partisan agenda implemented by said underling, and the President had the option to reverse the decision, _and didn't do so_, then doesn't that mean that the underling's decision (and the other stuff that goes with it, the false statements to Congress, etc.) pass up to the President and become, in effect, _his_ actions? Because, by not reversing them, he thereby endorsed them (since the power to change them was his)? What you're saying would then get the White House _more_ deeply implicated, not less.


Unfortunately, all of us humans have our agendas and they are (hopefully) based on well-thought out beliefs.  And since the people we form political parties (and garage bands) with hold the same same views then all of our agendas are partisan.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> That is an excellant post with which I only have slight disagreement.
> 
> The Congress has no oversight over the white house as in it "is superior" to the White House. The 3 branches are equal. Congress can impeach the pres for treason, bribery, high crimes and other misdemeanors. Courts can try the pres or congressmen (oops, congress-people).
> 
> It's the jockeying and fighting between the branches that keeps us all safe.


 
I make no assertion that Congress is superior to the White House. 

The President, in comparison, has oversight of the Congressional activities (e.g. legislation) through the Veto. 

According to the Constitution, Congress sets up and polices itself (Article I Section 5). 

The Courts come into play when there is a dispute between Executive and Legislative.


----------



## Ray (Mar 23, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I make no assertion that Congress is superior to the White House.
> 
> The President, in comparison, has oversight of the Congressional activities (e.g. legislation) through the Veto.
> 
> ...


Art  I, section 3 is interesting:He [the pres] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper...

He advises them and oversees them in disputes between both houses.

Article I says the Pres replaces Representatives if a vacancy ocurrs. 

Also the Chief Justice shall preside in any trial of the pres.

The pres has more power over congress than has been necessary to use, thank goodness.  And whatever the extent of power the congress has over the executive branch, or judiciary, the congress should use it more wisely than it crowing about now.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

Ray said:


> Art I, section 3 is interesting:He [the pres] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper...
> 
> He advises them and oversees them in disputes between both houses.
> 
> ...


 
I think you are mis-reading Article II Section 3. 

The clause you are speak of relates only to the convening and adjourning Congress. It does not reference any other disputes between the House of Representatives and Senate, except those of calling to session and closing session of the bodies. 
*he may*, on extraordinary Occasions, *convene both Houses*, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, *he may adjourn them* to such Time as he shall think proper​In Article I Section 2 of the Constitution, there is a reference to House Vacancies. However, the Constitution does not say that the President names the person to fill the vacancy, but rather that the Executive Authority of the State from which the vacancy occurs fills the vacancy. That is a reference to the State Governor. The word 'thereof' indicates the 'Executive Authority' from 'any State' shall have this authority.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from *any State*, the *Executive Authority thereof* shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.​


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 23, 2007)

On March 13 of this year, Attorney General Gonzales says that he was not involved in the firing of the 8 US Attorneys.



			
				United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said:
			
		

> I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers _ where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.


 
On March 22 of this year, the Attorney General's former Chief of Staff committed to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in open session, under oath. Senatory Cornyn (R-TX) asks the White House to release any relevant information, so that the Judiciary Committee is not struck with any surprises.

A typical White House Friday Night Document Dump occurred this evening. In which, we learn the Attorney General was exaggerating his lack of involvement a bit. It appears he left out a meeting with five top Justice Department officials in his own conference room to review a five point plan on the firings.



			
				Gonzales said:
			
		

> But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, *was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.*


 
Oops!


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 24, 2007)

We can now stop listening to the ridiculous accusation that the US Attorney's were insufficiently prosecuting illegal immigrants as a justification for the dismissal. 

While we have had substantial evidence before now, in last evenings 'Standard Operating Procedure Document Dump' we find not just the smoking gun on this issue, but the bullet embedded into the wall behind the victim. 

On November 17, 2006 - three weeks before the firing, on Tasia Scolinos received an email asking if she was 'looped in' on the plan to dismiss the US Attorneys. 

Her first email response : No, the Department of Public Affairs for the Department of Justice was not aware that six - "only six" of the US Attorneys were going to be fired. 

Her second email response : 



> "The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts,"


 
So, the "unhappy with immigration" excuse surfaced months after the plan to fire was initiated. The excuse comes from the Department of Public Affairs, and not from, let's say, Human Resources or the Attorney General, himself.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2007)

I am a big fan of the Constitution of the United States. I have argued many times in this location about the importance of the Bill of Rights. 

Although it is often difficult in public opinion polls, I try to remember, every time I am exposed to it, that a witness in a legal proceeding has the right to not answer questions that may (or may not) be self-incriminating. This right was enshrined for us in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. 

An employee of the Department of Justice - Ms. Monica Goodling - has invoked the Fifth Amendment in regards to appearing before Congress in the U.S. Attorney firing concern. Ms. Goodling's title is 'Senior Council', from which I am assuming she is a lawyer. 

Ms. Goodling's lawyer wrote a letter to Judiciary Chair, Senator Leahy and said this:


> The public record is clear that certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have already reached conclusions about the matter under investigation and the veracity of the testimony provided by the Justice Department to date,"


 
It would be interesting to have a clearer understanding of whom Mr. Dowd is speaking. 

White House spokesperson, Dana Perino said, in part, earlier today:



> "The attorney general, with the president's support, has urged members of the Justice Department to cooperate with Congress' request for testimony,"


 
I will not infer guilt on Ms. Goodling for exercising rights given to us all. But, this does not bode well for Attorney General Gonzales, or President Bush.

(Ms. Goodling is the one in the middle)


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I am a big fan of the Constitution of the United States. I have argued many times in this location about the importance of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Although it is often difficult in public opinion polls, I try to remember, every time I am exposed to it, that a witness in a legal proceeding has the right to not answer questions that may (or may not) be self-incriminating. This right was enshrined for us in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> I will not infer guilt on Ms. Goodling for exercising rights given to us all. But, this does not bode well for Attorney General Gonzales, or President Bush.



I'm not a huge fan of public servants doing this type of thing. While I think ideally it leaves guilt/innocence ambiguous, it does seem to imply some degree of guilt, whether intended or not. Congress is going to hate this... Going to make getting to the truth rather difficult. Still, I'll respect her right to use the 5th on this...

On another note, I'm debating writing my congress members about the Independant Council law...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 27, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Congress is going to hate this... Going to make getting to the truth rather difficult. Still, I'll respect her right to use the 5th on this...
> ...


 
I don't know about Congress hating it. I think Senator Leahy appreciates the protections afforded under the Constitution. And I doubt that Ms. Goodling's testimony is the only piece of evidence that will prove or disprove innocence or guilt.

Ms. Goodling took a leave of absence from her position in the Department of Justice - I have seen no indication as to why. This is an interesting outstanding question.

But, the Attorney General, her boss, has publicly called for cooperation with the Senate. And she is defying him? Oh, yeah, and the Attorney General's boss, The President of the United States has backed up the Attorney General's request.

It is interesting that in defense of her choice to abstain from questions under the Fifth Amendment, her attorney's invoke Mr. Libby's recent criminal case.



> Her attorney, John Dowd, said the Senate inquiry amounts to a perjury trap for his client. "One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said.


 
If one is truthful under oath, perjury is the result of the witness's own choices. Mr. Libby was convicted because he lied and he obstructed justice. 

I just don't think that is a parallel I would want my lawyer making in my defense.


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If one is truthful under oath, perjury is the result of the witness's own choices. Mr. Libby was convicted because he lied and he obstructed justice.
> 
> I just don't think that is a parallel I would want my lawyer making in my defense.



Thats an interesting point... would I want to sit under bright lights for hours, being interrogated about something I might not be 100% clear about? With the threat of prison/reprimend if I misspeak? Would I want the media attention and everything? heck, I have a hard enough time recalling what I had for lunch the other day... Granted, these things are a bit more important, so you would hope they would recall...

unless I'm being charged with something, I have no risk in pleading the 5th. If I misspeak, or indeed have done something negligent/criminal, then I do run the risk of going to jail. The easy option, guilty or not, would be to take the 5th. Perhaps that has something to do w/ your leave of abscence? disagreeance w/ the administration over this? I honestly don't know...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 27, 2007)

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not provide an exception from testifying because doing so might put you before media attention. Nor does it provide an exception because you may not desire to testify. 

It protects a witness from incriminating themselves. 

The Fifth Amendment can not be used to excuse oneself from testifying because one does not feel like testifying. If that were the case, quite possibly no one would ever testify. Our justice system would collapse in the vacuum.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 27, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not provide an exception from testifying because doing so might put you before media attention. Nor does it provide an exception because you may not desire to testify.
> 
> It protects a witness from incriminating themselves.
> 
> The Fifth Amendment can not be used to excuse oneself from testifying because one does not feel like testifying. If that were the case, quite possibly no one would ever testify. Our justice system would collapse in the vacuum.


It leaves you wondering why someone from the ***JUSTICE*** department would need to plead the fifth.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 28, 2007)

Yesterday, the Attorney General contradicted himself, several times, during an interview with ABC (an interview in which Pete Williams allowed Mr. Gonzalez to ramble on, without asking a challenging question or a follow up question by the way - it was like a wet kiss).

The recently retired Attorney General's chief of staff is going to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow. His prepared remarks have been leaked. 

Now, in these prepared remarks are more damning to the Department of Justice. Mr. Sampson is telling us the United States Attorneys are tools of the Executive Branch of government; to be used to forward political agendas. 



> "The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective  is unsuccessful.


 
I must imagine that career civil servants within the Department of Justice will be none-to-pleased with this view of their service.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 28, 2007)

Id say "charge me" or "fire me", screw being put on show for political gain.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 29, 2007)

I am in the middle of a training class today, so I can be sitting in front of CSPAN. 

I just read the notes from FireDogLake concerning Senator Feinstein's questioning of Mr. Sampson - former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. 

Mr. Sampson's leaked statements and some of the notes I have seen during lunch break indicate his belief that everything about the dismissal of the United States Attorneys has been above board. Comments by others in the Department of Justice indicate that Mr. Sampson was the lead actor in deciding which Attorneys were going to be asked to resign (to be fired). 

Senator Feinsteins questions, and Mr. Sampsons answers look interesting.



> Were you aware that Cummins was investigating Missouri GOP governor Blunt?  Sampson "doesn't recall being aware of that."
> Were you aware that NV USA Bogden opened an investigation of GOP governor of NV?  Sampson says he does not recall being aware of that.
> Were you aware that McKay declined to prosecute a case in Seattle?  Sampson doesn't recall being aware of that.
> Were you aware of a case being opened against Renzi?  Aware through news accounta that there was some preliminary investigation.
> Were you aware that Iglesias declined to prosecute case/investigation of state Democrats?  Sampson not aware that calls had been made to him, and not aware of particular concerns.


 
Mr. Sampson claims to be ignorant of the activities within the individual offices of the fired United States Attorneys - as they relate to the Republican Party. 

This begs the question, if he is so ignorant of what is happening in the offices, how could he possibly come to a reasoned decision to ask for the dismissal of the United States Attorneys?


----------



## mrhnau (Mar 29, 2007)

*warning!* Parody following!

Michael, that reminds me of one of my favorite Rush paradoies... I must admit, it sounds better on the radio  Seems many people have memory problems... 


> QUESTIONER:
> Uh, welcome to the Grand Jury, Mrs. Clinton. How are you?
> MRS. CLINTON:
> I'm sorry. I don't recall.
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2007)

In a seemingly unrelated case ... some interesting occurances are taking place in the Minnesota US Attorney's office. 

A US Attorney's office has several dozen 'assistant US Attorneys' investigating and prosecuting cases for the office. In March 2006, a new US Attorney was appointed to the Minnesota office. 

Recently, several senior Assistant US Attorney's tendered their resignations from this office. The Department of Justice has petitioned these Assistant US Attorney's and convinced them to remain on staff with the office, by accepting positions as prosecutors, rather than managers. The resignations were offered, apparently, in protest over the U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose's management of the office. 

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1104033.html

Deputy Assistant Attorney General McNulty has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the eight U.S. Attorneys were asked to resign over 'performance issues'. One must wonder how having three senior managers of an office resign impacts 'performance evaluations' of the United States Attorney.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2007)

Monica Goodling, the liason between the Department of Justice and White House has tendered her resignation from the Department of Justice.

Ms. Goodling (Photo included above), has been on leave from the DoJ for some time now. There has been some comment that she had incompletely advised Assistant Attorney General McNulty for his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That committee has requested that Ms. Goodling appear for testimony related to the firing of the eight United States Attorneys. Ms. Goodling has indicated that she will not submit to the request of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. Through her lawyers, she has informed the committee that she will invoke her 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

The Judiciary Committee has said that Ms. Goodling needs to appear before the committee, and if she chooses to exercise her 5th Amendment rights, she needs to do so on a question by question basis. 

Meanwhile, the Attorney General of the United States is holding extensive, private practice sessions for his appearance before the Judiciary Committee on the 17th. 

Further, the Attorney General met before the Senate Committee in January of this year. From that session, a series of follow up questions and documentation was requested of the AG, and Department of Justice. AG Gonzales has indicated that he would respond in an 'ongoing basis' to those requests. Chairman Leahy has indicated that there has been no response on those follow ups. 

The Department of Justice has enshrined itself in a bubble, and is acting with 'Bunker Mentality'. Very little good can come from this.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 8, 2007)

In these last two posts, I commented that they are "seemingly" unrelated .... well, as time passes, and more light shines, the relatedness is becoming more apparent. 

U.S Attorney Paulose of Minnesota, has been reported to be - "best buds" - with Council to the Attorney General, Monica Goodling. 

What good is being the Attorney Generals attorney, if you can't get your friends a job for which they are unqualified. 

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S39867.shtml?cat=1?cat=1&v=1 - I imagine the bandwidth hit this video is going to get will shortly get the video pulled. 

And, some might think that Ms. Paulose received a full endorsement of the Senate under the 'Advice and Consent' clause. Well, not exactly. The Judiciary Committee did not review Ms. Paulose' nomination. The Judiciary Committee did not foward their review on to the full Senate. Instead, on the last day of the 109th Congress, Senator Bill Frist, submitted a discharge resolution for "unanimous consent" that included Ms. Paulose' nomination, along with more than 100 other nominations.


P.S. - Did I mention that Ms. Goodling abruptly resigned earlier this week?


----------



## jazkiljok (Apr 8, 2007)

Et tu, Newte?


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-08-gingrich-gonzales_N.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 8, 2007)

For the truly curious .... who is Monica Goodling.

[yt]9MzQyUEqRHU[/yt]


----------



## Shuto (Apr 9, 2007)

jazkiljok said:


> Et tu, Newte?


 
That's funny.  :asian:

edit

I come to bury Gonzales, not to praise him.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2007)

Oops ... The Dog ate the Administrations Homework ... 



It appears that as many as 20 White House officials were using Republican National Committee Supplied email addresses and equipment to conduct official White House Business (Like discussing firing United States Attorneys). 

This violates the law in several ways. 

All communication within the White House must be maintained, and eventually released publicly; Presidential Records Act or Hatch Act. 

What Security Protocols are in place on RNC email servers? 

Users who deleted emails from their inbox, were also deleting the messages from the Servers, erasing all copies. In fact, the servers, at one point, had a 30 day auto delete. 

Wonderful.

And now, they can not comply with Congressional oversight requests.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

This from the Washington Post article



> One White House lawyer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the ground rules of the briefing, said staffers are now being advised that if they have any questions about whether an e-mail is political or official, they should use their private accounts but preserve a copy for review by White House lawyers to see whether it needs to be saved under the Presidential Records Act.


 
It seems to me, this is exactly backwards. These persons work in the White House, shouldn't the default position be, use the White House provided accounts?

We assume the White House email system hass White House level security against ciber-crime/hackers as well as appropriate retention properties and rules.

At this point, and with the demonstrated track record, I would prefer to have White House officials unknowingly violate the rule that prevents 'political activity' on 'official government systems', than to unknowingly violate the rule that preserves the history of decision making in the White House, don't ya think? Especially since we know they do political activity on the official government systems already.


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It seems to me, this is exactly backwards. These persons work in the White House, shouldn't the default position be, use the White House provided accounts?


In the private sector email and other tools that are owned by and provided for the benefit of the business entity are for business purposes.  Any personal email, etc becomes the property of the business and in some cases, using business provided tools for personal business, can be cause for termination.


michaeledward said:


> We assume the White House email system hass White House level security against ciber-crime/hackers as well as appropriate retention properties and rules.


And the appropriate retention times and rules for email are?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> In the private sector email and other tools that are owned by and provided for the benefit of the business entity are for business purposes. Any personal email, etc becomes the property of the business and in some cases, using business provided tools for personal business, can be cause for termination.
> And the appropriate retention times and rules for email are?



They must be retained forever.

http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html

This link connects to one of the laws governing retention of White House emails. And this following quote comes from one of the links off of the page above. 



> In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which changed the legal status of Presidential and Vice Presidential materials. Under the PRA, the official records of the President and his staff are owned by the United States, not by the President.
> 
> The Archivist is required to take custody of these records when the President leaves office, and to maintain them in a Federal depository.
> These records are eligible for access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) five years after the President leaves office.
> ...


So, White House emails are *our* property, not the property of the senders. They must be maintained and preserved for posterity's sake. To delete them is illegal. They must be retained forever. 

One of the first actions by President George W. Bush was to sign an executive order extending the period of time Presidential records may be kept restricted from the public. The suspicious among us believe this action was done to keep the secrets of George H.W. Bush's involvement in Iran Contra hidden from public view. 


* * * * * 

On a seperate note, and related legal point, the Hatch Act of 1939, mandates that government officials not participate in 'Political' activity while performing official duties. This was done to prevent the 'Office' from engaging in partisan politics. 

It is a delicate balance. 

You can't use the 'Office Computer' to send an email asking for donations to the Political Party. This is why the RNC gave White House officials computers, cell phones and blackberries.

If you watched the "West Wing", you would occassionally see Josh make leave the White House, and go to the park across the street to make a phone call .... because the phone call was 'political' in nature, not 'official'.


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> [/list]So, White House emails are *our* property, not the property of the senders. They must be maintained and preserved for posterity's sake. To delete them is illegal. They must be retained forever.
> 
> One of the first actions by President George W. Bush was to sign an executive order extending the period of time Presidential records may be kept restricted from the public. The suspicious among us believe this action was done to keep the secrets of George H.W. Bush's involvement in Iran Contra hidden from public view.
> 
> ...


All the more reason a person in the employement of another whether it be the gov't, a privately held firm, or a publicly held firm, make sure that they use their own means for communicating non-work related stuff.

But I don't see what "west wing" has to do with anything...it's fiction.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray said:
			
		

> All the more reason a person in the employement of another whether it be the gov't, a privately held firm, or a publicly held firm, make sure that they use their own means for communicating non-work related stuff.


While your statement about personal use of company owned equipment is correct ... the corollary is also true ... According to the PRA, they can not use personal accounts to conduct business work. 


Ray said:


> But I don't see what "west wing" has to do with anything...it's fiction.


 
The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law. 

In the story, it was a telephone call political in nature. According to the Hatch Act of 1939, those calls can not be made from government property or on government telephones. 

Complying with the Hatch Act of 1939 is often difficult for members of the White House. For instance ... as the President was campaigning for Republicans prior to the 2006 elections, he would often make 'official' comments as he travelled. Using Air Force One to travel to Arizona for a McCain campaign event requires the President to reimburse the country for political use of Air Force One. By rolling in an official policy event to his Arizona trip, he did not need to have his campaing or McCain's campaign, or the RNC to pay for Air Force One's travel.


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law.


Still it is not a good thing to use as an example.  I can likewise point to Little Red Ridinghood and feed my grandmother to the wolves.



michaeledward said:


> For instance ... as the President was campaigning for Republicans prior to the 2006 elections, he would often make 'official' comments as he travelled. Using Air Force One to travel to Arizona for a McCain campaign event requires the President to reimburse the country for political use of Air Force One. By rolling in an official policy event to his Arizona trip, he did not need to have his campaing or McCain's campaign, or the RNC to pay for Air Force One's travel.


Assuming that the pres was guilty of travelling for the purpose of campainging (instead of travelling for work with visits while he happened to be in the area), I cannot recall any pres NOT doing the same---dem or gop.  It probably just sounds like you don't like republicans.


----------



## crushing (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> While your statement about personal use of company owned equipment is correct ... the corollary is also true ... According to the PRA, they can not use personal accounts to conduct business work.
> 
> 
> The actions of characters moving off of official government property in order to make a phone call to a voter in New Hampshire is based on a real law.
> ...


 
Is there a 'controlling legal authority' nowadays for this type of thing?

"If there had been a shred of doubt in my mind that anything I did was a violation of law, I assure you I would not have done that. And my counsel advises me, let me repeat, that there is no controlling legal authority that says that any of these activities violated any law."  -A Convenient Untruth

Hold their feet to the fire Michael, don't let these guys off as easily as the previous ones did!


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

crushing said:


> Is there a 'controlling legal authority' nowadays for this type of thing?
> 
> Hold their feet to the fire Michael, don't let these guys off as easily as the previous ones did!


 
Yes, there is a controlling legal authority. 

The Presidential Records Act. It is not new.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> Still it is not a good thing to use as an example. I can likewise point to Little Red Ridinghood and feed my grandmother to the wolves.
> 
> Assuming that the pres was guilty of travelling for the purpose of campainging (instead of travelling for work with visits while he happened to be in the area), I cannot recall any pres NOT doing the same---dem or gop. It probably just sounds like you don't like republicans.


 
It is a perfectly good example .... It demonstrates how an employee within the White House can stay within the law. 

And, yes, all Presidents have behaved in the same way with Air Force One. I choose the 2006 election because it is the most recent, and quite probably most easily in someone's mind. 

As for whether I like Republicans or not, it is irrelevant to the behavior within the law, or not within the law.


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It is a perfectly good example .... It demonstrates how an employee within the White House can stay within the law.
> 
> And, yes, all Presidents have behaved in the same way with Air Force One. I choose the 2006 election because it is the most recent, and quite probably most easily in someone's mind.
> 
> As for whether I like Republicans or not, it is irrelevant to the behavior within the law, or not within the law.


I think repeated characterization of behavior that both major american parties participate in as republican behavior is relevant.  It goes to bias counselor.

I don't think a piece of fiction is necessarily a good example of how things can be accomplished in real life.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> I think repeated characterization of behavior that both major american parties participate in as republican behavior is relevant. It goes to bias counselor.
> 
> I don't think a piece of fiction is necessarily a good example of how things can be accomplished in real life.


 
Ray, please don't refer to me as 'couselor'. It seems condescending. You may address me as 'michaeledward' - my MT username, or Mike, or, if you prefer, Mr. Atkinson will be fine as well. 


I will ask you then, to please tell us, how "in real life", operatives can comply with the Presidential Records Act; which mandates that all communications dealing with Presidential policy will be maintained. 

Please tell us how "in real life", how operatives within the White House can comply with the Hatch Act of 1939. 

Karl Rove, and others, were using computers and equipment provided by the Republican National Committee, and emails from the same organization to discuss policy matters; such as firing United States Attorneys.

In 'Real Life', we are subject to obeying the laws of the country. 

Please ...explain to me why these employees are exempt from the laws of the country, "in real life".


P.S. 'In Real Life', we are hear that more than *Five Million Emails* have gone missing from the White House.


----------



## Ray (Apr 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Please ...explain to me why these employees are exempt from the laws of the country, "in real life".


I do not say that anyone is exempt from following the laws of the country. 

I do say that using a contrived piece of fiction may be a bad example of how someone who is a real person might arrange their activities.  Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2007)

Ray said:


> I do not say that anyone is exempt from following the laws of the country.
> 
> I do say that using a contrived piece of fiction may be a bad example of how someone who is a real person might arrange their activities. Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.


 

Which assertion of mine do you believe to be unfactual? 

I will be glad to provide appropriate documentation and corroboration. 

It appears you are calling me a liar. I would relish the opportunity to set the record straight, if that is indeed what you are doing.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It appears you are calling me a liar. I would relish the opportunity to set the record straight, if that is indeed what you are doing.


When I say "fiction" I mean your interjection of a television show into the conversation.  I apologize for not explicitly saying that I was referring to the TV show that you were talking about -- I assumed that since it was referenced in around 5 postings and it was referred to as "fiction" in one or two, that you would connect "fiction" as in "West Wing." 

Further, I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I was asking you to leave "fiction" ("West Wing" and the like) out of your argument since it is fiction and aking you to concentrate on "fact" or "non-fiction" or the facts of the subject.

If you still believe that I called you a liar, please feel free to "set the record straight."  Who am I to try and change your mind anyway.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2007)

Ray said:


> When I say "fiction" I mean your interjection of a television show into the conversation. I apologize for not explicitly saying that I was referring to the TV show that you were talking about -- I assumed that since it was referenced in around 5 postings and it was referred to as "fiction" in one or two, that you would connect "fiction" as in "West Wing."
> 
> Further, I wrongly assumed that you would understand that I was asking you to leave "fiction" ("West Wing" and the like) out of your argument since it is fiction and aking you to concentrate on "fact" or "non-fiction" or the facts of the subject.
> 
> If you still believe that I called you a liar, please feel free to "set the record straight." Who am I to try and change your mind anyway.


 
So, you don't like that I use an example from a fiction television show to demonstrate a point. 

I pointed to the fact ... here:



> You can't use the 'Office Computer' to send an email asking for donations to the Political Party. This is why the RNC gave White House officials computers, cell phones and blackberries.


 
I then used an analogy to further my point .. 



			
				ANALOGY said:
			
		

> a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based.


 
You are choosing not to discuss the point of issue, that White House officials are required to maintain all communications. You instead seem to be hung up on the use of an analogy. 

But, you then go furhter. You go on to accuse me of 'besmirchment' - Defined as 



> *be·smirch*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am pointing out facts and law. If the actions of the White House, and the employees therein, stain, sully, or make dirty the Administration, please recognize that those actions are performed by those people. 

It seems incongruous that in my shining a light on those actions, that I am at fault for their behaviors.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> So, you don't like that I use an example from a fiction television show to demonstrate a point.


Correct.  I do not like the analogy of a fictional television show as an example of how to do something.  Many times, fictionalized accounts aren't really good examples of how things work.  I might tell you a fictionalized account of how a shipping employee where I work might step outside the building through the side door to use his cell phone and then step back inside after the call, but  it wouldn't really reflect how such a thing could be done...First there is an auto alarm attached to that door, secondly it locks when he steps out, third there is a camera on that door which is monitored. 

So, I don't know all the details of the white house and whether it is logistically possible for a worker there to get up, walk out, go to a park across the street, make a cell phone call and return.  I don't know how suspious that would look and I don't even know if there is a park across the street.  

But I do agree that the law should be followed.


michaeledward said:


> It seems incongruous that in my shining a light on those actions, that I am at fault for their behaviors.


I don't know if you are "shining a light" or not.  

You are not responsible for anyone's actions but your own.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2007)

Ray said:


> You are not responsible for anyone's actions but your own.


 
Hmm, that didn't appear to be what you said here:



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Further, I would go so far as to say that you should stick to fact in the beshirchment of the present administration.


----------



## Ray (Apr 13, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Hmm, that didn't appear to be what you said here:


Appearances can be deceiving.  Henceforth, I'm confining myself to reading the MA sections, that's why I came here anyway.

I'll keep checking the newspapers to see if GWB ends up in the brig for the US Attorney firings.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2007)

Appearances can be deceiving. I don't think that was the case here. 



Moving on ... 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=768578



> According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser *Karl Rove*. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of.


 
The appearance that everything Mr. Rove touches is ******** may be deceiving, too.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 30, 2007)

From Murray Waas, we learn that United States Attorneys *serve at the pleasure of Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.*

Yep, In March 2006, the Attorney General of the United States attempted to pass the buck (all hiring and firing of non-civil-service Justice Department employees) to his two deputies. Apparently the original order did not even require advising the Attorney General of the decision. When the specter of unconstitutionality was raised, the order was modified to inform the Attorney General, and issue the orders in his name. 

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070430nj1.htm



> A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.


 
As Richard Belzar said the other night on Maher's program, they put party before country ... or at least party before justice.


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2007)

Monica Goodling .... 

doesn't know anything about anything.

Imagine that.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 11, 2007)

Three Cheers for Sara Taylor. 

A Republican Aide to Karl Rove is currently appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is unclear what she will be allowed to say, but it appears that she would like to testify before the committee.

The White House would like for her not to testify, and has exerted Executive Privilege over her testimony. She shows a great deal of bravery by appearing against the wishes of the White House.

Now, we will see if she can serve country more than a man.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 11, 2007)

Ms. Taylor is not exceptionally brave. 

She is exceedingly naive and disrespectful of the members of the Senate.

At least a half a dozen times in the last half hour, she interrupted Senators before they asked the question. I can't believe that Mr. Rove or Mr. Bush would tolerate interruptions like she is demonstrating before the Judiciary Committee today. 

The White House is going to be FUMING at her appearance.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 12, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Now, we will see if she can serve country more than a man.


 
It appears that this sentence was more prescient than I could have imagined. 

At one point in the testimony yesterday, Ms. Taylor stated



			
				Sara Taylor said:
			
		

> "I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously"


 
Senator Leahy is forced to bring the committee meeting down to the level of a fundamental civics class. Mr. Leahy schools Ms. Taylor appropriately.

I think the attitude of Ms. Taylor is pernicious in the White House. I think it fundamentally underlies the testimony we have heard from Ms. Goodling, and Mr. Samson. It represents a cult of personality, and a lack of understanding of our government.

The exchange is worth the investment of two minutes of your time.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003656.php


----------

