United States Attorney's

[Shuto]

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]

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.

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

 

[michaeledward]

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 As Donald Rumsfeld might have said -- it is a known, known -- that this law was no longer in effect.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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