Neoteric wrote:

By Alberto R. Gonzales
Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page B07

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

Watch for the hot legislative testimony Tuesday on C-SPAN. (Check local listings) This Attorney General Gonzales's opinion piece from the washington post.

--timball

I haven't been following this very closely, but I do have a question I haven't really heard answered: How is this different than Clinton cleaning house with 90+ attorneys when he was running things? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know the difference, not that I have a political axe to grind (before anyone pulls out flamethrowers!)

Hijexx wrote:

Neoteric wrote:

By Alberto R. Gonzales
Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page B07

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

Watch for the hot legislative testimony Tuesday on C-SPAN. (Check local listings) This Attorney General Gonzales's opinion piece from the washington post.

--timball

I haven't been following this very closely, but I do have a question I haven't really heard answered: How is this different than Clinton cleaning house with 90+ attorneys when he was running things? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know the difference, not that I have a political axe to grind (before anyone pulls out flamethrowers!)

These are apples and oranges. The reappointment of basically all 93 US Attorneys at the start of a new administration is standard going back to at least Carter. Bush did it in 2001, Clinton in '93, Bush in '89 (a somewhat lesser purge since he and Reagan did agree on a couple things) Reagan in '81. It is standard practice for all 93 to be reset at the start of a new administration.

That the republicans are pushing the Clinton change as though it were anything like what we see here is pure political hackery.

What was seen here was unprecedented. These are W's appointments, fired for what look to be purely political reasons. To find something comparable, check the histories of Tammany Hall, or maybe Boston or Chicago in the bad old days. The only other similar modern circumstance that comes to mind is Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

And keep in mind, this isn't the end of this. There is still the case of US Attorney Black from Guam who was fired by Bush and replaced by a crony of the Governor-General Black was investigating. And the rise of Pat Robertson Law, and then there's the e-mails that have all vanished, and...

Mike the Usurper wrote:

What was seen here was unprecedented. These are W's appointments, fired for what look to be purely political reasons. To find something comparable, check the histories of Tammany Hall, or maybe Boston or Chicago in the bad old days. The only other similar modern circumstance that comes to mind is Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

(Again, still with no political axe to grind, I want to see Gonzales out as well...)

So it raises no eyebrows if an incoming President clears house, but it's cause for concern if they change up the mix during their term? It can be argued that the traditional reset is done for political purposes. I'm failing to see wrongdoing in this particular instance.

If it's the general practice of a President being able to hire and fire attorneys "at his pleasure" that we want to change, we should change it. If we want "a government of laws not of men" (paraphrasing Cox) why do we allow one individual so much reign over attorney selection?

This problem goes back decades. See Truman's firing of US attorney Maurice Milligan US AG Francis Biddle. I think it's safe to say that was for purely political reasons. Any reasonable person would have to say that was an abuse of power. Not to say that's an excuse for today's conduct, but to illustrate that there is precedent in a bi-partisan manner of this abuse.

If there is a law that prohibits this conduct though, I'm in error about my judgement and this is another nail in the coffin, I'm just unaware of such law.

Hijexx wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

What was seen here was unprecedented. These are W's appointments, fired for what look to be purely political reasons. To find something comparable, check the histories of Tammany Hall, or maybe Boston or Chicago in the bad old days. The only other similar modern circumstance that comes to mind is Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre.

(Again, still with no political axe to grind, I want to see Gonzales out as well...)

So it raises no eyebrows if an incoming President clears house, but it's cause for concern if they change up the mix during their term? It can be argued that the traditional reset is done for political purposes. I'm failing to see wrongdoing in this particular instance.

If it's the general practice of a President being able to hire and fire attorneys "at his pleasure" that we want to change, we should change it. If we want "a government of laws not of men" (paraphrasing Cox) why do we allow one individual so much reign over attorney selection?

This problem goes back decades. See Truman's firing of US attorney Maurice Milligan US AG Francis Biddle. I think it's safe to say that was for purely political reasons. Any reasonable person would have to say that was an abuse of power. Not to say that's an excuse for today's conduct, but to illustrate that there is precedent in a bi-partisan manner of this abuse.

If there is a law that prohibits this conduct though, I'm in error about my judgement and this is another nail in the coffin, I'm just unaware of such law.

There are actually multiple issues involved in this one, so some background is important. When the attorneys were removed in December it was said to be as part of a change in direction. That wouldn't be much of a big deal (unprecedented, but something understandable), except they then sent out letter to the fired attorneys basically saying, "if you say anything, it won't go well for you." Bud Cummins, USAttorney in Arkansas took offense at that, and sent an email out to all the other USAttorneys, removed and active, telling them, watch it, these guys are trying to pull some crap. At this point, the fired attorneys have now been fired for "performance issues" which is exactly what Cummins had been threatened with.

So we start cutting ahead in this, the attorneys have absolutely no performance issues noted in their records. For example, the reason cited for firing Carol Lam of Southern California was a lack of immigration cases. Her immigration record was marked as examplary just a few months earlier, but at the time, she was busy sending US Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham to jail for taking bribes, had a second congressman in her sights, had lined up the #3 guy at CIA for some target practice, all for taking bribes, when she was fired. That's one example.

Iglesias, over in New Mexico, was being... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]