|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
Just a quick paranoid question.... ummmmm who would prosecute the officials in charge, if Bush decides to call Martial law and dismiss Congress or not have the '08 vote?
If you had federal prosecuters that were honest, they may actually find ways to enforce and prosecute the laws.
Plus, who's going to prosecute say Halliburton for war profiteering? Just one example.
Things like this are very scary and the sad thing of it is, people still support this man. What does he have to do, to get even his staunchest supporters to say enough? Or are they so wrapped up in the BS and trying to save face they can't admit anything wrong because it will tear down their house of cards and lies?
|
pan, I'm asking myself the same question....I don't like the tone of any of this. They keep pushing to see how far from the constitutional checks and balances they can position their regime. At every turn, with the exception of the 2005 mid-term election results, there has been no "push back" against their actions, secrecy and arrogance. The following is in chronological order. When you read Novak's latest, at the bottom of this post, after skimming through the rest, tell me if you don't agree that Gonzales should be impeached immediately, just to warm up the process before holding hearings on impeachment of Bush and Cheney.....
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301349_pf.html
U.S. Attorney Firings Set Stage for Congressional Battle
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 4, 2007; A07
.....But there is also evidence that broader political forces are at work. One administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in discussing personnel issues, said the spate of firings was the result of "pressure from people who make personnel decisions outside of Justice who wanted to make some things happen in these places."......
|
The reporter in the above article, wrote that paragraph before he teamed up with John Solomon to write the "white house mouthpiece" followup, included in my last post.....
Quote:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimon...16&wit_id=2742
Testimony
of
Paul J. McNulty
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
“Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?”
February 6, 2007
Chairman Leahy, Senator Specter, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss the importance of the Justice Department’s United States Attorneys. As a former United States Attorney, I particularly appreciate this opportunity to address the critical role U.S. Attorneys play in enforcing our Nation’s laws and carrying out the priorities of the Department of Justice.....
....As you know, before last year’s amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 546, the Attorney General could appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the first 120 days after a vacancy arose; thereafter, the district court was authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney. In cases where a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney could not be appointed within 120 days, the limitation on the Attorney General’s appointment authority resulted in recurring problems. Some district courts recognized the conflicts inherent in the appointment of an interim U.S. Attorney who would then have matters before the court—not to mention the oddity of one branch of government appointing officers of another—and simply refused to exercise the appointment authority. In those cases, the Attorney General was consequently required to make multiple successive 120-day interim appointments. Other district courts ignored the inherent conflicts and sought to appoint as interim U.S. Attorneys wholly unacceptable candidates who lacked the required clearances or appropriate qualifications.
In most cases, of course, the district court simply appointed the Attorney General’s choice as interim U.S. Attorney, revealing the fact that most judges recognized the importance of appointing an interim U.S. Attorney who enjoys the confidence of the Attorney General. In other words, the most important factor in the selection of past court-appointed interim U.S. Attorneys was the Attorney General’s recommendation. By foreclosing the possibility of judicial appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys unacceptable to the Administration, last year’s amendment to Section 546 appropriately eliminated a procedure that created unnecessary problems without any apparent benefit.
S. 214 would not merely reverse the 2006 amendment; it would exacerbate the problems experienced under the prior version of the statute by making judicial appointment the only means of temporarily filling a vacancy—a step inconsistent with sound separation-of-powers principles. We are aware of no other agency where federal judges—members of a separate branch of government—appoint the interim staff of an agency. Such a judicial appointee would have authority for litigating the entire federal criminal and civil docket before the very district court to whom he or she was beholden for the appointment. This arrangement, at a minimum, gives rise to an appearance of potential conflict that undermines the performance or perceived performance of both the Executive and Judicial Branches. A judge may be inclined to select a U.S. Attorney who shares the judge’s ideological or prosecutorial philosophy. Or a judge may select a prosecutor apt to settle cases and enter plea bargains, so as to preserve judicial resources. See Wiener, Inter-Branch Appointments After the Independent Counsel: Court Appointment of United States Attorneys, 86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001) (concluding that court appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys is unconstitutional)......
|
Quote:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_s...23&wit_id=2629
Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
On S. 214, Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007
February 8, 2007
We have learned over the last few months of an apparent abuse of power by this Administration that threatens to undermine the effectiveness and professionalism of U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. I support Senator Feinstein’s efforts to combat these abuses. I thank Senator Schumer for chairing our hearing into this matter this week, and Senator Specter for his active involvement. I urge the Committee to approve the Specter, Feinstein, Leahy substitute to S. 214, the “Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007,” which would roll back changes to the law that invited the abuses.
During the Patriot Act Reauthorization last year, curbs on the authority of the Attorney General to appoint interim United States Attorneys to fill a vacancy temporarily were removed. The change to the law removed the 120-day limit for such appointments and removed the district court’s role in making any subsequent interim appoints. This change in law, accomplished over my objection, allowed the Attorney General for the first time to make so-called interim appointments that could last indefinitely.
Regrettably, we do not have to imagine the effects of this unfettered authority. We learned recently that the Department of Justice has asked several outstanding U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions. Some are engaged in difficult and complex public corruption cases. We also understand the Attorney General has or is planning to appoint interim replacements, raising a potential of avoiding the Senate confirmation process altogether. This is a clear end-run around our system of checks and balances.
Many Senators have raised concern about this practice and several have asked the Attorney General about the reasons for the interim appointments. The situation in Arkansas highlights the troubling nature of this new authority and its abuse. The Attorney General removed respected U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins and replaced him with the interim appointment of Tim Griffin, a former political operative for Karl Rove. This appointment was not made pursuant to an agreement with the two home state Senators.
In our hearing this week, Paul McNulty, the second in command at the Department of Justice, testified that Mr. Cummins’ dismissal was not related to how well he did his job. In fact, Mr. McNulty said he had no “performance problems,” but was removed merely to give an opportunity to Mr. Griffin, a person whom he admitted was not the “best person possible” for the job and who is reported to have been involved in an effort during the 2004 election to challenge voting by primarily African-American voters serving in the Armed Forces overseas. This was not a vacancy created by necessity or emergency. This was a vacancy created by choice to advance a political crony.
Since this Administration has been creating these vacancies by removing U.S. Attorneys as it chooses for whatever reason – or no good reason – on a timeline it dictates, how can it now claim not to have had time to fill spots with Senate confirmed nominees? Why were agreed upon replacements not lined up before creating these vacancies? Why were home state Senators not consulted in advance? I would note that every one of the U.S. Attorneys who was asked to resign was someone chosen by this Administration, while the Attorney General served as White House Counsel, nominated by this President, approved by the home state Senators and confirmed by the Senate. This is a problem of the Administration’s imagination and choosing, like so many others.
With respect to the law that has governed for the last decades, the authority given to the Attorney General to make a time-limited interim appointment has not proven to be a problem. For example, last Congress, the time from nomination to confirmation of U.S. Attorney nominations took an average of 71 days, with only three taking longer than 120 days and two of those only a few days longer.
The Department opposes the district court’s role in the law that existed prior to the changes enacted in a Patriot Act Reauthorization conference. This was a conference in which Democratic members were excluded. The Department claims the District Court’s role in filling vacancies beyond 120 days to be inconsistent with sound separation of powers principles. That is contrary to the Constitution, our history and our practices. In fact, the practice of judicial officers appointing officers of the court is well established in our history and from the earliest days. Morrison v. Olson should have laid to rest the so-called separation of powers concern now being trumpeted to justify these political maneuvers within the Justice Department. It is not just a red hearing but a bright red herring. Certainly no Republicans now defending this Administration voiced concern when a panel of judges appointed Ken Starr to spend millions in taxpayer dollars on going after President Clinton as a court-appointed prosecutor.
I have heard not a word from the apologists who seek to use the Constitution as a shield for these activities about what the Constitution says. The Constitution provides congressional power to direct the appointment power. In Article II, the part of the Constitution that this Administration reads as if it says that all power resides with the President, the President’s appointment power is limited by the power of Congress. Indeed, between its provisions calling for appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate and for the President’s limited power to make recess appointments, the Constitution provides: “But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the Heads of Departments.” Thus, the Constitution contemplates exactly what our statutes and practices have always provided. Congress is well within its authority when it vests in the courts a share of the appointment power for those who appear before them.....
......Before 1986, 28 U.S.C. 546, the law governing the appointment of United States Attorneys, authorized the district court where a vacancy exists to appoint a person to serve until the President appointed a person to fill that vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate. When Congress changed the law in 1986 to allow the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney, it carefully circumscribed that authority by limiting it to 120 days, after which the district court would make any further interim appointment needed. The substitute to S. 214 that we consider today would reinstate these vital limits on the Attorney General’s authority and bring back incentives for the Administration to fill vacancies with Senate-confirmable nominees.
United States Attorneys around the country are the chief federal law enforcement officers in their states, and they have an enormous responsibility for implementing anti-terrorism efforts, bringing important and often difficult cases, and taking the lead to fight public corruption. It is vital that those holding these critical positions be free from any inappropriate influence and subject to the check and balance of the confirmation process. I support Senator Feinstein’s effort to restore that process. I join with her and Senator Specter in their substitute amendment.
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/wa...erland&emc=rss
Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: February 25, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — Internal Justice Department performance reports for six of the eight United States attorneys who have been dismissed in recent months rated them “well regarded,” “capable” or “very competent,” a review of the evaluations shows.
The performance reviews, known as Evaluations and Review Staff Reports, show that the ousted prosecutors were routinely praised for playing a leadership role with other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions.
The reviews, each of them 6 to 12 pages long, were carried out by Justice Department officials from 2003 to 2006. Each report was based on extensive interviews, conducted over several days with judges, other federal law enforcement agencies and staff members in each office.
It had been known that the reports were mostly favorable, but the reports themselves had not been made public.
Over all, the evaluations, which were obtained from officials authorized to have them, appear to raise new questions about the rationale for the dismissals provided by senior Justice Department officials. The officials have repeatedly cited poor job performance to explain their decisions to oust the eight prosecutors, all of them Republicans appointed by President Bush in his first term.
On Saturday, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who has led a Congressional investigation into the dismissals and has been briefed on the evaluations, said the reports showed that new legislation was needed to keep the Justice Department from politically motivated firings.
“As we feared, the comprehensive evaluations show these U.S. attorneys did not deserve to be fired,” Mr. Schumer said. “To the contrary, they reveal they were effective, respected and set appropriate priorities.”
In response, a senior Justice Department official said the reviews, which focused on management practices within each United States attorney’s office, did not provide a broad or complete picture of the prosecutors’ performance.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of personnel information, said, “The reviews don’t take into account whether the U.S. attorneys carried out departmental priorities.”
Referring to the 94 United States attorney’s districts, the official said, “You can’t have 94 different sets of priorities,” suggesting that the dismissed prosecutors had failed to follow priorities set by the Justice Department in Washington.
However, each case report included a statement that each of the ousted prosecutors had established strategic goals set by the Justice Department in high priority areas like counterterrorism, narcotics and gun violence.
Of the dismissed prosecutors who have spoken publicly, all have said they were given no reason for their dismissal. At first, most appeared willing to leave quietly with the understanding that they were presidential appointees who could be replaced at any time.
But their willingness to step down without complaint changed abruptly when Paul J. McNulty, the deputy attorney general, said at a Senate hearing earlier this month that most of the dismissals were carried out to correct performance problems, according to associates of several prosecutors.
In recent days, several of the prosecutors have described conflicts with the Justice Department over death penalty cases and pending political corruption investigations as a possible factor in their firings. Justice Department officials have denied such issues were a factor.
One of the most glowing evaluations was given to H. E. Cummins III of Arkansas, who was asked to leave last summer. Mr. Cummins was replaced temporarily by J. Timothy Griffin, a military and civilian prosecutor who also had close ties to Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser. Mr. Griffin has since withdrawn his name from consideration as Mr. Cummins’s permanent successor.
A report dated Jan. 23-27, 2006, said, “United States Attorney Cummins was very competent and highly regarded by the federal, judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies.” It said Mr. Cummins’s office had a “well-managed” antiterrorism program and “very successful” counternarcotics efforts.
Another report, dated Feb. 7-11, 2005 evaluating the performance of Carol C. Lam, who was dismissed as the United States attorney in San Diego, concluded that she was “an effective manager and respected leader in the district.”
|
Quote:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16813951.htm
Posted on Thu, Mar. 01, 2007
Sources: GOP lawmakers tried to influence federal investigation
By Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Newspapers
..... The alleged involvement of the two Republican lawmakers raises questions about possible violations of House of Representatives and Senate ethics rules and could taint the criminal investigation into the award of an $82 million courthouse contract.
<b>The two people with knowledge of the incident said Domenici and Wilson intervened in mid-October, when Wilson was in a competitive re-election campaign that she won by 875 votes out of nearly 211,000 cast.</b>
David Iglesias, who stepped down as U.S. attorney in New Mexico on Wednesday, told McClatchy Newspapers that he believed the Bush administration fired him Dec. 7 because he resisted the pressure to rush an indictment.
According to the two individuals, Domenici and Wilson called to press Iglesias for details of the case.
Wilson was curt after Iglesias was "non-responsive" to her questions about whether an indictment would be unsealed, said the two individuals, who asked not to be identified because they feared possible political repercussions. Rumors had spread throughout the New Mexico legal community that an indictment of at least one Democrat was sealed.
Domenici, who wasn't up for re-election, called about a week and a half later and was more persistent than Wilson, the people said. When Iglesias said an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, the line went dead.
So far no one has been charged.
Press aides for Domenici and Wilson wouldn't comment. Justice Department officials have denied hearing of any such interference and said they didn't fire Iglesias over it.
Iglesias said in an earlier interview that he regretted not reporting the contact to his superiors, and he said he didn't have evidence that it led to his firing.....
..... The allegations have fueled a weeks-long controversy over whether the Bush administration forced out eight Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys because of partisan politics.
Justice Department officials have said that most of the firings were for "performance-related" issues and denied partisan political motives.
On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., issued subpoenas to require Iglesias and three other ousted U.S. attorneys to testify before Congress.
The judiciary subcommittee on administrative law authorized the subpoenas by a 7-0 vote. The five Republican members of the subcommittee didn't show up for the vote.
The subpoenas require Iglesias, and former U.S. attorneys Carol Lam of San Diego, H.E. "Bud" Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., and John McKay of Seattle to appear before the subcommittee next week.
"The former U.S. attorneys are alleging very serious charges against the administration and we need to hear from them," Conyers said.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is sending letters to the same four asking them to testify voluntarily on Tuesday.
In the last several weeks, other U.S. attorneys have spoken out against the administration to dispute that they were fired because of how they handled their jobs.
The administration has said that politics played a part only in the firing of Cummins. Officials said he was removed to make way for Tim Griffin, a former aide to White House political operative Karl Rove......
|
Quote:
http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...6-1d5189c56100
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
Saturday, Mar. 3, 2007
.....PROBING GONZALES
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has indicated he is too busy to answer letters from Democratic congressional leaders about his firing seven U.S. attorneys involved in probes of public corruption, though a lower-level Justice Department official rejected their proposals.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, had written Gonzales two letters suggesting that he name Carol Lam, fired as U.S. attorney in San Diego, as an outside counsel to continue her pursuit of the Duke Cunningham case. Asked by Melissa Charbonneau of the Christian Broadcasting Network about this column’s report that Gonzales did not respond, Gonzales said: “I think that the American people lose if I spend all my time worrying about congressional requests for information, if I spend all my time responding to subpoenas.”
Richard A. Hertling, the acting Justice Department lobbyist, responded Wednesday, 22 days after Emanuel’s letter. He contended “the Justice Department would not ever seek the resignation of a U.S. attorney if doing so would jeopardize a public corruption case” and rejected naming Lam as a special prosecutor. .....
|
|