|
Thank You Jesus
|
Sure Will here ya go,
Quote:
http://www.progressivehistorians.com...o?diaryId=1265 CANDIDATE JIMMY CARTER made a promise that no Presidential candidate will say in 2008, no matter what. And a promise that no candidate had made before. But strange as it was, it seemed to make sense in the wake of Watergate and the Nixon resignation. "If I ever tell a lie," Carter said. "If I ever mislead you, if I ever betray a trust or a confidence, I want you to come and take me out of the White House."
The obvious problem with such a neat promise, as Carter would find out is that its too hard for a Modern President to live up to. But this was 1976.
my history can beat up your politics :: Presidents Firing Prosecutors
Nixon had abused Presidential Power and snubbed both the judicial branch and the congress when he refused a request from Archibald Cox, the special prosector investigating Watergate, for the tapes Nixon had made of white house proceedings. It was not only a snub to the prosecutor but to the Congress, as the Congress had been promised that there would be a through investigation by an impartial investigator and the investigation would cover all evidence.
Nixon though he was in no position to do so, refused Cox's request and offered a compromise: a respected U.S. Senator John Stennis would review the evidence and summarize for the prosecutor. Cox understandably refused to compromise with the subect of an investigation and declined the offer. On Friday 19, 1973 he left his office and assumed that since most government offices were closed, there would be no resolution until the following Monday.
He was wrong. On Saturday October 20th, 1973, Nixon telephoned Attorney General Elliot Richardson and instructed him to fire Cox. As a special prosecutor, Cox worked for the justice department, and so technically Richardson was his boss. Richardson refused and his boss, President Nixon, fired him. Nixon then contacted Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, informed him he was now Acting Attorney General and asked him to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had made committments to congress not to interfere with the investigation. Nixon then contacted the next highest ranking official in the Justice department Solicitor General Robert Bork. Bork, later a Supreme Court candidate, had made no such promise to Congress and promptly fired Cox.
While Saturday news items normally don't get as much press in this case the very fact that it had occured on teh weekend reeked of a cover-up. It was dubbed the "Saturday Night Massacre." Far from relieving Nixon of Watergate, it destroyed Nixon's public standing. Soon after Nixon would have his 'I am not a crook' press conference. A new special prosecutor was appointed and the investigation continued. The Supreme Court would eventually argue that Nixon needed to hand over the tapes. It could be said that his firing of Cox and the two highest ranking officials of the Justice Department -- even more than the break in -- was the event that made Watergate an unbeatable scandal.
And so the new candidate that would take the country by storm and the Democratic Party by surprise in 1976 wanted to establish himself as the ultimate anti-Nixon, an up-front President not capable of a Saturday Night Massacre. He told the party's convention in 1976" The Democratic Party must commit itself to steps to prevent many of the abuses of recent years. All federal judges and prosecutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit, without any consideration of political aspects or influence. But Jimmy Carter's Presidency would hit one of many snags when he, through his Attorney General, fired a U.S. Prosecutor prior to his term being completed. It was 1978, and U.S. Attorney David Marston, a Republican, had been investigating corruption in the Philadelphia area, which involved some Democratic politicians.
Carter recieved a phone call from Joshua Eilberg, a Philadelphia area congressman who was one of Marston's targets. Eilberg was accused of raking in a half million in legal fees in compensation for obtaining federal financing for a development project. Two days after the phone call with the congressman, Carter called his attorney General Griffin Bell and asked him to 'hurry up' with his replacement of Marston, which Bell did.
As US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and Marston was a previous President's appointment that was about to expire, there appeared nothing wrong. Except that when asked about it in an televsion press confrence, Carter was less than truthful. In reply to the first question on thesubject, he said that replacing Marston was Bell's concern, "and I've not interfered in it at all." Later he said. "I've not discussed the case with the Attorney General." After that Carter acknowledged that, yes, Congressman Eilberg had been in touch with him, but only after the President had jogged Bell into action on Marston-but wait a second, THAT contradicted Carter's claims that he had not interfered at all or talked with Bell. Carter would go on to say that he had heard of the Eilberg inquiry "a few minutes before the press conference" from his congressional liaison which was not credible as it had been in newspapers 2 days before the conference.
As TIME Magazine pointed out, the candidate who had promised never to lie had lied about four times about this matter.. Republicans had a field day, Carter had a rough summer and his one prized political possession, his credibility, was eroded. But that was all there was too it. To the extent people were outraged about the Marston firing, the outrage was more about Carter's mistruths s than about the practice.
It was, and is, fairly accepted that a New President could put in new Attorney Generals. Of the first 65 U.S. Attorneys named by the new Administration, 64 were Democrats.
As then Speaker Tip O'Neill put it, "That's the way the System works." O'Neill fumed that Marston was "a Republican political animal" who took office "with viciousness in his heart and for only one reason-to get Democrats." That may not have been fair as Marston pursed the former Republican chairman of Chester County as well as Democratic Representatives Eilberg and Daniel Flood and two powerful Democratic legislators. But the firing didn't work out too bad for him. He became a kind of martyr, and in the end Marston's investigation continued without him and Eilberg was prosecuted and forced to resign. Marston would later run unssucessful for mayor of Philadelphia as a Republican.
To this day the Marston firing is being compared to the actions of Attorney General Gonzales in firing eight US Attorneys for what appear to be political reasons. Some consdervative outlets such as Human Events and Rush Limbaugh are using the Marston case as an example that Democrats do this too.
David Marston, for his part, thinks it was far worse, saying in a recent interview that there is nothing in the Gonzales story like the call from EiIberg to Carter. That may or may not be true. The event itself was bad, and Carter paid for it, but the Carter Admin seems to have been void of systemic malice. It is true that Carter fired a U.S. Attorney for political reasons. And it is true that there is little justification for Carter's actions other than a blatant attempt to help a political ally who would then presumbably be around to vote for Carter's programs. but its hard to find a lot of other such activities in Carter's Presidency. The Boss Carter rap isn't going to fly.
Truman Fires Milligan
Before we get into the Gonzales matter, let's look at one more case: The firing of Maurice Milligan, US Attorney for Missouri, in 1945, a few days after Truman became President. This is another case being pointed especially by conservatives but also a lot of run of the mill reporters as an example of a Democrat firing a Republican US Attorney for political reasons. Maurice Milligan prosecuted Tom Pendergast, the boss who was responsible for Truman having a U.S. Senate Seat and in 1939 Pendergast was convicted for tax evasion by Milligan. Two years before, Senator Truman had filibustered Milligan's appointment unsuccessfully. Truman became Vice President, and President. Sure enough, as soon as Harry Truman became President Truman, he had Milligan fired.
It seems, at first, a cut and dry case of our beloved President Truman engaging in politics in the Judiciary. Getting rid of the guy who prosecuted his political boss. And indeed that is how it is now being presented on many websites. And to a certain extent it was. But maybe not the kind of politics folks are thinking. There is another aspect to this story. Jack Milligan, brother of Maurice, had been Truman's opponent in the 1934 Senate Race. And in 1940, Maurice Milligan would run and narrowly lose to Truman. In fact had it not been that the anti-Truman vote split, Truman never would have had a chance to get to the Vice Presidency or the Presidency. The Milligans were not only prosecutors but political opponents of Truman. And the firing occured nearly six years after Truman's boss Pendergast was convicted. In fact, at the time of the firing, Pendergast was dead. So it certianly wasn't "orders from the boss" that pressured Truman to fire Milligan. The relationship between Pendergast and Truman was complicated anyway, while Truman helped Pendergast with patronage matters, on issues Truman decided on his own. Firing Milligan could not have been to avoid an investigation as the investigation already happened. It may have been a long-harbored revenge for what Milligan did to Pendergast. But it seems far more likely that Truman was besting his own political opponents than avenging his old boss. While that wouldn't seem a proper use of Presidential power, it seems more explainable than using such power to block an investigation. Do we think that had a person run against George W. Bush in Texas they would be permitted to hold a U.S. Attorney's job?
As Carter's AG, Griffin Bell said, the posts were long considered patronage plums. "In the old days, when you changed political parties ...everyone in the U.S. attorney's office immediately resigned. Bell reflected that when President Harry S. Truman left office and Eisenhower was to take over, he remembered going to the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta and everyone had cleared out. " It was dark," Bell said. " Every light was out. No one was there. ... That's just the way it was."
Even the man Bell fired on Carter's order, David Marston said he agreed with Law Professor John Yoo. agreed with an article by law professor John Yoo in the Wall Street Journal that said "Presidents need to have their own people in place in order to promote a consistent national agenda" and that U.S. Attorneys should serve at the pleasure of the President. However, Marston said he held Carter to a hire standard than other Presidents because he had made a promise to be fair about the judiciary.
Gonzales
So given this little history, let's look at the current scandal.
On December 7 2006, eight United States Attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the Bush administration made the determination to seek their resignations. Critics claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party.
Performance was cited as the reason for the firing, which raised suspicion because six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records. In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions. The release of emails by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, showed that a number of statements from the Dept of Justice, including statements made by Gonzales himself, were inaccurate. Now even Newt Gingrich says Gonzales should resign.
If you've lost New, you've lost Republican America, it would seem.
American government is designed to be a day to day conflict of interest as the Founding Fathers felt that would best preserve the government. The President is the enforcer of the laws he makes, and thus the Judicary Act of 1789 gives the President a fairly free hand in appointing the Attorney General and appoint his people to the US Attorney's jobs, which throughout history have indeed been the key patronage office for supporters of the President with legal experience, requiring only consent of the Senate which is normally granted. Indeed, the history of Attorney Generals finds that many are supporters of the President, many are friends of the President, and of course JFK appointed his own brother. For the most part the American people seem to accept that a President appoints his own people to these type of jobs, and thus when Clinton took office, the firings of all 93 US attorneys caused outrage only among partisan Republicans, and only seems to resonate now with the most partisan of Republicans as a historical comparison to today's events.
But the Constituion also provides an independent judiciary, and It does seem to be another matter if one picks out justices after the've seen them at work and makes a call to remove them. That seems to go from the Executive hiring power to the interfering with those people once hired. Nixon didn't take that bruising well, we could also say that Franklin Roosevelt's one great misstep is when he tried to bully the Supreme Court. Appoint them, sayeth the popular consensus, but once working, don't interfere.
But most important of all, don't cover it up. It seems pretty clear that in firing David Marston, Carter may have done well to explain the firing the way Tip O' Neil did, that it was the American system at work. A Demcoratic President was putting in a Democratic U.S. attorney. But It was Carters untruthfulness in seeking to avoid the question that made it a scandal. The examples of Marston and Milligan are somewhat instructive in at least that political firings have happened in the past. But they don't account for the systematic plan to fire of this amount of attorneys at one time. And they certianly don't excuse misleading statements made to the Congress. Because Bush has shown a don't admit defeat philosphy' with Rumsfeld the only exception so far, the normal Washington story of resignation may or may not happen here (though Newt is a pretty heavy loss for Gonzales), but either way the scandal will do much to damage his Presidency.
But it won't truly be for the firing that Carter and Truman and of course Nixon shared in doing to varying extents, but for the attempt to cover it up.
|
Quote:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...703220312/1008 The Detroit News
Departing U.S. attorneys
U.S. attorneys who left office between 1981 and 2006, excluding those removed because of a change in presidential administration:
Total leaving prior to the expiration of their four-year term: 54
Appointed to U.S. judgeships: 18
Appointed to other federal jobs: 6
Ran for office: 4
Accepted state appointments: 2
Left for private practice: 15
Death: 1
Other: 8
Source: Congressional Research Service
The flap about the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys is overblown. Subpoenas issued by the injudicious House Judiciary Committee for administration figures are an abuse of congressional authority. U.S. attorneys are executive branch appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president.
They are not federal judges and do not have lifetime tenure. It appears that most of the firings are based on policy differences between the Bush administration and the federal prosecutors involved. When critics complain that "politics" is involved in the firings, the appropriate answer is "yes -- so what?"
The firings appear to be over the federal district attorneys' lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting immigration, vote fraud and pornography cases or seeking the death penalty. We don't necessarily agree with the priorities in all of these areas. But presidents are entitled to set agendas and have their appointees adhere to them.
That said, some of the firings do appear to be shabby. Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have given shifting and inconsistent reasons for the firings. This has emboldened congressional Democrats to try to inflate the issue into a major scandal.
At first, Justice Department officials said some of the attorneys were removed for performance reasons. But many of them received excellent performance ratings. The release of internal administration e-mails has revealed such unappealing details as the fact that the federal prosecutor in Arkansas was apparently removed to make way for an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove.
Two federal attorneys -- one in New Mexico and one in Washington state -- contend they were pressured by congressmen or administration officials to bring vote fraud prosecutions. Members of Congress should not pressure federal prosecutors or the Justice Department in any particular case. A general complaint from the administration that areas of the law aren't being pursued vigorously is supervision. A demand to launch a particular case against a particular individual is interference.
It's reasonable for members of Congress to try to find out which was which in these firings. But the huffing and puffing by Democrats in Congress is hypocritical and shows a lack of perspective.
Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia and Detroit, appointed by Gerald Ford, were removed before their four-year terms were up by the Jimmy Carter administration because they annoyed local Democratic politicians. Neither Carter nor his attorney general, Griffin Bell, had to face charges of obstruction of justice or prolonged harangues in Congress. Perhaps this is because Congress was controlled by the Democrats at the time.
The president has a political problem because Justice Department officials bungled the firings. But it should be seen as just that -- a political problem, not a major crisis.
|
These cut and pastes to prove my point with facts ala Host should do the trick.
And Will would you like to show me what good Bell did?
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
Last edited by reconmike; 04-21-2007 at 08:22 AM..
|