In recent weeks several U.S. Attorneys have been forced to resign by the Justice Department, for no clearly explained reason. Dan Bogden, appointed by Bush in 2001 to head up the USAO in Nevada, has proven highly effective in that post; he’s out. So is Carol Lam (another Bush appointee) of the Southern District of California, and Kevin Ryan of the Northern District. Attorney General Gonzalez insists the firings are because of “performance issues” and are not politically motivated. Senator Dianne Feinstein has another theory:
Only – most of these USA’s were appointed by W in the first place, weren’t they? Why doesn’t the Admin trust in them any more? Why would they want to slip in replacements under the Senate radar? What’s going on here?
My own money is on “pre-emptive strike against Congressional investigations,” but I have no idea what role the federal prosecutors have in that.
I’m just seriously peeved at the appointment of replacements without any sort of Congressional review. Didn’t the November elections tell the dunderheads in Washington that the people want accountability?
I go for half “Big Enchilada” and half “Shell Game”.
(Note to puppy Dopers: “Big Enchilada” references a comment made by Nixon that he might be able to offer up John Mitchell (Atty. Gen.) to the circling investigators of Watergate, by convincing them they already had the biggest fish they were going to net.)
They would like to pretend that with Abramoff, Ney (R, Prison), and Cunningham (R, Other Prison) all rounded up and branded its all over, nothing more to see here, move along. They very much want to keep the “Samoan scandal” from breaking loose. I suspect (and cannot prove) that the WH is suggesting guidelines that emphasize “national security” issues and move corruption issues towards the backest of the burners.
(If this is the first you’ve heard of the “Samoan scandal”, it oughtn’t be. Please inform yourself, if requested, I can offer sites with the proviso that I and my sites lean lefty, so you may require a “shields up!” approach. You’ll want to take your cynicism with as well, this one stinks like Hell at low tide.)
Shoving in a unqualifed politcal hack is merely rotten-as-usual. I further suspect that several of those being re-deployed are decoys: they have no particular threat to the Powers That Won’t Be For Long, they were included to offer cover and confusion so that the real targets are obscured. And to offer substance to the claim that this is all “managerial”.
Two bits says it blows over and away, there is too much major shit flying about for it to get the attention it deserves.
FORMER Attorney General. Mitchell resigned from the Cabinet to serve as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, before the Watergate scandal existed. The famous Watergate break-in and arrests happened on June 19, 1972, with Richard Kleindienst at the helm of the Justice Department.
Second nitpick:
It was actually John Ehrlichman, not President Nixon, who used the phrase “the Big Enchilada,” during a conversation between Nixon, Haldeman, and himself on March 27, 1973. The President observes that even if Mitchell were granted immunity, he would not admit to perjuring himself. Haldeman points out that the investigators would never grant Mitchell immunity anyway, since he was such a prominent figure, as high a target as the investigation then reached. And at that point Ehrlichman chimes in, agreeing, “He’s [Mitchell is] the Big Enchilada.”
Sorry. Back to the evil master plan to rid the world of US Attorneys, everyone.
So, Bricker, aside from the nitpick, you don’t think there is anything fishy about a raft of firings of folks that have investigated Republican corruption and replacing them with, among other things, Karl Rove’s former opposition research assistant? I mean, you can scoff all you want at what you claim is paranoia, but at some point, don’t you yourself start to wonder if maybe enough is enough?
So, you “have no idea”, but you still want to bet on something. That makes sense…
Why? Since it’s perfectly legal for Bush to this, what’s the big deal? Congress approved The Patriot Act, and by a considerable margin, IIRC. Perhaps your “peeveness” is misplaced and should be directed at the Congress.
I must have missed the posts in which the facts you allege above were established. How many AUSAs, overall, have been removed and what percentage of them were “investigating Republican corruption?” How many AUSAs who have investigated Republican corruption remain in their jobs?
Make a real case, rather than some vague suppositions based on even vaguer event sequences, and I might begin to smell fish.
I don’t have any inkling if it is because of “Republican corruption” but, Bricker, can you give me a figure of how many U.S. Attorneys are routinely fired in the 4-year term of the President who appoints them?
Suspicions are aroused by vague event sequences. You notice that Cock Robin is lying stiff on the ground beneath his usual perch. Further examination reveals he is transfixed by an arrow, laterally shish-kebobed. You suspect foul play, though you have no conclusive evidence…
Myself, I am taken by oddity of it all, the purported necessity for USAs to be assigned outside of accepted procedures, and how that necessity came to be reflected in the Patriot Act. Why it was seen advisable to keep the matter so quiet as to suggest stealth. Little things. Details, really.
Sometimes the inserts do get a quick vote, sometimes not, as evidenced by this lawsuit over some of these conference committeee shenanagins:
I’ve not followed the suit, but perhaps Bricker could tell us whether it has been crushed by the courts. Regardless, large voting margins are fairly irrelevent as indications of intent when legislators are inhibited from knowing exactly what they are voting on.
If the firings are indeed for nefarious purposes (a question on which I will, surprisingly, remain as skeptical as Bricker for the time being), the reason would be to appoint attorneys who would not receive Senate approval, for reasons of compentence or partisanship.
My question is: is this the equivalent of a recess appointment? Can these appointees remain in office literally indefinitely?
It looks like the appropriate section of the bill says;
The old rules said:
So, in other words, before the law, the AG could appoint a temporary US attorney to fill a vacancy for 120 days, then after that, the district court did. Now he can do it until the Senate confirms the permanent appointee.
