Is the Admin using the DoJ for partisan electoral purposes a crime, or is it not?

[zamboniracer]

@ElvisL1ves

Read the Constitution. :rolleyes: There is no way for SCOTUS to insert itsefl into the impeachment process, other than offering the CJ as a ceremonial presiding officer in the Senate “trial” for Presidents. The Constitution makes it quite clear that it’s an administrative political procedure, not related to the realm of law at all.

I don’t want to hijack this thread, but just want to say that just because the late CJ Rhenquist believed that the CJ’s role in an impeachment trial was to impersonate a potted plant doesn’t mean that was correct.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

I believe they would refuse such a case, not based on judicial self-restraint, but because of the political question doctrine.

What’s the difference? Political Question:

The doctrine has its roots in the federal judiciary’s desire to avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government. It is justified by the notion that there exist some questions best resolved through the political process, voters approving or correcting the challenged action by voting for or against those involved in the decision.

Sounds exactly like what I said above. Seems to me that that is just one flavor of judicial restraint.

[BrainGlutton]

@zamboniracer

I don’t want to hijack this thread, but just want to say that just because the late CJ Rhenquist believed that the CJ’s role in an impeachment trial was to impersonate a potted plant doesn’t mean that was correct.

Nor that it set any binding precedent in that regard (see post #37).

[David_Simmons]

@BrainGlutton

I think that’s because of the political circumstances of each particular case, not because the Constitution spells out any “higher test” for the Senate to apply; it doesn’t.

Yes. I probably should have said that the senate seems to have applied a higher standard than has the House, at least so far.

[John_Mace]

@David Simmons

Yes. I probably should have said that the senate seems to have applied a higher standard than has the House, at least so far.

I think that’s built into the nature of the process, and that the House should set the bar lower. The House serves the function of indictment, the Senate serves the function of determining guilt. The House doesn’t determine guilt or innocence, only that the matter should be referred to the Senate for them to do so.

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil Captor

It’s got Rove-stink all over it.

I’m sure. But, if it can be proven Rove was behind all this – is that something for which he can be, not impeached, but indicted?

[tomndebb]

Part of Ms. Goodling’s testimony focused on her understanding (based on her claims of what she was told by superiors), that the DAs were not Civil Service. This implies that they were/should have been Civil Service. Firing them without (adequate) cause might, then, have been a violation either of statute or of regulation. However, even if their firing was legal, (finding some fig leaf conditions to show dismissal for cause), applying political rules to the hiring of their replacements would have been a clear violation of the Civil Service laws (or regulations).

HOWEVER, the preceding is contingent upon whether the DA position is or is not Civil Service and I have not yet seen the answer to that question.

[RTFirefly]

@BrainGlutton

When a court makes a decision it sets a precedent, in a legal sense. I don’t think that’s true of a non-legislative decision of Congress.

That’s true. It isn’t a precedent in the stare decisis sense of the word, just in the ordinary, garden-variety sense of the word, such as, “there is precedent for the raspberries ripening before the end of June around here.”

[BrainGlutton]

@tomndebb

Part of Ms. Goodling’s testimony focused on her understanding (based on her claims of what she was told by superiors), that the DAs were not Civil Service. This implies that they were/should have been Civil Service. Firing them without (adequate) cause might, then, have been a violation either of statute or of regulation. However, even if their firing was legal, (finding some fig leaf conditions to show dismissal for cause), applying political rules to the hiring of their replacements would have been a clear violation of the Civil Service laws (or regulations).

HOWEVER, the preceding is contingent upon whether the DA position is or is not Civil Service and I have not yet seen the answer to that question.

The 93 United States Attorneys are political appointees. As Pubs never tire of pointing out, Clinton replaced all of them when he took office; it’s lawful and traditional, when a new administration takes over. WRT lower-ranking DoJ lawyers, Goodling almost certainly violated civil service rules – not in firing them, but in hiring them, after first sounding out their politics and screening out those deemed insufficiently right-wing.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s “United States Attorney” in this topic, not DA. They serve at the President’s pleasure, but *assistant * USA’s are civil servants.

IF Rove, or Gonzales, tried to stop an ongoing investigation by firing the USA (i.e. by Paul Charlton in Arizona of Rep. Rick Renzi, link), that would seem to be describable as “obstruction of justice”, wouldn’t it?

[Squink]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s “United States Attorney” in this topic, not DA.

With the Goodling confession, it was Immigration Judges

The usually low-profile immigration bench is attracting new attention in light of last week’s testimony by former Justice Department official Monica Goodling that immigration judges were screened for loyalty to the GOP.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Rep. John Conyers now (kindasorta) supports impeachment.

[MovieMogul]

From Salon:

Three weeks after Alberto Gonzales declared that it’s time to move past the U.S. attorney scandal, the Justice Department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility say they’re doing just that – but not in the way Gonzales might have liked.

In a letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, the Justice Department’s Glenn Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett say they’re expanding their ongoing investigation into the firing of federal prosecutors last year to include allegations that “improper political or other considerations” were used to make all sorts of hiring decisions for the department.

Among the issues Fine and Jarrett say they’ll investigate: “allegations regarding Monica Goodling’s and others’ actions in DOJ hiring and personnel decisions; allegations concerning hiring for the DOJ Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program; and allegations concerning hiring practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division.”

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s a point John Mace brought up on p.4 of this Pit thread: Assuming this is an impeachable and/or criminal matter, can it necessarily be used to impeach Bush? Or only Gonzalez? Rove was almost certainly behind it, probably Cheney too – but is it possible they just gave W papers to sign but never discussed with him the plan or its purpose?

What did the president know and when did he know it?

(I know, I know, it might be a meaningless question in his case. “George Washington could not tell a lie, Richard Nixon could not tell the truth, and George Bush cannot tell the difference.”)