slate.com — The U.S. attorneys purge scandal is heating up. Hearings in both houses of Congress are scheduled for today. Senator Specter is claiming that his chief counsel Michael O'Neill slipped the change in at the behest of Brett Tolman, who benefited from it when he became the U.S. attorney for Utah.
Mar 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
gomezfreakMar 7, 2007
I'd digg you up more than once if possible.
honestjoeMar 7, 2007
treoinmypocketWhen Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. Attorney.The rationale to give the authority to the court has been that since district court judges are also subject to Senate confirmation and are not political positions, there is greater likelihood that their choice of who should serve as an interim U.S. Attorney would be chosen based on merit and not manipulated for political reasons.By having the district court make the appointments, and not the Attorney General, the process provides an incentive for the administration to move quickly to appoint a replacement and to work in cooperation with the Senate to get the best qualified candidate confirmed.The Department sought and essentially was given new authority under a little known provision in the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.The Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim U.S. Attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.
dumbledoritoMar 7, 2007
Is that humanly possible, given the size of some of the bills rammed through these days?
davbmn68Mar 8, 2007
I love reading all the "crying" going on about an iron fisted administration. Is this the same administration that is also labeled as being lead by "a buffoon"? Which is he? I don't remember many Dems. crying foul about an "administration out of control" and "ruining our country" when a certain female AG went marching through Waco and Ruby Ridge. That argument aside, this is an argument about separation of powers. If the congress wants to do it the old way again all they have to do is pass another law. It's not etched in stone and it's not in the constitution,(either way, I might add) pretty easy fix if you ask me. While I can sympathize with the AG's who were fired, the President calls the shots on the way he wants the laws enforced. If you don't do it his way then you open yourself up to termination. (that goes for any job) As for people acting the the US is imploding...quit being so melodramatic. Don't get your undies in a bunch because your guy lost the last election. This country will be here long after you're gone. The only thing that will implode this nation is the people and how we conduct ourselves...Just ask the people of ancient Rome.
mabhatterMar 8, 2007
Effectively the president can "cherry pick" DAs at will without senate oversight. Also, with Senate oversight you have to go to them and explain why you fired the guy... at least enough to get the next one confirmed. It's not about the executive merely having the call about who to appoint... it's about absolute power... without question... or accountability. I always thought DAs sat for term and had to be impeached... like any other appointment. That way they can be assured to do their job without bias... in this case the president wants bias... his bias... and when they try to be reasonable, he fires them... there's all sorts of problems that creates.
toefinderMar 8, 2007
excellent comment...if you seriously get in the way you get murdered. Just like Gary Webb who uncovered the CIA selling cocaine to the bloods and crips in LA they waited until every one forgot about it and murdered him in his home and had it called suicide. Paul Wellstone met the same fate. Organized crime is the government now.
honestjoeMar 9, 2007
United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the United States Senate.Generally speaking, U.S. Attorneys are recommended by Senators and Representatives in their home state, nominated by the President and then after background checks, presented to the Senate for approval.That was the process, until the recent language in the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT in 2006 changed it.What that did is (1) the 120 day 'interim' rule was eliminated, and (2) the matter was taken COMPLETELY out of the hands of the district court. Not only that, but the effect here is that ANY 'interim' US Attorney can be appointed and can theoretically serve until the end of the appointing President' s term. Additionally, the Attorney General now has the power to appoint an 'interim' US Attorney who can serve, in the immediate case, until the end of 2008. The consent of the United States Senate no longer matters in that situation.What this does, in effect, is allow the Attorney General to appoint ANYONE so long as the appointee was not previously submitted and refused by the Senate. Once again, the powers of the Legislative Branch are being stripped from the process and shifted to the Executive Branch. Further, this is currently being questioned as potentially unconstitutional in that it is delegating the authority to make such appointments from the President (under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution) to the Attorney General.It was left up to the Senate to do their job in reviewing the appointments in a timely manner (120 days) knowing full well what would happen if they did not (to give the authority to the court). Wich in most but not all cases would be exactly what they would want to have happen since district court judges are also subject to Senate confirmation and are not political positions.I understand your point about the courts' being the judicial branch but the courts would only be involved if the legislative branch allowed them to be (thats the 120 days). Again the judges are also subject to Senate confirmation. So if it went to the Judges it's because the representatives of "We The People" chose to allow it. That's why there was no mandate for a time limit. Because the Senate was left with a CHOICE (120 days) and room to maneuver.What happened here is not someone trying to clean up a law to better serve "We The People" but to create a loophole for the administration to consolidate power (including the power to investigate with fear of retribution). I think you will agree that they took advantage that there was no mandate and there did not need to be one with the old law. But now with the new language of the law there most certainly needs to be one. They knew exactly what they were doing.No one cared for "WE The People" when they voted for the the PATRIOT ACT. The entire bill was designed to take "We The Peoples" rights away. Yes I know it was done for security. They decided that it was best for the American people to give up their freedoms for security. Im sure they thought no one would care since most people dont even know what their rights are anyway. But this "NEW LAW" in the Patriot Act Reauthorization was put in place with the knowledge of current investigations at that time. Knowing full well that they could be and in some cases definitely would be pursued by certain U.S. attorney's. The lineup of cases (that affects the Bush administration) to be prosecuted by some of the U.S. Attorneys are and were well known by the Bush administration who was also aware of the entire investigations from their beginning to end as well as those that are still current. This was preplanned long ago to be used exactly as it is now by the Bush administration. This was calculated strategy to not only give the administration more power which of course is a plus for them but as a defensive plan specifically aimed at hampering those investigations of corruption.The last part is nothing more than speculation but thats how I see it and I thought it needed to be said.
tours732Mar 10, 2007
This non-story, nullity of a non-scandal is stooopid. The sacking of Assistant U.S. Attorneys can occur at the discretion of the President and the Justice Department. Period. The Senate has had ample discretion to exercise its "advise and consent" authority in the legislative and confirmation processes. Historically, it has been common practice to clean house in this fashion. Please stop the sniveling, conspiratorial whining punctuated by constitutional ignorance.