Comments on: Why The US Attorneys Story Matters http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:15:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Eric Dondero http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17221 Eric Dondero Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:31:06 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17221 And now we are learning the real reason this afternoon as to why the Democrats have made such a huge issue over this. Seems Bush ordered them fired cause they were drag-assing on Voter Fraud investigations in Washington State and New Mexico, that if they had been prosecuted would have sent top Democrats to jail. Aha! It all makes sense now. And now we are learning the real reason this afternoon as to why the Democrats have made such a huge issue over this.

Seems Bush ordered them fired cause they were drag-assing on Voter Fraud investigations in Washington State and New Mexico, that if they had been prosecuted would have sent top Democrats to jail.

Aha! It all makes sense now.

]]> By: Lance http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17210 Lance Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:55:43 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17210 I have to agree with Stephen on this one Doug. US attorney's have been let go over the years for numerous reasons, including not following through on the priorities of the administration. I am not in favor of some of the prosecutorial priorities of this administration, but isn't that what we should expect from attorney's appointed by who we vote for for President? That their priorities will shape political appointments? Exactly why is it that it happened in the middle of his term relevant, even if it were unprecedented? Early or late in a term is somehow better? I don't get it. How do you know past firings in the middle of past terms weren't political anyway? Because nobody made an issue of it? I don't get it Doug, I really don't. Even if it were unprecedented, so what again? There is nothing wrong (or more wrong) about doing it now than if he had done the same thing at the beginning of his term. Both would be purely political (which you actually haven't established in this case)so the precedent isn't when, it is why. The when doesn't matter. Lam didn't follow through on those cases. The administration wanted them followed up on. She didn't, they canned her. So what? <em>the Justice Department was attempting to politicize the U.S. Attorney’s office in a way that it had not been in the past.</em> That is just not true. There is no evidence the Justice Department is more political than in the past. Just think about Janet Reno's reign. I have to agree with Stephen on this one Doug. US attorney’s have been let go over the years for numerous reasons, including not following through on the priorities of the administration. I am not in favor of some of the prosecutorial priorities of this administration, but isn’t that what we should expect from attorney’s appointed by who we vote for for President? That their priorities will shape political appointments?

Exactly why is it that it happened in the middle of his term relevant, even if it were unprecedented? Early or late in a term is somehow better? I don’t get it. How do you know past firings in the middle of past terms weren’t political anyway? Because nobody made an issue of it? I don’t get it Doug, I really don’t.

Even if it were unprecedented, so what again? There is nothing wrong (or more wrong) about doing it now than if he had done the same thing at the beginning of his term. Both would be purely political (which you actually haven’t established in this case)so the precedent isn’t when, it is why. The when doesn’t matter.

Lam didn’t follow through on those cases. The administration wanted them followed up on. She didn’t, they canned her. So what?

the Justice Department was attempting to politicize the U.S. Attorney’s office in a way that it had not been in the past.

That is just not true. There is no evidence the Justice Department is more political than in the past. Just think about Janet Reno’s reign.

]]> By: Stephen Littau http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17205 Stephen Littau Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:42:37 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17205 I agree with Mr. Stern on this one; this whole “scandal” is such a non-issue. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. The president is the executive and therefore, controls the Executive Branch. The Attorney General runs the Justice Department. Just as in any other line of work, you have people in leadership roles who have the authority to fire employees who, for whatever reason, are not meeting the expectations of the boss. If you have employees in your organization who are not “team players” or who are not willing to go along with the company’s mission statement, then they are let go. I also disagree that “Except for the fact that firings like this in the middle of an administration for purely political reasons has never happened before.” Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Bill Clinton fire prosecutors who were investigating him during Whitewater and replace them with his cronies? (and I am guessing that Clinton wasn’t the first president to do that either). As far as I am aware, none of these attorneys who were let go were investigating the Bush Administration. The provision in the Patriot Act you mentioned is a valid concern. Maybe if the congress would have read the bill before passing it* this provision wouldn’t be part of the law. The bottom line is this: if you do not think you can trust how a president will organize his or her justice department, don’t vote for that person. When you vote for president, you are not only voting for the person but every department in the Executive Branch. From there the Senate decides whether or not each cabinet member will serve. Like it or not, this is our system. When the president arranges his or her Administration in the way he or she sees fit, it is NOT a dictatorship. This is why we have the 2 other branches to act as checks and balances. * See my post on the Read the Bills Act for more information: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/13/no-legislation-without-representation/ I agree with Mr. Stern on this one; this whole “scandal” is such a non-issue. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. The president is the executive and therefore, controls the Executive Branch. The Attorney General runs the Justice Department. Just as in any other line of work, you have people in leadership roles who have the authority to fire employees who, for whatever reason, are not meeting the expectations of the boss. If you have employees in your organization who are not “team players” or who are not willing to go along with the company’s mission statement, then they are let go.

I also disagree that “Except for the fact that firings like this in the middle of an administration for purely political reasons has never happened before.” Correct me if I am wrong but didn’t Bill Clinton fire prosecutors who were investigating him during Whitewater and replace them with his cronies? (and I am guessing that Clinton wasn’t the first president to do that either). As far as I am aware, none of these attorneys who were let go were investigating the Bush Administration.

The provision in the Patriot Act you mentioned is a valid concern. Maybe if the congress would have read the bill before passing it* this provision wouldn’t be part of the law.

The bottom line is this: if you do not think you can trust how a president will organize his or her justice department, don’t vote for that person. When you vote for president, you are not only voting for the person but every department in the Executive Branch. From there the Senate decides whether or not each cabinet member will serve. Like it or not, this is our system. When the president arranges his or her Administration in the way he or she sees fit, it is NOT a dictatorship. This is why we have the 2 other branches to act as checks and balances.

* See my post on the Read the Bills Act for more information: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/13/no-legislation-without-representation/

]]> By: calipendence http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17202 calipendence Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:07:12 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17202 Mr. Stern. So any and all federal prosecutions should be done only to serve those wishes of the president and the U.S. Attorney? Should temporary appointments NOW NOT HAVE to answer to the confirmation of other courts and the Senate as the Patriot Act was corrupted into putting in place this time? If the attorneys are ONLY supposed to support the AG and the president's will, then why have laws asserted that other courts and the Senate have a voice in their confirmation? Sir, if you want to live in a dictatorship, I suggest you look outside this country. Many of the rest of us don't want one, thank you! Mr. Stern. So any and all federal prosecutions should be done only to serve those wishes of the president and the U.S. Attorney? Should temporary appointments NOW NOT HAVE to answer to the confirmation of other courts and the Senate as the Patriot Act was corrupted into putting in place this time? If the attorneys are ONLY supposed to support the AG and the president’s will, then why have laws asserted that other courts and the Senate have a voice in their confirmation?

Sir, if you want to live in a dictatorship, I suggest you look outside this country. Many of the rest of us don’t want one, thank you!

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17201 Doug Mataconis Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:06:12 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17201 TF, <em>This statement of fact makes the entire article a non-story created for political purposes.</em> Except for the fact that firings like this in the middle of an administration for purely political reasons has never happened before. And then there's the fact that they used a little-known provision of the PATRIOT Act to replace the fired prosecutors without getting Senate approval. TF,

This statement of fact makes the entire article a non-story created for political purposes.

Except for the fact that firings like this in the middle of an administration for purely political reasons has never happened before.

And then there’s the fact that they used a little-known provision of the PATRIOT Act to replace the fired prosecutors without getting Senate approval.

]]> By: Wild Pegasus http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17200 Wild Pegasus Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:03:52 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17200 The politicization of law will continue as long as politics and law are intertwined. They must be separated. - Josh The politicization of law will continue as long as politics and law are intertwined. They must be separated.

- Josh

]]> By: T F Stern http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17199 T F Stern Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:56:58 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/03/14/why-the-us-attorneys-story-matters/#comment-17199 "After all, they do serve, to some extent, at the pleasure of the President and it is common for each incoming President to ask for the resignation of every sitting U.S. Attorney." This statement of fact makes the entire article a non-story created for political purposes. “After all, they do serve, to some extent, at the pleasure of the President and it is common for each incoming President to ask for the resignation of every sitting U.S. Attorney.”

This statement of fact makes the entire article a non-story created for political purposes.

]]>