“They’re entitled to make these changes for any reason or no reason or even for an idiotic reason,” former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins said about the Justice Department firing seven U.S. attorneys last year. “But if they are trying to suggest that people have inferior performance to hide whatever their true agenda is, that is wrong. They should retract those statements.”
Cummins is upset that the Justice Department recently said the attorneys were asked to resign because of job performance. All but one of them had good job evaluations, the Washington Post reported. Meanwhile, most of the attorneys had been overseeing significant public-corruption investigations, four of which targeted Republican politicians or their supporters.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
51 Comments
Hey,Look at this link from the above Post article:
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.Words of PowerWE BlogReBelle Nation
Full List of Blogs (49 links) »
Most Blogged About ArticlesOn washingtonpost.com | On the web
“four of which targeted Republican politicians or their supporters.”
Anyone know what/who else they were investigating? Any dems on the list?
WOW. Steven, how’d we get linked to the WaPo?That’s neeto-cheeto.
Goddammit, I just KNOW someone is gonna make me get out of this bathrobe and into real clothes if we keep picking up readers….
hee hee hee hee
Does this make us a little pool in the “fever swamp”?
What about the investigation of that Congressman that had all that cash in his freezer? Forgot his name.
Seems to me that a corrupt presidency would not want an investigation of any type of corruption, Republican or Democratic. How else are you going to be able to say later, when the true depth of the dirty dealing comes forth that it was just the way business ran at the time?
Well, so far the comments here range from neeto-cheeto to goddammit. It would be helpful, I suppose, to be have a topic that anyone had ever heard of.
Don’t worry Washington Post readers, soon there will be the stock comments here at WELeftyBlog about the deceitful Bush administration and how Dick Cheney is behind it all. So check back later.
Is there any facet of the Federal Government this “Administration” would feel embarrassed at trying to tamper with?
Stinks to high heaven–as does Specter’s pious insistence that the provision giving this power to the Executive was slipped into the Patriot Act by one of his staffers.
Outlander,
This has been on my radar for at least a month. The Bush Administration is firing US Attorneys, wholesale, and trying to install political underlings (one of whom was a former assistant to Karl Rove) who are sympathetic to Republican causes and officeholders.
One of them is Carol Lam, the US Attorney for San Diego. She put Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA)behind bars, as well as a couple of San Diego city councilpersons.
Hey outie, how’s the weather there in denial land?
Maybe he cant hear me, what with the fingers in the ears and the “lalalalalala” he’s singing.
We can’t have no anti-American prosecuters interfering with our uber-patriotic administration. They only give aid and comfort to our enemies!
KFG,For what it’s worth, I’m impressed you’re wearing the robe. ;)~
Ain’t politics fun? If you’re a contract government employee you can be ‘let go’ if you are ‘putting your nose’ where the powers that be don’t think you should. With a good government job no wonder a bunch of these people are keeping in line and don’t out the wrongs in the world.
This is dated information, so things may have changed, but, if so, perhaps, someone can update it. As originally constructed, the Justice Department was structured as such. The Attorney General served at pleasure of the President. The FBI served immediately under The Attorney General, obviously at the pleasure of both. Each and very FBI employee, from filing clerks up to the Assistant Director, served at the pleasure of the Director, J. Edgar Hoover … period. No one in Justice was civil service. This consolidated the power of the Director and suited him just fine. Sometime after World War Two, a movement was underfoot to make these employees civil service, thus giving them rights of appeal, etc., etc. Hoover, of course, violently opposed this, as it eroded his absolute power. Eventually, a sweetheart deal was compromised, if anything J. Edger ever did could be said to be a compromise, and a retirement was offered whereby retirement was available at 20 years (40% of highest salary for life), graduating to 40 years (80% of highest salary for life), and the “crisis” was averted. Mr. Hoover maintained his absolute power, and, as they say, the more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Incidentally, circa 1970, fearful he might be forced out, he tried and succeeded to have an inconspicuous piece of legislation slipped through Congress, stating, if he retired, it would be at 100% for life. It was all for naught though. J. Edgar Hoover died quietly in his sleep May 2, 1972, still in place as the Director, which he always referred to himself as in the third person
GOPShill, how right you are.
OUTIE, IF YA’ DON’T LIKE IT HERE,GO AWAY!Don’t R.Limpballs and BillO have blogs where you can be with “your people”?Gonzo has been nothing more than a “running screen” for this admin. from day one.And now it’s gone WAY too far.Since the smoke screens have failed, well Cheny just fires anyone who exposes the truth.
How can ANY AMERICAN not shit a brick over this?
I don’t care what aisle you sit on, when there is this much freaking corruption going on, we all need to say this is not acceptable.
And if you defend it like Outlander, then there is something seriously wrong with you and you belong in the same group as the KGB and Nazis.
why some of you put so many disperaging remarks in your comment? Can’t you talk to each other like adults and stop calling them by bad names besides what they sign in as? This looks bad on people who do this.
Roscoe–How does forcing out good gov’t prosecutors to protect political cronies look?
roscoe-
When it’s all they got, it’s all they got.
Actually, Peckerhead, I think Roscoe was talking about YOU.
Actually, I know nothing about this and therefore have not commented on it, other than to predict what the usual crew would say about it. You didn’t disappoint me. I doubt many of you, other than CF and maybe CapnAmerica know much about the situation. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Now if I was going to comment the story, I would want to know more about the firings. Things like, where did they occur, when did they occur, who ordered them? What was the justification given for the firings? I notice everyone seems to agree that the firings of these political appointees were legal.
I would want to know what they mean when they say; “most of the attorneys had been overseeing significant public-corruption investigations, four of which targeted Republican politicians or their supporters.” How many is “most”? Did the investigations that were being pursued stop or change course after the firings? In other words is there any evidence that the firings were in any way related to the investigations?
Those are just a few things that I would want to know before commenting. But please, carry on.
outlander – I have been following this story for some weeks now. Bush has been quielty purging the ranks of anyone who dared investigate/prosecute any of his cronies.
… and when there is a DEMOCRAT president in 2009, and she does the same thing, the Repukes will SCREAM!!!
Hypocrites!!!!
WOODY, you ain’t EVER brought a damn thing here that resembles facts and logic.Shit, you and outie bitch every time somebody cutnpastes facts.A link to serious research from you two never happens.BUT, you bitch about everybody else’s “lib” links. (read as truthfull)
Soooo……….kwitcherbichen.
In addition to the referenced political corruption investigations, the linked article contained allegations about one of the “fired” U.S. Attorneys not agreeing with superiors as to seeking the death penalty in a particular case.
This has also been on my radar for about a month, beginning with a report from some source, long forgotten, about the use of the provision inserted in the legislation reauthorizing the Patriot Act, during the congressional recess to appoint intermim U.S. Attorneys for those who had resigned; then it began to bubble up that at least seven had “resigned” under pressure; now some of them are coming forward in protest of the characterization of their job performance.
Apparently, one of the seven had some management issues; the others had received no adverse performance reports. It does make one question how much prosecutorial discretion each was able to exercise.
I cant see what the hoopla is about this. When Clinton came in he FIRED ALL of the lawyers. Not just 7.
If they are upset because they said the reason was due to “performance” then so be it. But actually they dont have to give any reason for firing them…they are “at will” if they are not union.
bye.
“When Clinton came in he FIRED ALL of the lawyers. Not just 7.”
That is bullshit, Mr. Bill. If you think that it is true, provide a link.
mrbill’s post is likely truthful, but adds nothing to the context of the discussion. As political appointees, each U.S. Attorney serves at the pleasure of the President. When the party in power changes, so do the U.S. Attorneys (together with about all other political appointments); there’s nothing unusual or sinister about this; it’s how the system works.
The troubling thing about the “firing” here is that the same seem to have been timed to take advantage of the provision inserted within the Patriot Act reauthorization legislation, which, IIRC, allows the President to appoint replacements when the offices are vacant and delay seeking confirmation of the appointments from the Congress or approval from a judge. Perhaps CF or someone else has a link to the particular legislative language in question. Additionally, IIRC, the provision of the U.S. Code so amended prior to its amendment provided for a short period, 30 days I believe, before the President was required to seek confirmation of his appointment.
And outlander, it would indeed be of interest to learn what happened to the political corruption investigations; I suspect that since such investigations are generally not a part of the public record unless and until an indictment is returned, we may never know, unless someone from the offices affected comes forward.
Bode did note Reno’s unprecedented decision to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys “has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno
A February 15, 2007 National Law Journal article on the controversy, the difference between the current law and the preexisting one, opposition from DOJ on changing it back, etc., for your reading pleasure.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1171015372405
woody’s argument is the same as ol’ nurse Ratched:BILL CLINTON!!BILL CLINTON!!
Sure have missed her today.
This is just the most inept and corrupt administration in history doing CYA.
Congress should launch an investigation.
Tracy-LEW and JR, both on the same thread. Gee, that reminds me of the time I set one rat trap and two big rats were caught in it in the morning.
‘Course that was under the chicken shed. Rats like chickens, you know. Or maybe it’s their eggs they like.
Dunno.
I know you guys get embarrassed when anyone brings up Clinton. And I don’t blame you. He WAS a mess, wasn’t he? But come on now, the man is still RECENT history, his shenanigans still have an effect on today’s world.
Go ahead and ignore the posts where we discuss him, and his failures, if it makes you queasy, and we’ll pretend not to notice your absence.
GSheri?
Dearie?
I did not mention Bill Clinton.
And a review shows that this is your first post to this thread.
SO YOU’VE yet to address the topic.
SO clearly you don’t have much of value to add here.
You just saw TRACY’s nic and then mine and then decided to do some ankle biting.
Get on back over to the Global warming thread. PICK one. Continue your embarrassing circus of involuntary self deprecation there.
I don’t humor little yapping dogs.
“I know you guys get embarrassed when anyone brings up Clinton.”
Not nearly as embarrased as I would if I were a Bush supporter.
Ben: Here’s, to me, the scary part. Why can’t everybody stop the “Bush this, Clinton that” crap. We will have had 16 years of rubes and jokes in the White House. Look at the horizon, there’s nothing out there that makes me believe it’s going to get even an iota better!!! I’m almost glad that I won’t be around 16 years from now to say,”we’ve had 32 years of…”
Ah, JR – lighten up. Did someone feed you sawdust instead of kibbles for lunch?
You take this board WAY too seriously.
I’m just funnin’ ya.
It ain’t funny.You want to push it too far, and then say it’s all just fun.I’m a news junkie who has been reading this blog for a year.GS is by far the most despised person here, who has only recently showed up and made quite a fool of herself in front of the whole world.I have been collecting her comments, in an attempt to understand this mindset.I am currently writing a paper about blogs, and how each one becomes it’s own society.Generally, in a real society, people who display such anti-social tendencies and disruptive behaviors are eventually isolated by the members of that society.Interesting how blogs have created a new type of society, where it’s members do not have this capability.
Sure, we do, 5th. Note that Ian is no longer around. Why? Probably because posters rarely replied to what he posted.
Or he’s in jail. :)
Or, the WE Eds, blocked his IP address.
I am guessing the latter.
5thDoctor,
If you’re inclined, I would like to hear more about your project. If you have suggestions on relevant literature, I’d be interested in that, too.
I think you elevate GS’s position to unrealistic heights. Even bloggers can recognize those folk who have problems.
“Even bloggers can recognize those folk who have problems.”
Mr. Davis. I am majoring in sociology with a minor in behavioral psychology.That is the only reason for collecting comments.This will be a case study, for my purposes.Of course, the name will be changed to protect myself from “folk who have problems.”It’s only the prudent thing to do.But, I speak prematurely.It is a work in progress.(I hope that revealing my observations will not affect the interactions here.)
I’d be interested in reading your paper. Send me a copy via email attachment. The email address I provide should work, if it doesn’t, let me know and I will figure something else out.
Sounds like a cool paper, btw. And that is not just because GS might be a very small section there.
Agreed Steven. Fifth? I too would like to see your paper when it is complete. You can redact all the names or whatever, I just find the whole blogosphere to be quite interesting. People in Austin were developing theories about creating on-line communities back in the mid nineties. That dovetails into creating and sustaining real communities as well, which is where I came into the discussion.
Good for you for doing this work. When it’s ready, I’d like to see it. And no, dont worry about changing the interactions here. We are all pretty set in our ways.
Bathrobes included :)
Hey Doc Reading us for a year huh? I don’t wanna mess too much with your research either. You uh…you won’t be using or citing nics here will you? Aw you give GSheri too much credit. She isn’t half that important. I WOULD like to borrow your words from here to let our other readers know how she is regarded.
“GS is by far the most despised person here,…”
Obviously, the 5th doctor is an idiot.
I dont expect an answer from the researcher here, but I wonder if he/she sees the same thing in terms of the right side of the blog coming unglued lately.
The more bushco fails us, the more they lash out at the folks who saw through this war charade early on.
It’s like they are redirecting their anger to those who were right, rather than holding the shrubster and his merry band of blunderers accountable.
And it seems that it makes them feel better to spout their platitudes and keep the same spin going harder and faster. Even though it is clear that all but the “thirty percenters” have seen the man behind the curtain, and they are not impressed.
I wonder if Doc will be making those kinds of observations? To quote Laugh-In, “veeeeddddy interestink”.
Question: Since the Bush people have been in charge of these attorney for six years straight, doesn’t the timing seem a little, well, convenient, what with the opposition controlling congressional investigations now?
Bet they wish they could fire Fitz.
Nevermind, Vaughn laid it out better and in more detail above.
Must. . .have. . coffee.
5Doc,Welcome, glad you’re lurking. There’s been some chatter about having another meetup in the spring. You should consider it research and come out. It’s kinda interesting how we interact w/ each other on the blog vs. in real life.