The name of Eric Melgren, U.S. attorney for Kansas, had not cropped up in the stories about the U.S. attorney firings — until Friday. That’s when the Washington Post reported that Melgren also was considered for replacement, included “on a Jan. 1 list that grouped a dozen prosecutors into three tiers.” The Post said that Melgren’s name and three others did not reappear on the firing lists compiled by D. Kyle Sampson, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ chief of staff. Jim Cross, public affairs officer for Melgren’s office, told The Eagle editorial board Monday that the office had no comment on the report. Melgren, who is based in Wichita but is U.S. attorney for all of Kansas, has held the position since March 2002.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
27 Comments
Again, for the short of focus, a U.S. Attorney position is a temporary appointment. It is not a career for life appointment.
Presidents have always cleaned house during their tenure.
This is a non-story.
Maybe he didin’t graduate from Liberty University, Regent University or Bob Jones University. Those are basic qualifications for a job now.
Not true Republican. Presidents HAVE cleaned house when they take office; that is how Melgren got there in the first place; replacing Randy Rathbun. There was no controversary about that. What IS different today is the attempt to eliminate those who held to high ethical standards and to replace them with strictly partisan hacks.
Maybe he was late getting his loyalty pledge card in!
You know how the CONs always say that “Bush broke no law when he fired the prosecutors”?
Strange logic: Clinton broke no law when he fooled around with Monica L either.
So a Liberal brings in the name of Clinton. I thought Clinton was supposed to be irrevelant to whatis happening now. But since you mentioned it, you are right. The law he broke had to do with lying in court, not being pleasured by Monica Lewinksi.
Capn, he didn’t break a law when degraded the White House and Oval Office, Just when he Lied to the Grand Jury and was caught telling everyone else to lie as well..
He never lied to the Grand Jury, was more like Gonzo on that point. Just parsed words. I take that back Gonzo, did lie when he said there was never any read disagreement with the Justic Dept.
read should be real.
read should be real.
Steve-In my neck of the woods, oral sex is still sex. He lied.
lj – As I recall he was doing a deposition in which the terminology had been set by the Court. Under those rules the bj was not ’sex’ and he did not lie.
Aside from that I agree with you 100%; I could picture me trying to get that one past my wife. And, when he wagged his finger at us on TV – he lied.
Ben-Thanks for a different view, I shall have to look that up. Yeah, my wife wouldn’t buy it either. And i don;t think there would be a stand by your man performance, there would probably be a “chop in”performance
hehehe
I always said the appropriate punishment would be to give Hillary Lorena Bobbitt’s knife and a pre-approved pardon. Beyond that I don’t really care; his ‘crime’ was not against me.
The crime of perjury (and i promise to look up the circumstance and the definition of sex given by the court) is certainly against you. As is the matter of integrity. Sorry, but a man who cannot to trusted to fidelity in a personal thing (like marriage) has a trust issue with me, and should be with others. It has certainly been brought up enough about Guiliani (and rightly so). It was certainly not a crime to have an affair, but shows at the very least a lapse of integrity. Lying about it, even if not Technically so, did nothing to gain back that integrity. He should have just said. Yeah, I did it, I am sorry for it, it;s a private matter and went on. Politicians of all sorts seem to have trouble with that. too bad
lj – agreed.
There is an old joke that men have two heads. And, when all the blood goes to one there is none left for the other.
The so-called “Justice” Department is a joke. Anyone who aspires to a career as a federal prosecutor deserves what he gets. If these losers were worth their salt as attorneys, they’d be making too much money to want a gummint job.
The Justice Department has always been run by politicians. If a prosecutor isn’t locking up enough of the “right” political prisoners, the president can tell the attorney general to fire him. Presidents load the Supreme Court with ideologues they agree with, too.
Don’t worry about these thugs who lost their jobs. They can go out and chase ambulances or rob widows for a living. Alberto will never have to practice law again after he leaves office. He’ll write a book and give $10,000 speeches at Christian colleges about how he was victimized by the radical left. Really, nobody who works in government regardless of their political affiliation deserves our sympathy — least of all a bunch of pin-striped shysters.
lj,”The crime of perjury (and i promise to look up the circumstance and the definition of sex given by the court) is certainly against you.”
Help me out here. When was Clinton convicted of perjury?
“As is the matter of integrity.”
Integrity is probably a subject we should avoid considering who’s in the Whitehouse now.
It always intrigues me that men are always the ones who use the ‘it was only about sex’ line – that is all I see commenting here.
He was a boss, the highest boss in the nation, who hit on a subordinate. The reason there are harrassament laws on the books is because this is one of the most abused forms of power.
Women libbers were irate when Anita Hill was supposedly harassed by Clarence Thomas and nothing was ever proven to be true. Where were they on the Monica story, strangely absent.
Hypocracy your name is democrat.
ksgrm – I don’t know if your characterization is accurate. Apparently she was the ‘hitter’ in this case. In fact, she had done similar things in the past with other older men to get what she wanted.
At no point has it been alleged that he harassed Lewinsky.
Apparently, Clinton was not convicted by the senate for commiting perjury, the fact of the Denmocrat party voting in a single block notwithstanding. Therefore, by definition, he did not break the law. Everyone is correct, he parsed words and “believed” he didn;t have sex, so he didn;t, therefore he didn;tcommite perjury.Fine. in a legal sense, he was found not guilty and so did not do it.
As to integrity and the current WhiteHouse resident, it’s never stopped you before. We might as well talk about Clinton’s too, since he continues to be a player in the political scene.
Ben you are right she never did. In subsequent interviews she voiced her unhappiness with the way she was treated. What you said did establish quid pro quo.
The smartest man in the nation and the leader of the free world taken in by an ambitious intern.
If Hillary is elected do you think she will let him use the Oval office on ocassion?
ksgrm – like I said, men have two heads … and it made him an idiot.
lj – have you ever been deposed or done an interrogatory? You work in the confines of very strict and specific definitions.
Consider the quastion “Have you had anything to drink today?” In the context of driving I might answer that “NO”; disregarding all that coffee. The reason: the question is construed as referring to alcohol. So, is my “NO” a lie if I have had coffee, tea, Pepsi, etc?
Ben-
I have never been disposed or taken an interrogatory, sort of.Actually, I am one of the nonattorney Municipal court Judges within the state. So, while I have not actually taken and interrogatory, I must sometimes take things in a very strict definition. ALso, in my real job, I have to be very strict and specific. Sometimes, in general conversation, it gets my in trouble because If I don;t watch myself, I get anal about word usage. In my opinion, your question is incorrect. I would ask; “Have you had any drink containing alcohol today?” Technically speaking, your answer would be wrong, but it would not be perjury.The specific reference to CLinton’s perjury has to do with as a condition of perjury one must be willfully telling a falsehood. part of his defense was that he did not believe it to be sex, therefore he was not willfully telling a falsehood. That was not my thinking, but I found it on a website–forgot where. Also, he was found not guilty on perjury charges, so he is innocent. I think he committed perjury but in this case my opinion is irrevelant so I must state correctly the facts, correcting myself
Correction:”I think he committed perjury” is incorrect. I should have said”I think he lied.” Wether or not he actually committed perjury I am unable to answer. I have no interests in going back and reading the transcripts. He was found not guilty, so he did not by any legal definition.
You can’t see the difference between UNWANTED sexual harassment and mutual sexual interest?
Come on ksgrm.
lj – we are pretty much in agreement. Like I said – my wife would make me a soprano with that story. However, in a carefully parsed system he probably slides by.