With all the focus on the Wall Street credit crisis, don’t overlook the report this week linking the White House to the improper firing of U.S. attorneys in 2006. The Justice Department’s inspector general issued a nearly 400-page report this week that found “significant evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several of the U.S. attorneys” and that the White House was involved in “at least three of the removals.”
Shouldn’t the administration be able to remove the attorneys, who are political appointees, for whatever reason it wants, and haven’t other administrations done the same thing? No on both counts.
It is standard practice for a new administration to appoint its own U.S. attorneys. But by law, the Justice Department is supposed to be independent and above politics. And as the inspector general noted, removing U.S. attorneys for political reasons “undermines the public’s confidence that Department of Justice prosecutive decisions are based on the facts and the law and not on political considerations.”
Other administrations have understood this. But the Bush administration systematically – and, according to the inspector general, possibly criminally – made hiring and firing decisions at the Justice Department based on political purposes and ideology.
It’s a disgrace.
18 Comments
Politics disgraces everyone and everything it touches. Politics has no regard for the truth.
Even the construction of the word “politics” tells us something.
“Poli”; meaning multiple or many.
“Tics”; which are blood sucking creatures.
Slightly off topic, did AG AG ever find a job after his brilliant performance in DC?
Bush disgraces everything he’s involved in.
I just hope it goes to trial after bush is out of office! Then let the games begin.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
B-BB-Bush fired his employees.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Twist it all you want and whine some more.
But Bush fired his employees and they are gone.
Gone like a freight train
Gone like yesterday,
Gone like a soldier in the Civil War bang-bang!
Gone like a 59 Cadillac
So whatcha gonna do?
Nothing. But whineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
I’ve always been curious to know if Clinton’s MASS FIRING of U.S. attorneys was plitically motivated. Of course, we’ll never really know, because the media didn’t pay much attention to that one.
Justice Department appointed attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.
Case closed.
End of story.
Done.
Finished.
Move on to next subject.
Roger. Wilco. Out.
The remarkable thing about “Clinton’s MASS FIRING” was that it occurred all at once, at the beginning of the administration, rather than the somewhat (to that point) more ordinary course of replacing the U.S. Attorneys appointed by the prior administration as their respective terms ended.
Appointment of U.S. Attorneys is one of the things political that accompany winning the Presidential election. It is understood by the appointees that they “serve at the pleasure of the President”, and will likely not be reappointed, or asked for their resignation when a new administration is elected.
This is different, however, from what is alleged to have occurred during 2006. Partisan political considerations were the basis, according to the report, for actions being taken with respect to at least some of those U.S. Attorneys “fired”. The administration did itself no good by providing reasons in some of the cases, when no reason needed to be given. The reasons provided raised questions as to what the real reasons were, which led to the investigation and report. There have been suggestions made by witnesses at the Congressional hearings that it wasn’t the competence of the U.S. Attorney removed, but rather his (I believe this to be accurate in most respects) not undertaking certain prosecutions at certain times, which leads to an impression that the Attorneys were fired for not pursuing cases which were politically important to the administration, whether there was a case at all; or if there was a case, whether it was ready for prosecution.
And this topic is relevent NOW, HOW?
Any investigatve reporting on Obama and his ASSOCIATES?
His Fannie/Freddie money?
His positions on the Iraq war?
His multi-Trillion Government Spending/Taxing expansion?
His health care plan?
His gun ban agenda?
WHAT was I thinking? This is nuthin but a mirror site for the Dem Undergound!
The most egregious case, according to the report, was that of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias. The evidence showed that Iglesias was removed because of complaints from Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and other GOP officials and party activists who believed he was not being aggressive enough in pursuing certain voter fraud and public corruption cases — by happenstance, cases against Democrats.
*****
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902663.html
*****
Do some posters here not get that having the Dept. of Justice politicized to the degree has been by the Bush administration unacceptably damages the DOJ?
Steven – it could be fun to watch them howl if Obama follows Bush’s lead with the Department.
Yes, if they won’t go after Republican targets he can fire them and no one will say a word, except us dems.!
At one time, the poorer/developing countries used to look to the American Justice System as a model for their own development, but they now look to India, Canada and the EU Courts. This from the Guardian, about a week ago.
I did think that it was allowable and common for an administration to replace appointed office holders with their own people.
“‘We were unable to fully develop the facts regarding the removal of [David C.] Iglesias and several other U.S. Attorneys because of the refusal by certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, as well as the White House’s decision not to provide . . . internal documents to us,’ the investigators concluded in their report.”
But…but, I thought that adminsitration officials could fire anyone for any reason, since prosecutors are polticial appointees, and those who think otherwise are nitwits!
So why would they try to hide anything?
“I did think that it was allowable and common for an administration to replace appointed office holders with their own people.”
From what I understand they can and do. Clinton replaced Bush the First’s prosecutors, and Bush the Second replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. It is quite another thing, however, to fire prosecutors because they wouldn’t selectively take on investigations of allegations of potential “voter fraud” (and only those that would theoretically favor the opposing party) immediately prior to what was expected to be a close election.
Equal protection under the law and all that.
From now on, ALL US Attorneys will be fired immediately, when a new President it sworn in.
Why mess with this crap?
Do it all at once, then nobody can say it was “politics” huh?