Originally Posted by Jerry
Do any of you cons know what a investigation is or the meaning of the word, investigation?
Originally Posted by Jerry
Improper is a very subjective word here. And after reading the report its pretty obvious that they are going for subjective reasoning. At no point do they point to any statute or policy stating anything to back up their statements. In fact there are alot of "shoulds" and "coulds" in their report. I'm looking a section 1.D last paragraph and doing a face palm. You don't submit your suggestions to procedures in a policy with which you are investigating. Gaah!
More importantly, the investigation is showing that Gonzales had less and less input into the actual terminations. Its looking like the report is blaming lack of supervison for the entire event. So much for conspiracy. Looks like Kyle Sampson and other subordinates are going to burn for this.
Section IV.A paragraph 1- We believe that Attorney General Gonzales bears primary responsibility for the flawed U.S. Attorney removal process and the resulting turmoil that it created. This was not a simple personnel matter that should be delegated to subordinate officials – it was an unprecedented removal of a group of high-level Department officials that was certain to raise concerns if not handled properly. Such an undertaking warranted close supervision by the Attorney General, as well as the Deputy Attorney General. Gonzales did not provide such supervision, nor did he ensure that the Deputy Attorney General provided the necessary oversight.
IV.A paragraph 4 -Even after the removals, Gonzales said he still did not know why certain of the U.S. Attorneys had been removed. For example, Gonzales told us that he had no recollection of being consulted about Graves’s removal. Gonzales also told us he did not recall having any discussions with Sampson about Griffin replacing Cummins, who was the second U.S. Attorney told to resign.
Sorry but it doesn't look like they will get very far with this. There is some speculation but nothing of substance. The overall report looks like its treating the issue as a procedural screwup.
Freedom is... never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it’s gone and gone for a long, long time- Ronald Reagan
From: Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy/Firings and activities of fired U.S. attorneys - Congresspedia
So much for this "happening all the time", ehh?Mid-term firings of U.S. attorneys were highly unusual, according to CRS and McClatchy
According to a CRS report published in February 2007 in order to "to ascertain how often, prior to 2007, U.S. attorneys left office before completing their four-year terms without a change in presidential administration," U.S. attorneys appointed and confirmed by a presidential administration generally stay on for the entire length of the administration. Most of those that have voluntarily resigned before their term ended, however, cited personal reasons such as seeking other positions or did so amidst allegations of "questionable conduct." 
Many U.S. attorneys continue to serve after the administration leaves office. However, U.S. attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the president," meaning that the president has the right to terminate their appointments at any time. According to a McClatchy news article dated March 13, 2007, "mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration," as was the case with the George W. Bush firings. 
According to the CRS report, in the past 25 years, with the exception of the most recent eight, only two U.S. Attorneys have been "apparently dismissed by the President." Both cases were under the Reagan Administration.
"obstruction of justice"... Hmmm... isn't that against the law? I'd bet that if a person were suspected of committing "obstruction of justice" an investigation might ensue and a prosecution would not be unusual, ehh?Sen. Dianne Feinstein has stated that, "If any U.S. attorney were removed because of a public corruption investigation or prosecution, this could well comprise obstruction of justice."
From: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPossible rules/legal violations by members of Congress
At the hearings, several of the fired attorneys said that they had been contacted by members of Congress and/or their staffs regarding ongoing investigations. These actions appeared to violate both House and Senate ethics rules. 
Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)
As of late 2006, David Iglesias was the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. Around this time, he received phone calls from both Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) regarding information about an ongoing political corruption investigation of a local Democrat, who he ultimately decided not to prosecute. Iglesias testified that he felt “leaned on” and “sickened” by the contacts. 
Wilson’s actions appeared to violate House rules. Chapter 7 of the House ethics manual prohibits members from contacting executive or agency officials regarding the merits of matters under their formal consideration. House rules (see House rules) also state that if a member wants to affect the outcome of a matter in litigation, the member can file a brief with the court, make a floor statement, or insert a statement into the congressional record. Directly contacting officials to influence an ongoing investigation is not permitted. 
In addition, House rules declare that a member may not even contact a prosecutor with the intent of simply requesting “background information” or a “status report” because the House believes that such requests “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.” 
Lastly, Wilson’s conduct may have violated the requirement that members conduct themselves in a manner that “reflects creditably on the House.” In the past, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was admonished for asking an executive branch employee to engage in an activity having an “impermissible political purpose.” 
On the basis of these potential violations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called for an Ethics Committee investigation into Wilson. 
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
Following Iglesias’ allegation that Domenici pressured him about the pace of the investigation of a New Mexico Democrat, Domenici initially denied speaking to him. He stated “I have no idea what he’s talking about.” Later, however, he admitted calling Iglesias, stating “I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what time frame we were looking at.” 
Domenici’s actions appear to have violated Senate rules. In a discussion of Senate Rule 43, the Senate Ethics Manual states that “[t]he general advice of the Ethics Committee concerning pending court actions is that Senate offices should refrain from intervening in such legal actions . . . until the matter has reached a resolution in the courts.” The manual also indicates that senators should not consult with an agency regarding any enforcement or investigative matter. 
In a request for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, CREW alleges that Domenici violated Rule 43 by pressuring Iglesias to “act quickly on a pending corruption investigation.” In addition, because Domenici made the call shortly before the November 2006 congressional elections, he may have violated the clause restricting members from contacting agencies on the basis of political considerations. 
On March 7, 2007, Domenici hired Lee Blalack, formerly an attorney for former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), as his legal counsel. 
The Senate Ethics Committee confirmed suspicions that Domenici was the subject of a "preliminary inquiry" in the language of a resolution passed on April 17, 2007. The "inquiry" is investigating alleged communication between Domenici and fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. 
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.)
During the March 6 testimony, fired Washington attorney John McKay said that Rep. Doc Hastings’ (R-Wash) senior staffer, Ed Cassidy, called him to inquire about whether or not any investigations were underway regarding voter fraud in the hotly-contested Washington gubernatorial race in 2004 (won by Democrat Christine Gregoire). 
During the call, McKay reminded Cassidy that calling to recommend a federal investigation would be improper. According to McKay, Cassidy "agreed it would be improper" and ended the call. McKay immediately told his staff about the call and agreed with them that "I had stopped Mr. Cassidy from doing anything improper." He continued, however, that he "was concerned and dismayed by the call." 
Also during his testimony, McKay said that when he made a bid to be a federal judge in 2006, he was asked by former White House counsel Harriet Miers and deputy counsel William Kelley to explain "criticism that (he) mishandled the 2004 governor's election."
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is a United States political scandal initiated by the unprecedented midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys on December 7, 2006 by the George W. Bush administration's Department of Justice. Congressional investigations focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage. Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.The U.S. Attorneys controversy touches upon a wide range of issues. The U.S. Attorneys, in their pursuit of justice, wield enormous power. Their political impartiality in deciding which cases to prosecute and in arguing those cases before judges and juries with diverse views is essential.
Is that really such a difficult idea for neo-cons to comprehend?
Again, the Dems have to clean up after the crooked Repukes and restore the intent of the U.S. Constitution back into the law.Changed interim appointment law in 2006
As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 which eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President and undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate. Presidential appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, but the Attorney's General did not require Senate confirmation. The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing not only the Senate confirmation, but also the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March 2007.
So, did the entire Bush administration have bad memories or were they... just a bunch of liars from the beginning?The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.
So, we have established that it is NOT the "firings" that might be illegal, per say but, the unethical and illegal actions expected of these otherwise honest and ethical attorneys, by the office of the President of the United States, that is the problem. Ohhhhhhhh.......
There is so much more on these sites and more.
Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!