Key Witnesses to Be Interviewed in Prosecutor Firings

Despite the testimony of officials from this Administration, we are learning through press accounts that many more than seven U.S. Attorneys were replaced and that perhaps a dozen or two dozen or three dozen were considered for firing. It was only through press accounts -- not the testimony of Department employees or the selective documents the Department has so far produced -- that the public learned that one of our witnesses today, Todd Graves, the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, was on those lists and asked to resign. He is from an earlier wave of replacements in 2006.

We have also learned in recent weeks about apparently extensive efforts by operatives of this Administration to screen the political allegiances of applicants for career law enforcement positions. Former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey has said such efforts to apply a partisan litmus test strike “at the core of what the department is.” We know from her guarded admissions before the House Judiciary Committee that Monica Goodling “crossed the line” in engaging in this conduct. Who else at the Department was involved, who knew this was going on, who acquiesced or approved it, who directed it? These are all questions that the Department of Justice has refused to answer or explain.

Click to expand...

ADK_Forever said:

This particular issue hounding "Don Bush's" reign of power is about much more than the firing of 7, or so, U.S. Attorneys. It's more about Don Bush running a basically corrupt party while he was in "our house".


Panel Hears From Department Of Justice Official Schlozman, Fired U.S. Attorney Graves

I'm sure you would like all of us non-Bushies to just go away and drop our concerns that Bush, and his cronies, were getting away with all the crimes they committed. Your rhetoric filled, non facts didn't work before so, what makes you think they'll convince us now? :roll: More and more, as the layers covering what BushCo really did are pulled back, we all will see just how corrupt that embarassment of a Presidency was.

Click to expand...

HelloDollyLlama said:

The Bush gang fired U.S. attorneys for being too zealous in prosecuting Repulicans or insufficiently zealous in prosecuting Democrats. They turned the entire U.S. justice system into a sledgehammer to crush its political opponents with. There is a legal term for that -- obstruction of justice. One of their victims was a Democratic governor who was convicted illegally. And anybody who doesn't get that it's just plain wrong to use the federal government to persecute its enemies has chunky peanut butter where their brains ought to be.

Glad I could help!

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

I have a little hypothetical story I'd like to tell.

Obama fires all of the Bush appointees, and hires his own. Before the first day on the job, Obama/Biden directs them to a meeting. They then proceed to tell them all that their main focus will be to go after Republican as much as possible. Focus on them, and witch-hunt them down.

And if any Democrat is in trouble in regards to the law, to do aything possible to see that nothing comes of it.

Is that okay with you, because they serve at the pleasure of the President?

Click to expand...

ADK_Forever said:

Again, the Dems have to clean up after the crooked Repukes and restore the intent of the U.S. Constitution back into the law.

Click to expand...

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.[28] 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.

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

Link?

.....

Click to expand...

t is not true that at the pleasure of the president allows the president to fire U.S. attorneys for any reason or, indeed, no reason at all.

For example, it is a federal felony to "corruptly" endeavor "to impede any officer in or of any court of the United States in the discharge of his duty" or to "corruptly" obstruct or impede "the due administration of justice." If a president were to fire a U.S. attorney corruptly with the purpose of obstructing a particular criminal investigation, it would not be a permissible discharge.

It is likewise a felony to receive a bribe in order to appoint any person to federal office. If a president were to discharge a U.S. attorney in order to make way for an appointment that was bought and paid for, that, too, would be impermissible.

To take a third example, if a president were to fire a U.S. attorney because that official failed to discriminate among potential targets of prosecution on an intentionally partisan basis, he would be violating his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution." It would violate the First Amendment to intentionally discriminate between identically situated potential criminal defendants on the ground that some were Democrats and some were Republicans.

Finally, the president is constitutionally obligated to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which is a ban on the willful suspension of statutes. Although this may seem the least-likely scenario, if a president were to fire U.S. attorneys in order to undermine the execution of otherwise constitutional laws, his behavior could plausibly be regarded as an impeachable offense.

To President Bush's supporters, these scenarios may sound far-fetched. The problem, however, is that the Justice Department's explanations for what did happen have been so incomplete and inconsistent that Congress is no longer willing to give the administration its usual presumption of good faith.

The Columbus Dispatch : Peter M. Shane: U.S. attorney firings poorly defended

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

Are you just on autopilot, posting things without actually reading the responses? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Click to expand...

Phoenix said:

Well, It MAY have been helpful, IF you had some facts to back up what you are claiming. However, a handful of excrement fresh from the anal cavity is not really that helpful.

But THANKS anyway!

Click to expand...

Phoenix said:

I didn't to post all that info but I did want to address this part;


Some validity does exist here. The legislative GAVE UP their power to the executive branch. The law eliminated one of the checks and balances between the two branches. That what we get from hurried and urgent legislation that get shoved through Congress. I'm glad they learned a lesson and that will not happen again.

Oh wait.:shock:

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.

Click to expand...

independent_thinker2002 said:

Yet it's Obama that is the Commie.

Didn't Castro jail his political opponents?

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

I am going to save your post for the next time you accuse the Obama administration of conducting an unfair witch hunt against the Bush administration.

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.

Click to expand...

Seems like TD, Phoenix and JMak would be perfectly okay with this.

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

It seems that you're okay with the legal system being corrupt. Okay.

Click to expand...

aps said:

I got that wording from the DOJ report itself. Here's a good article by a law professor. It sounds legally correct.

Click to expand...

Not only does the Attorney General historically have authority with respect to local U.S. Attorney's Offices, but he (or she) has also enjoyed the benefit of the doubt on removals of executive officers such as U.S. Attorneys, including those subject to Senate confirmation.

Why? Quite simply because it is the executive who is in the best position to evaluate U.S. Attorneys' performance, and who is responsible for it. In 1923, Chief Justice Taft, the only member of the Supreme Court to have also served as president of the United States, affirmed that removal authority vis-à-vis executive officers, even those subject to Senate confirmation, was an incident of the president's power to nominate, not the Senate's power to confirm. Taft put it this way in the landmark case of Myers v. United States: "The power to prevent the removal of an officer who has served under the President is different from the authority to consent to or reject his appointment. When a nomination is made, it may be presumed that the Senate is, or may become, as well advised as to the fitness of the nominee as the President, but in the nature of things the defects in ability or intelligence or loyalty in the administration of the laws of one who has served as an officer under the President are facts as to which the President, or his trusted subordinates, must be better informed than the Senate, and the power to remove him may therefor be regarded as confined for very sound and practical reasons, to the governmental authority which has administrative control. The power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, not to the power of advising and consenting to appointment, . . ." (Emphasis added.)

Click to expand...

The eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys may all be fine men and women; that is not inconsistent with their having been dismissed. The Constitutional system, as it has taken form over our history, puts the choice of dismissal solely in the President's hands (as he is chooses to be informed by his Attorney General). Accordingly, the President is within his rights to dismiss a U.S. Attorney even for the simple reason that he preferred someone else for the job.

Some have suggested at least some of the U.S. Attorneys were dismissed in order to shield criminal wrongdoing - that is, dismissed so that criminal prosecutions that they had overseen would fade away or be resolved with lenient plea agreements. Before making such serious accusations, however, the Congress ought to come forward with hard proof, not the whine of innuendo.

Moreover, and significantly, none of the dismissed prosecutors has come anywhere close to making that accusation. Surely, it should not be inferred.

In making its inquiry, then, Congress should be careful not to subvert what history has so well provided: the executive's ability to dismiss its officers is the structural mechanism by which the President "takes care" that the law is faithfully executed.

Click to expand...

Before 1981, President Carter replaced U.S. Attorney David Marston at the request of Democratic Representative Joshua Eilberg. Marston had been investigating corruption charges against Eilberg and Daniel Flood, another Democratic Representative.[172] The probe continued after the attorney was replaced, however, and Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid. Eilberg was eventually sentenced to five years probation and a $10,000 fine,[173][172] and Flood was censured for bribery by 96th United States Congress.

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

That article makes some interesting claims, but everything I've ever read indicates that he's wrong. Even groups like Media Matters acknowledge that the president's power to fire is not subject to those limitations.

Here's an article that lays out a very good historical explanation for the executive privilege:





FindLaw's Writ - Kmiec: An Historical Perspective on the Controversy over U.S. Attorney Firings


Again, I ask anyone who cares to answer: What do you think about this?



This was far worse than even any of the wildest allegations in this case. A Congressman being investigated for bribery asked Carter to fire the US Atty who was doing the investigation, and Carter did it.

There were no hearings. There was no 4 year long investigation. There were no subpoenas, no contempt charges, no allegations of corruption on Carter's part, and most of all, not even a peep from anyone in Congress suggesting that this might not be within the president's authority.

So, I ask, if it was within the president's authority then, why is it suddenly not within his authority now?

Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:

That article makes some interesting claims, but everything I've ever read indicates that he's wrong. Even groups like Media Matters acknowledge that the president's power to fire is not subject to those limitations.

Here's an article that lays out a very good historical explanation for the executive privilege:





FindLaw's Writ - Kmiec: An Historical Perspective on the Controversy over U.S. Attorney Firings

Click to expand...

Again, I ask anyone who cares to answer: What do you think about this?



This was far worse than even any of the wildest allegations in this case. A Congressman being investigated for bribery asked Carter to fire the US Atty who was doing the investigation, and Carter did it.

There were no hearings. There was no 4 year long investigation. There were no subpoenas, no contempt charges, no allegations of corruption on Carter's part, and most of all, not even a peep from anyone in Congress suggesting that this might not be within the president's authority.

So, I ask, if it was within the president's authority then, why is it suddenly not within his authority now?

Click to expand...

independent_thinker2002 said:

I got away with smoking pot when I was younger. Let's never investigate pot use again. :roll:

Click to expand...

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Click to expand...

aps said:

Okay, NYU, here's the Constitution's description of the President's power:



I don't see any power to fire for no cause in the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Despite Carter’s noble intent, Bell refused. In a little-known memorandum to the president dated April 11, 1977, he explained why. Any law that restricted the president’s power to remove the attorney general – and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney – would likely be found unconstitutional. The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. “Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations,” Bell wrote.

Carter argued that the attorney general is different from other Cabinet officers. The job entails dual responsibilities: carrying forward White House policies like any other Cabinet official, and representing the law of the United States, whether it coincides with the president’s policies or not. Bell agreed, but he found that insufficient to justify separating the attorney general and subordinate U.S. attorneys from presidential direction.

Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft’s opinion in Myers vs. United States (1926).

Congress enacts different types of laws, the chief justice opined. Some laws require close supervision by the president, while others draw upon the expertise found within the specific agencies of government. Much law, however, generally empowers the executive, and when subordinates perform these functions, “they are exercising not their own but [the president’s] discretion,” the court said. “Each head of a department is and must be the president’s alter ego in the matters of that department where the president is required by law to exercise authority.”

The court’s analysis did not deny the unique nature of the Justice Department. Indeed, Taft acknowledged that there may be duties that require evenhandedness from executive officers, “the discharge of which the president cannot in a particular case properly influence or control.”

Click to expand...

aps said:

I don't know what to make of this article. The report and the article I posted are in agreement with each other and they make sense to me. I know I have read or heard somewhere that the only absolute power the president has (a power that cannot be questioned) is the power to pardon. Executive privilege has its limits. Why wouldn't this power (the power to fire) have its limits?

Click to expand...

aps said:

Okay, NYU, here's the Constitution's description of the President's power:

I don't see any power to fire for no cause in the Constitution.

Click to expand...

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.
(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President

Click to expand...

HIGHLIGHT: The forced mid-term resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys was an unprecedented event in American history. Nearly one year after the administration executed the removals, the House Judiciary Committee was still reviewing and publicizing emails, memoranda, and other documents in an effort to understand how the firings were effectuated. This Note examines many of those documents and concludes that the removals were likely carried out for partisan reasons. It then draws on the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and separation of powers principles to argue that Congress is constitutionally empowered to enact removal limitations for inferior officers such as U.S. Attorneys so long as those limitations do not impermissibly infringe on the president's Article II authority or result in congressional aggrandizement. Because of the partisan nature of the attorneys' removals, this Note argues that Congress should consider such legislation to limit the president's removal of U.S. Attorneys. In considering the constitutionality and efficacy of a potential statute, this Note examines three previous pieces of legislation on which such removal limitations could be modeled before proposing a fourth, hybrid statute that would emphasize the separation of powers values of balance and accountability in barring "partisan" removals of U.S. Attorneys. The Note concludes by claiming that the framework that the Supreme Court created in McDonnell Douglas v. Green can supply a useful analog to manage the fact-intensive probe into whether a removal was impermissibly "partisan" under the proposed statute or merely a typical, "political" removal, which any removal statute must likely allow to meet constitutional muster.

Click to expand...

MrVicchio said:

The president's right to fire - Los Angeles Times

Click to expand...

aps said:

The author of your article is the same author as NYU's article. He just so happen to work for Reagan and H. Bush. Sorry, but my article, written by a law professor, is in synch with the finding made in the Department of Justice investigation. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Click to expand...