Politics and Federal Prosecutors

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 09:58:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

U.S. Attorneys are being forced out of office, replaced with interim appointees chosen by the attorney general. Why? Let's start with the false explanation:

“We in no way politicize these decisions,” Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Right. That's why the choice to replace H.E. Cummins in Arkansas is the former research director for the Republican National Committee.

The selection of U.S. Attorneys is always political. Justice Department officials assured the NY Times that there are "frequently changes in the ranks of United States Attorneys after an election." That's true when the election produces a new president, but it's usual for an administration to force out prosecutors who the admInistration chose for the position.

A suspicious mind might wonder whether it's a coincidence that Carol Lam lost her job after prosecuting former Rep. Randy Cunningham, and that Kevin Ryan is getting the boot after investigating the backdating of stock options awarded to corporate executives. The Justice Department claims the prosecutors had poor priorities, pushing corruption cases rather than gun cases. Shouldn't federal resources be devoted to complex federal crimes, leaving states to prosecute simple "felon in possession" cases? Not according to the Gonzales Justice Department.

The problem can be attributed in part to "a little-noticed provision in the 2006 reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act that expanded its authority to make indefinite interim appointments."

Previously, a federal judge would appoint an interim United States attorney to serve until the Senate confirmed the president’s nominee. Now the attorney general can nominate someone to serve without confirmation for the remainder of Mr. Bush’s term.

One more problem that Congress needs to fix. Is someone keeping a list?

< New ACLU Report on Government Spying on Protesters | Alberto Gonzales Should Be Impeached >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Politics and Federal Prosecutors | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If bush decides to attack Iran he IS going... (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 12:37:01 PM EST

... to have to reinstate the draft (hence the trial balloon a couple of weeks ago), which will cause such upheaval that I believe he will declare martial law and cancel the elections of '08.

It is at THAT point that he will need every crony AG possible to prosecute draft evasion and prosecute protesters of martial law. Why else do you need every U.S. Attorney possible and their assistants handpicked by bush?

When the protests start he will declare that habeas corpus will be suspended during this time of civil unrest, which will mean "fast-track" prosecutions of protesters en masse, and their immediate confinement to the prison camps being constructed in our deserts by Halliburton.

Nah, that could never happen. Our government would never indulge in falsehoods to start yet another war and punish all the protesting people on whom they are accumulating dossiers.

huh? (none / 0) (#2)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:24:04 PM EST

When is this "previously" during which federal judges appointed "interim" (as opposed to acting?) U.S. Attorneys?

Well.. (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:29:36 PM EST

109th Congress - Congressional Record qualify?

huh again (none / 0) (#4)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:38:28 PM EST

What exactly is the problem that needs to be fixed? As i always understood it U.S. Attorneys are appointed for a term. Are people suggesting that shouldn't be the caser and it should be a lifetime appointment? A longer term?

When a vacancy occurs you get either an "interim" U.S.Attorney or an "acting U.S. Attorney. An acting U.S. attorney is generally a senior assitant in the office whose "acts" as U.S. attorney by signing documents requiring the authorization of a U.S. attorney etc.

An interim U.S. attorney is a person appointed to a term to serve as U. S. Attorney until a full-fledged U.S. Attorney is nominated, confirmed by the Senate and qualified.

The ruckus such as it is seems to be that the "interim" term used to be limited to 120 days.

I'm still at a loss as to when judges supposedly appointed executive branch officers.


: the problem that needs to be fixed? (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:54:59 PM EST

There is more than one, decon. Your question, for instance.

Specter did it, apparently (none / 0) (#5)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:38:47 PM EST

A spokesperson for Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who led the House team working on the bill, said that the provision was inserted by Specter into the final draft of the bill. The language was apparently requested by the Justice Department. Specter's office didn't respond to numerous requests for comment.
Earlier versions of the bill did not contain the provision, which grants authority to the Attorney General to replace U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval. When the House and the Senate first voted in favor of the legislation, the provision did not exist.
Instead, the tweak was inserted during the conference committee, where lawmakers from the House and Senate reconcile discrepancies in the two versions and craft a final bill.
In an unusual move, Republicans blocked Democrats from participating in many of the committee's activities.
According to the original law, the Attorney General could appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, but if they were not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate within 120 days of being appointed, the federal district court would appoint a replacement. The new law wiped away that 120 day rule, in effect allowing the administration to handpick replacements and keep them there in perpetuity without the ordeal of Senate confirmation.

tpm

Gonzales says cronyism is involved (none / 0) (#6)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:43:52 PM EST

But on the part of the judges, apparently all judges, and the Senate, too. All Hail, Gonzales the Infallible.

In his AP interview, Gonzales explained his expanded powers were necessary because federal judges -- who previously had appointed replacement U.S. attorneys -- were susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates.

tpm


Feinstein, Leahy and Pryor are trying... (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 01:53:27 PM EST

January 11, 2007

Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) today introduced legislation to prevent circumvention of the Senate's constitutional prerogative to confirm U.S. Attorneys.
"It has come to our attention that the Bush Administration is pushing out U.S. Attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy and then appointing indefinite replacements without Senate confirmation. We know that this is not an isolated occurrence, but we don't know how many U.S. Attorneys have been asked to resign - it could be two, it could be ten, it could be more. No one knows," Senator Feinstein said.
"And, we have no idea why this is happening. The Attorney General could have legitimate reasons for asking for specific resignations, or this could be motivated by political concerns or worse, derailing on-going investigations. Again, we just don't know.
"We believe that this use of expanded executive authority to appoint interim replacements indefinitely undermines essential constitutional checks and balances. It creates unnecessary instability in these offices and has dramatic implications for important cases currently underway. Given all that is going on with this country and the message from the American people this past election, I am surprised that the Administration would pursue a strategy to circumvent the Senate confirmation process and unsettle these important positions.

Feienstein has written a letter to Abu (see above link - scroll to bottom) asking several questions about what he is doing, and he is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee on January 18 (tomorrow).


I think Pryor is being polite here. (none / 0) (#9)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:00:28 PM EST

It appears that the Administration has chosen to use this provision, which was intended to help protect our nation, to circumvent the transparent Constitutional Senate confirmation process to reward political allies."

He now knows very well what the intention of the provision was; they wouldn't have had to sneak it in otherwise.


: Maybe... (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:04:09 PM EST

...he is using the "make 'em deny it" tactic? Give Abu some rope - maybe he'll hang himself?

here (none / 0) (#11)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:13:22 PM EST

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinions/09052003_usaqanda.pdf

I think this explains this tempest in a teapot.

The administration is simply utilizing the Vacancies Reform Act rather than 28 USC § 546 to appoint acting U.S. Attorneys able to serve longer than the 120 day limit in § 546.

I fail to see why this is a big deal. Certainly, the merits of the departing U.S. attorney is not really the issue. No one can argue with a straight face that a President has to reappoint someone to a position.

As for the replacement, unless there is some argument -- other than it's a political appointment because all appointments are first and foremost political appointments- and some good reason why the person should not receive Senate confirmation -- then what's the big deal in allowing the person to serve a somewhat longer term prior to either him or someone else being confirmed by the Senate?

The potential for (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:18:44 PM EST

"derailing on-going investigations", as Feinstein mentioned. Of which there likely will be many concerning this administrration.


get real (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:38:56 PM EST

first, while it may have occurred occasionally in the past, is anyone familiar with a single instance of a court appointing a U.s. Attorney?

Would not allowing THE JUDICIARY to appoint EXECUTIVE branch officers --even temporary ones-- be a clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine?

Secondly, ALL Presidents make ALL appointments including those in DOJ on the basis of politics.

Moreover, if one's goal is to derail a potential prosecution would not the smart way to do it be simply to have the Public Integrity Section refuse to autheorize it? does it make ANY SENSe to get rid of the local prosecutor pushing for it and creating the likelihood the thwarting of that specific case will become publicized?

As it is in the first instance the reality that the senate would never receive an answer from a nominee suggesting that he would close down a specific investigation for political rteasons even if there was some sort of deal what imagined benefit is there to the confirmation in assuring these hypothetical investigations are being shut down?

If you were President and really were interested in specific investigations rather than general political dissatisfaction of a U.S. Attorney where is the gain when Washington can overrule the U.S. Attorney anyway?

finally, if you were the administration and these matters were on the horizon wouldn't you consider the benefits of having them concluded prior to 2009 when there is a very good chance DOJ will be run by Democrats. the career folks in the U.S.attorneys offices and law enforcement (who do all the nuts and bolts work) will still be there in two years and very few if any SOLs will have run.

I think this is way more a matter that in some districts there is no0 one bush wants to appoint to a 4 year term that he thinks can get easily confirmed and its easier to sidestep the fight. In other words politics as usual when the Executive Branch and legislative Branch are in different hands-- regaerdless of who has which branch at the moment.

Denial. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:44:04 PM EST

Nothing new from you. Been fun. See ya.


typical (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:52:29 PM EST

This place hasn't changed. Thinking is still frowned upon when it interferes with paranoid conspiracy theories.

With SO MUCH to be concerned about that doesn't require making silly the sky is falling pronouncements the ability of this place to focus on trivial BS is astounding.

You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:55:16 PM EST

Decon is a democrat (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:03:00 PM EST

Like some people are social liberals.


Okay (none / 0) (#20)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:04:17 PM EST

Got it.


Relevant to justice, and (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:10:28 PM EST

interesting thread here. Enlightening, when you have the time. ;-)


oh yeah (none / 0) (#34)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:32:12 PM EST

How is that stunt progressing? Haven't heard much about it lately. Have you?


: look it up... (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:33:56 PM EST

no (none / 0) (#24)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:16:13 PM EST

Why would I be kidding about that?

The problem with you folks is none of you can see the big picture. You view everything from the static perspective of "bad guy is President"

I happen to agree with that but i don't agree with therefore anything that enhances the PRESIDENCY is bad. Over time for every instance of the "right" peope being in control of the legislature and the "wrong" people being in control of the executive the situation will be reversed.

Imagine if a President from the Left faced a virulently right-wing legislature that refused to confirm his DOJ appointments because the Senate majority worried they would aggressively pursue white supremacist terrorist organizations. Imagine also that the Courts were still dominated from holdovers from the right-wing era.

How many of you would scream foul if the President used interim or acting appointments to fill vacancies?


This IS satire (none / 0) (#25)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:31:02 PM EST

Imagine if a President from the Left faced a virulently right-wing legislature that refused to confirm his DOJ appointments

I think.


... and this (none / 0) (#26)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:34:52 PM EST

Imagine also that the Courts were still dominated from holdovers from the right-wing era.

...is backhanded insinuation that the currents courts are dominated with holdovers from some mythical left wing era.


more paranoia (none / 0) (#28)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:01:51 PM EST

No, it's not. It's based on the relaity that the Courts are currently dominated by the right wing appointees and because the appoitments are for life that is likely to remain so for quite a time even if either or both other branches shift to the Left.

My point is to THINK about the long-term consequences of things rather than think the right thing is whatever hurts or helps tody.

IWO (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 09:01:20 PM EST

THINK about the long-term consequences of things rather than think the right thing is whatever hurts or helps [today]

Consequences of things like attacking nations that have not attacked you? e.g. Iraq, for one instance, or America, for another? How about Iran?


getting there (none / 0) (#39)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:51:01 AM EST

Good example. Now the next step is to recognize that your side's impulses to act rashly and without thinking things through are just as likely to end badly as the other sides.

it's not really that difficult to understand when you try.


:-) you are?? (getting there, I mean) (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 07:59:30 AM EST

With all due respect, decon. I suggest you have a fair amount of catching up to do... it's not really that difficult to understand when you try


why bother? (none / 0) (#41)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 08:45:58 AM EST

I'm quite sure I'll never catch up to you. A mind like your mind that races at the speed of light from issue to issue and brilliantly discovers that the same cause is always behind all of them every time is admittedly beyond my grasp.

It just takes too long when one foolishly considers the possibility that things are more complex than that.

: Can you be more specific? (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Thu Jan 18, 2007 at 09:39:49 AM EST

Or is the same thing repeated over and over all you have? ;-)

why ... (none / 0) (#27)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:44:49 PM EST

is that beyond your imagination when people here hourly warn the fascists are on the brink of taking over. all my scenario adds to that is after the fascist takeover the voters respond by electing a Leftist President but the Far right still controls the other branches.

Here's a thought. Try thinking. All political actors --individuals and institutions seek to grasp and retain power-- it's the nature of the beast. Power itself is value-neutral. What is done with power is the problem.

Short-sighted people cannot think beyond the moment. Presidents,and legislators come and go. A strong executive has more power than a wek one but over-reacting to a bad President can have the unintended consequence of crippling a good President. It is a mistake to base one's view of the proper balance of power primarily upon one's attitudes about the prsent occupants of an office.

There are in fact some very persuasive good arguments in favor of limiting executive power, i've just yet to see one of them here where i all I see is emotional diatribes based on fear, envy, hatred and the like.

: You need to look a little deeper. (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:02:55 PM EST

all I see is emotional diatribes based on fear, envy, hatred and the like.

DECON (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by Peaches on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:10:27 PM EST

There is the public face of TL, which often is composed of kneejerk reactions by a few who have very little to do with their lives, but post 20-50 comments a day and rate others coments here as either a 1 or a 5 depending on if they consider the commenter a friend or foe.

Then there are others who come here lurking behind the scenes looking for some substance and enjoying occasional good comments, arguments and few entertaining ridicule and pokes between posters. If you have the patience to wade through the sheer volume of edger's comments occasionally you can discover some substance behind the man. However, he often is reduced to petty comments when he is challenged with arguments that are way over his head.

As someone who does attempt to think beyond platitudes, let me tell you I appreciate your perspective and I always know your posts are well-thought out and require equally well-thought out arguments in response. Unfortunately, the ones who comment the most here at TL often fail in achieving this fairly minimal standard.

It is something I often find myself in aghast perplexion not only here at TL, but throughout America. I blame it on television, media and public schooling, but that is another discussion.


Thanks Peaches. :-) (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:12:54 PM EST

Need more relevant and interesting links? Just ask. Or would you rather run away and hide and rate comments in threads you don't engage in?


I suppose (none / 0) (#30)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:05:30 PM EST

the thing that would make TalkLEFT better to you would be less talk from the left?


not quite (none / 0) (#31)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 04:46:23 PM EST

No, it would be intelligent talk from the left. I think the point is that a casual visitor here could reach the mistaken impression it doesn't exist because what there is of it here gets lost in the sea of of banal dogma and can you top this conspiracy theories.


: banal dogma and conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:07:39 PM EST

Yes, there is many days an overabundance of attempts to preach fear of hordes of terrorists bent on forcing the world to submit to sharia law or beheading, waves upon wave of barbarians attacking coastal cities, doctrines of pre-emptive destruction of any country that won't sign Production Sharing Agreements and turn over their natural resources, rapturism, the need to shred the Constitution becauuse its inconvenient, etc., etc., etc.
It could turn off a casual visitor, I agree.

: I see... (none / 0) (#33)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 05:09:57 PM EST

I assume you are also talking about TL's contributor, TChris, then, for even bringing up the subject of the disappearing attorneys, along with a number of senators and newspaper editors and journalists, who also seem to be concerned about it.
People (many of whom would not describe themselves as the left) are talking about it and posting links to actually try to learn more about it. You don't agree, therefore any rebuttal is unintelligent talk from the left.
Got it.

: Anyway, (none / 0) (#37)
by aw on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 07:05:15 PM EST

Why are you so upset that people are suspicious of the Bush administration?

Also I would be concerned (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 02:24:55 PM EST

if Senate confirmation is being circumvented by Gonzales, and the number of U.S. Attorneys being forced out of office has dramatically increased over historical numbers, that 'something is up'. Wouldn't you?

Abu's answers, or more likely evasions, tomorrow should provide some hints...


BTW (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 03:01:38 PM EST

Looks like they backed down finally on Bushs' long circumventing of the FISA Court oversight of NSA Wiretapping:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department, easing a Bush administration policy, said Wednesday it has decided to give an independent body authority to monitor the government's controversial domestic spying program.
In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and that it already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.
...
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.

Snow couldn't explain it. I guess for Bush and his worshippers staying within the law and using FISA would have been something that "interferes with paranoid conspiracy theories".

a comment from Joe Wilson (none / 0) (#36)
by scribe on Wed Jan 17, 2007 at 06:51:28 PM EST

I saw this in a comment thread today (on jury selection) over at FDL, posted by Ambassador Joe Wilson in response to a question about Abu Gonzo and the prosecutor replacements and so on, particularly as to Fitz. I cut and paste:

I have great faith in a system of governance that is based on the rule of law, and as much confidence in the person of Pat Fitzgerald as I have in anybody outside my wife. The fact that the administration is now attempting to politicize the US attorney offices is to me a clear indication that they have come to fear the rule of law. More than anything the administration has done over the past six years, this act of firing US Attornies and replacing them without Senate confirmation is a subversion of everything we hold dear as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, as Americans. Our very republic is under attack.