More on the Fired U.S. Attorneys Who Opposed the Death Penalty

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:12:00 AM EST
Tags: Alberto Gonzales (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update: The LA Times is on the three fired U.S. Attorneys who opposed the death penalty.

Original Post:

Fired Margaret Chiara and the Death Penalty

On February 24, I wrote about the possibility Michigan U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara was fired because of her anti-death penalty beliefs.

Quoting the Washington Post,

Chiara -- who had once studied to be a nun -- is personally opposed to capital punishment....Another of the fired U.S. attorneys, Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix, also clashed with Washington over the death penalty.

The Washington Post today has more on Chiara's firing and it isn't pretty for the White House. She was well-respected by the judges, federal prosecutors and defense lawyers in her district.

More...

This e-mail Chiara wrote to Assistant Attorney General is quite revealing. After saying she asked Michael Elston for an explanation of why she was fired she says:

He could offer no explanation other than that I erroneously assumed that good service guaranteed longevity because other USAs have been asked for their resignation without cause.

I read that to mean Elston, since resigned, told Chiara that other she wasn't the only U.S. Attorney being fired without cause. Yet the Administration continues to assert the firings were for cause.

Since the job is a political plum, the White House would have been better off giving no explanation of the firings. In its haste to provide explanations when the media caught on to the firings, it chose to prevaricate. That is what fails to pass the smell test. As always it seems with this Administraiton, it's the cover-up that gets them.

< Gonzo's Support Erodes? Like Abandoning Ship? | ACLU Blogging the Military Commission Proceedings >

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.

More on the Fired U.S. Attorneys Who Opposed the Death Penalty | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

At will and your boss (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by jamie 2002 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:52:13 AM EST

US Attorneys work for the United States of America, not the Republican party.

They were fired because they would not do Republican dirty work.

didn't Gonzalez (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Jen M on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:51:26 AM EST

want to replace them without congressional review using the patriot act as an excuse?

No (none / 0) (#10)
by manys on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:28:31 PM EST

No, Miers did and the suggestion came up before the Patriot Act reauth happened.


: Patriot Act (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:42:32 PM EST

A 2006 revision of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the United States Code to permit the term of an interim U.S. Attorney to last until a nominated replacement is approved by the Senate, in effect giving the United States Attorney General, the officer authorized to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval. On March 20, 2007, the Senate voted to overturn this provision.
The Senate overturned it last week, about the same time the Judiciary Committee started approving subpoenas in their investigation, as part of the response to the scandal involving Gonzales and his approval of the firing of the eight Attorneys

re: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by eric on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:55:18 PM EST

The strange thing is that she surely could have been fired because Justice didn't think she wasn't pursuing the death peanalty.

But they didn't. Why not just tell the truth?

Didn't they know that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:08:13 PM EST

when they hired Chiara? Did her position change?

At Will (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jarober on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:02:19 PM EST

Still Baffled by the concept of "At Will" employment. It doesn't matter what they said, or how they explained it - firing US attorneys is not something the Congress has any control over. They can hold whatever hearings they want - and the administration can give any rationale they feel like.

Any rationale? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by manys on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:27:11 PM EST

The administration cannot give "any rationale" they like and have the firings be legal in all cases, but something tells me you already know this.


Let's go over this again. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by eric on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:48:58 PM EST

Still Baffled by the concept of "At Will" employment.

Yes, you are. Think back to law school. Remember, you can be fired for "any reason or no reason, but not a bad reason"?

Remember?


: Think back to law school? (none / 0) (#23)
by Sailor on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:05:47 PM EST

Think back to law school!?
Just like driving someone crazy ... that's not a drive, that's a putt.

What a surprise! (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:01:48 PM EST

So, you are at odds with company policy and have fussed with your boss and others about it...

And you got fired!!

Never happened to anyone else.

Jamie (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:50:44 AM EST

If they work for everybody, they work for nobody.

Think about the implications of that.

eh (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by manys on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 01:29:53 PM EST

Nice tautology, but it's not airtight. They don't work for "everybody," they work for US citizens and taxpayers.


So??? (1.00 / 2) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:06:11 PM EST

You're ducking the point, and I think you know the point.

Nice try.


So... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by manys on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:01:16 PM EST

If your point is that working for the citizens of the US is the same as not working for anybody, then I get your point even if I don't agree with it.


: manys (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:06:11 PM EST

sigh.....
The point was that if they work for the citizens of the US, etc., then they are working for everybody. And if they work for everybody, then obviously they must be independent, which would lead to a fourth branch of government. Unelected themselves, unappointed by anyone actually elected and thus responsoble to the people they become not unlike Zombies, or the civil service....

Still doesn't get the concept ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Sailor on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:30:31 PM EST

... of We The People.


JT (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:42:24 AM EST

Do you think it reasonable to fire a prosecutor that was opposed to jail time or fines?

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

: Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:35:59 PM EST

I'd love to see some prosecutors like that!

I wonder (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 09:44:13 AM EST

what the reaction on this site would be if the Prez was against the death penalty (try to get elected with that stance) and the prosecutor was for the death penalty.

It would still be... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:11:03 PM EST

a firing for political reasons, still be unprecedented, and still be wrong...even though I'd personally be happy a pro-death attorney was ousted.


Unprecedented (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:25:16 PM EST

Holy 93 in '93, Batman!


was that midterm? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by kdog on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:34:52 PM EST

It's the mid-term canning that is unprecendented.


: Then (1.00 / 2) (#25)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 07:11:32 PM EST

you need to make sure the term midterm is inserted each time before you post it.
Everyone knows it has been done before on a much larger scale.

It's the mid-term canning that is unprecendented.

LOL midterm in an even month, fifth day of the week, it sure hasn't been done before matching that criteria!

eric (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:09:40 PM EST

Yet the Administration continues to assert the firings were for cause

The cause was that they wanted to fire them.

And it wasn't the administration who brought up the death penalty issue.

Chiara and Charlton? (none / 0) (#1)
by Arlen on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:40:30 PM EST

Great connection to Paul Chartlon on this...as soon as I read your headline here I immediately thought about him. Seems as though there might be something of a trend here. Obviously this is a pretty pro-death-penalty White House; the President's record in Texas as Governor should be a testament to that.