Comments (31)

Michaelmt wrote on March 23, 2007 8:38 AM:

I don't understand how only the President can remove the attorneys, but the President (through Tony Snow) claims to know nothing about it. If he did not, in fact, personally authorize this removal, then those 8 should be at work tomorrow morning.

CarolSoprano wrote on March 23, 2007 8:54 AM:

I have to go to CNN and check the transcript (which they don't seem to have up yet), but I swear I heard Lou Dobbs, during an interview with Sen. Leahy yesterday, say that Clinton let 30 USA's go during this second term (in addition to the 93 he let go when he came into office). I sat there with my mouth open - this statement is such an absolute falsehood and fabrication that it was breathtaking to hear. Where the hell did he get that "fact" from? I know, I should just dismiss it as normal Lou Dobbs idiocy, but this seems even too over the top for him. Leahy just looked perplexed at this statement but didn't refute it, unfortunately.

US8 wrote on March 23, 2007 9:00 AM:

So if I read the CRS report correctly, and apply the Bush "reality" that he fired 8 incompotents, 50% of the most incompotent US Attorneys of the last 25 years served under the Bush Administration. Wow now that is a record to hang your hat on.

yellojkt wrote on March 23, 2007 9:06 AM:

I have taken to calling Al Gonzales Torqueberto for the literal and figurative way he abuses the law. This AG is way more semantically disingenuous that Clinton was with "what 'is' is". They can't come to grips with the definition of words like "torture" and "fired". They are either idiots, treat us like idiots, or both.

Dab wrote on March 23, 2007 9:25 AM:

The CNN transcript is up now. And Dobbs does say that "he [Clinton] fired 93 U.S. attorneys and another almost 30 other U.S. attorneys were fired in the second term."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/22/ldt.01.html

So what gives here? Who were the 30? Will wait for input here before sending an email to CNN.

comadrejo wrote on March 23, 2007 9:36 AM:

Much like the whole "Clinton did too" defense, another cover is the "Lack of willpower to fight immigration" defense, which the DOJ and the White House desperately need to stick. If one remembers how the Duke Cunningham's seat had a special election after his conviction, the Dems ran on the corruption issue, while the Repubs use the immigration issue. The DOJ and WH need the talking point that Carol Lam wasn't doing enough on Immigration to save their hides. It coming apparent that Carol Lam's office spent half their resources on immigration cases, and she may have tried a different approach to the policy, but she wasn't incompetent nor it seems she was bucking immigration violations as a priority, instead she was trying to use her office's resources in the best way possible.

No matter how many bitchy emails from the DOJ political appointees, they wouldn't fire Lam without the strong approval of the Attorney General or the White House. Given they knew they were getting to get a huge backlash from these firings, appears that they knew what they were doing. Also given the improv way they put their explanations of these firings from the DOJ leaders, seems to point that they were told from a higher authority. Much like they dropped the lack of firearms cases from Lam's office, because California law is much more severe for these cases for repeat offenders.

We will see what other excuses the DOJ and White House will cobble together..

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 23, 2007 9:51 AM:

Look at it this way . . . We all were a bunch of nay-sayers rattling on about how this Administration was incapable of originally. We were constantly pointing out that they could old recycle the sloth and slime of prior 'evil-doers'. BUT we were WRONG!

We have been presented with a prime example that there is at least one original thinker in the Executive Branch AND rather than praise their brillance, we rail against their immorality and destruction of justice - Shame on us.

On the other hand, the laws in Title 18 exist cuz of prior idiocy . . . And it can be considered that the only precedence is the amount of brazen stupidity displayed by crime addicts . . . especially in the face of their being a new sheriff in town as of 11/06.

almcq wrote on March 23, 2007 9:52 AM:

Reports of Rove's recent comments in Alabama quote him as saying something to the effect 'Clinton removed 123 USAs', if I remember right. Is this where the 30 number comes from?

K9Brain wrote on March 23, 2007 10:01 AM:

Why not let the Presidential advisors testify under oath? Clinton's did it.

CarolSoprano wrote on March 23, 2007 10:14 AM:

According to the CRS report, 54 attorneys left between 1981 and 2006, with all but 8 leaving to either return to private practice or to take positions as federal judges or other positions in the government. Even if 30 of those 54 left during Clinton's tenure (which I highly doubt, although I haven't run down the list in the appendix of the report to see how many left from 1996-2000), it's still a gross misrepresentation and downright falsehood to imply that Clinton "removed" those 30 during his second term.

Of the 8 that were removed (or resigned) between 1981-2006, 2 were dismissed by Reagan, 1 resigned under Reagan, and the remaining 5 resigned under Clinton (although it looks like 1 resigned after Bush was elected). So, it looks like 4 attorneys resigned (as opposed to dismissed) during Clinton's second term, with at least 2 resigning for ethical problems. That's a far cry from 30.

Kenedeno wrote on March 23, 2007 10:30 AM:

What the real question oughta be is why does anybody give a damn?

These guys are very capable of defending themselves.

The only problem is that he forgot to fire Sutton.

For those of you who feel sorry for the dumped prosecutors; just remember one thing, if you get a piece of paper that reads The United States v Your Name, you are screwed and these guys are the ones who will be doing the screwin'.

If Alberto resigns from this pittance then why would we want an Attorney to represent us who is that weak?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 23, 2007 10:57 AM:

On the serious side, we (the jack-heads living in the blogosphere and desire that our lives be tainted with facts not propoganda) NEED to go on the offensive. Every time one of these Right-wingnuts cough up more garbage, we need to write and call their hairy behinds and drop a truth bomb.

Additionally, the elected Dems need to say everytime they get spiked this garbage, "Name one US Attorney that Clinton termed to impede an investigation against yet another dirty Republican politician or donor - cuz that's what we are talking about here." This answer needs to be like their heartbeat.

Greg Forest wrote on March 23, 2007 11:00 AM:

Love the GOP cop out on the US Attorney scandal. Next time you hear, "Well Bill Clinton did it too," from GOP supporters, ask them what it was that Clinton did. They will spout a long list of sins usually culminating with, "he lied to the American people." Then ask them what was the result. CLINTON GOT IMPEACHED. So why can't we say that this Congress, "did it too?" I guess because the new Congress suckles at the same teat as the previous one.

-Greg Forest

CarolSoprano wrote on March 23, 2007 11:17 AM:

"What the real question oughta be is why does anybody give a damn?"

We oughta give a damn because this is not just about firing at least 8 US attorneys - it is about the broader, more far-reaching implications of the executive branch of government interfering with DOJ investigations and co-opting the judicial branch of government for its own political purposes. Where's your sense of outrage over this? As more evidence comes out it appears that many (if not all) of these attorneys were fired for political reasons - and not the right wing's interpretation of "well, Clinton did it" politics, but because these attorneys were not prosecuting bogus "voter fraud" cases against Democrats or were on the verge of prosecuting Republicans for corruption and other illegalities. Every single case handled by US Attorneys for the past 6 years is now suspect, and every case that will be handled in the coming months and years will be suspect because of these actions.

I think there's a lot to give a damn about, quite frankly. Gonzalez deserves to be impeached (for lying under oath to Congress, among other reasons), and he better have the good sense to resign before it reaches that stage.

Anonymous wrote on March 23, 2007 11:29 AM:

"If Alberto resigns from this pittance then why would we want an Attorney to represent us who is that weak?"

Kenedeno, lying to Congress is a CRIME. You really think criminality equals "strength"? Why would we CHOOSE to have an AG that's a criminal?

Talk about the foxes being in charge of the henhouse, jeeze.

Dab wrote on March 23, 2007 11:31 AM:

CRS list of USAs that "departed" (based on the above criteria of the report) during Clinton's administration:

W.OK Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange: confirmed 9/21/93; departed 11/94; reason Federal judge

N.AL Claude Harris Jr: confirmed 9/23/03; departed 10/02/94; reason died

S.OH Edmund A. Sargus, Jr: confirmed 9/30/93; departed 8/96; reason Federal Judge

SC Joseph Preston Storm, Jr.: confirmed 9/30/93; departed 1996; reason Private Sector (could find no info)

S.FL Kendall Brindley Coffey: 11/20/93; departed 5/1/96; reason resigned (questionable conduct as stated in report)

M.FL Larry Herbert Colleton: confirmed 2/10/94; departed 7/94; reason resigned (questionable conduct as stated in report)

M.GA James Lamar Wiggins: confirmed 2/10/94; departed 1996; reason sought elective office

N.GA Kent Barron Alexander: confirmed 3/25/94; departed 1997; reason private sector (Alexander became Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Emory University in January, 2000. Also on March 13,2007, he gave CNN his opinion on Gonzo's press conference comments. Didn't sound like he "departed" his US Attorney job under "questionable reasons".)

Couldn't find any information about Joseph Preston Storm, Jr., South Carolina.

Dan wrote on March 23, 2007 1:54 PM:

It was reported on the news this morning that only 8% of Americans care about this story. I know that in blog-world any story that further embarrasses or has the smell of corruption by this Administration is treated like chum in the ocean, but doesn't it tiresome after awhile?

92% of us think so.

Kenedeno wrote on March 23, 2007 6:11 PM:

They are all crooks.

Lying to congress?

Congress lies to us, Congress lies to Congress...... etc etc....

I am neither Dem or Rep but the slant each side chooses is subjective according to who's side they are for or against.

Also, it dabbles in the independence of the branches of Government. IMO, The Executive branch does not need to respond in this case.

Justin wrote on March 23, 2007 9:52 PM:

Kendall Coffey, ironically, is one of Christine Jennings lawyer in her recount fight.

Janilyn wrote on March 24, 2007 12:50 PM:

To Dan
There are some of us who realize that the main stream media can not be trusted to honestly report news. If the news is reported it is often limited and does not include enough information to garner understanding by the listener or reader. I often find myself wondering about the cause of or history behind a story that is being reported.

I don't have the time or skills that some who contribute to sites like this one.

The collection of information and insights helps those like myself to gain a greater understanding of important issues and I appreciated the time taken to contribute.

When a president says "I'm the decider" it's a red flag that all of us should be watching, listening, and following the current news...all of it.

What I have to thank the Bush Administration for is that it has made me more a Patriot than I might have been had they not come into 'Power'.

Thanks to all of you who contribute, it's important. Keep it up.

Janilyn

Forward! wrote on March 24, 2007 2:58 PM:

Who said that law enforcement was void of politics?

Nell wrote on March 24, 2007 4:47 PM:

@Dab, and Carol Soprano: Dobbs said ""well, initially, he fired 93 U.S. attorneys and another almost 30 other U.S. attorneys were fired in the second term. Going into the second term."

Is it possible that Dobbs is referring to thirty U.S. Attorneys who were appointed by Clinton but were then not reappointed when their four-year term was up? Could there have been as many as 30 of those? That's a lot of confirmation hearings before a hostile, newly Republican Senate...

My understanding is that the CRS study covers USAs who left office before their terms were up. I haven't looked at it; does it give information for all the U.S. Attorneys under each administration (full-termers and those who left before their appointment expired)?

Jack wrote on March 24, 2007 7:11 PM:

2-2, p.97
DAG000000097
pt02-2070319

From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:40 PM
To: 'tasia_scolinos@yahoo.com'; McNulty, Paul J; 'william.moscelia@usdoj.gov'; Roehrkasse, Brian
Cc: Scolinos, Tasia
Subject: Re: DRAFT Talking Points

* Clinton fired all Bush USAs in one fell swoop. Has been described to me as "have your offices cleared out by the end of the week."
* We fired all Clinton USAs (except Mueller and Warner), but staggered it more and permitted some to stay on for, several months (including Mary Jo White in SDNY who we permitted to stay on for many months).

- - Original Message - -
From: Tasia Scolinos ‹tasia scolinos@yahoo.com,
To: Sampson, Kyle; McNulty, Paul J; william.moscella ((;usdoj gov
cwilliam.moscella gusdoj.gov>, Roehrkasse, Brian
Cc: Scolinos, Tasia
Sent: Sun Mar 04 20:01:46 2007
Subject: DRAFT Talking Points
Below are draft message points that we could insert into Will's testimony...

(snip)

Also, WH comms in under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton USA's in '01 like he did when he took office. Is this true?

rice@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:20 PM:

hello

rice@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:20 PM:

hello

clar@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 3:02 AM:

hello

rose@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 1:22 PM:

hello

rose@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 1:23 PM:

hello

alex@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 4:09 AM:

hello

alex@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 4:10 AM:

hello

alex@gmail.com wrote on May 7, 2007 4:10 AM:

hello