Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[68] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[69][70][69]
A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."[71]
If one goes against tradition, that does not make it illegal. The President has sole authority here, to do what he pleases. Period.
That's Rove's claim. To the rest of the planet it's called an abuse of power. Nobody said they dont have smart lawyers.
The [firing of the GWB-appointed US attys] controversy publicized an unnoticed 2006 change in the law governing appointments of U.S. Attorneys. The re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 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, because presidential appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, but the Attorney General's did not require Senate confirmation.[33] Bills to rescind the provision were approved by very large majorities in the Senate and the House prior to the end of March, 2007. Ultimately S.214 was signed into law by the President on June 14, 2007, designated Public Law No: 110-34.[34][35][36] The new law specified that all interim attorneys then in office shall serve terms ending 120 days from the signing of the bill. As of June 14, 2007, the Department of Justice had more than twenty United States attorney positions that were not presidential appointees, which are filled by either acting US attorneys (held by civil service first U.S. attorneys) or interim U.S. attorneys appointed by the Attorney general.
"a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.” - Adlai Stevenson
It's not nice to fire attorneys because they don't fall into line politically:
House panel subpoenas Rove for Justice inquiry - Yahoo! News (broken link)
"""The office, which is the department's internal ethics board, also has been investigating whether politics played a part in the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys. Results of the joint inquiry into the fired prosecutors, which has been ongoing for more than a year with the department's inspector general, are expected to be released in coming months.
Gonzales quit last September, dogged by months of accusations that he let political forces at the White House influence hiring and firing decisions at the fiercely independent Justice Department.
The nine U.S. attorneys were fired in an unusual midterm purge in part for apparently not being "loyal Bushies," as Gonzales' former staff chief put it. Justice Department documents show that Rove, as early as January 2005, questioned whether the nation's 94 U.S. attorneys should all be replaced at the start of Bush's second term, and that to some degree he worked to get some prosecutors dismissed.
Additionally, the department's former White House liaison admitted to considering GOP loyalty when deciding whether to hire career attorneys — violating laws that protect against discrimination. """
Eleven days ago, I encouraged you to send an E-mail to your U.S. representative, urging him or her to support the use of inherent contempt against former Bush administration official Karl Rove, if it appeared as if it were necessary. A few days later, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to Rove, seeking his testimony on July 10 about the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
On Sunday, Rove responded publicly to this subpoena during an interview on television. His response has inspired our latest "Abuse of the Week" on the American Freedom Campaign Web site.
Here is the text from our site:
In one of the most blatant dismissals of congressional power ever uttered by a current or former member of the Bush administration - which is no small accomplishment - former White House official Karl Rove essentially denied that congressional oversight power exists during an interview ABC's "This Week" on May 25.
When asked whether he planned to testify about his role in the suspicious prosecution and imprisonment of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman by the U.S. Department of Justice, Rove said that he had no intention of complying - even after being issued a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee. Here is his exact response:
"Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, wants to be able to call presidential aides on its whim up to testify," Rove said. "It's going to be tied up in court and settled in court."
One of the keys to our system of checks and balances is the ability of Congress to oversee the activities of the executive branch and to seek testimony where appropriate. To describe this as a desire of Congress to "call presidential aides on its whim up to testify" is simply arrogant and, frankly, un-American.
Fortunately, Congress has the ability to use its inherent contempt power to have Rove arrested and brought to Congress to testify. Given Rove's statement, Congress MUST now use this power.
If you have not yet used our Web site to urge your U.S. representative to arrest Karl Rove, please do so now by clicking on the following link.
Thank you as always for your support and for taking action to defend our Constitution.
Steve
Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
