Bush is firing attorneys without cause? And some of them are investigating Republicans for corruption?
And he's using a loophole in the Patriot Act that allows him to appoint loyal Republicans who won't investigate him?

This government is the most corrupt in the history of the nation.

corrupt is too kind a word. treasonous is more appropriate.

Congress needs to review the Patriot Act, split it up, and vote on each section as an independent piece of legislation.

And let's not forget: every one of these fired U.S. attorneys was appointed by George W. Bush in the first place . . . he's clearing out his own appointees, weeding out the honest ones.

I almost can't believe this is happening. Leahy needs to get these attorneys in front of Judiciary, stat.

Still, not a peep from the MSM.

Bush is the one that needs to be asked to resign. The US Federal Prosecutors aren't and didn't start the dustbowl wars, weren't incompetent after Katrina, and aren't voting themselves raises. I don't THINK they can vote themselves raises... ;-)

Anyway, Bush has a lot of gall. He and the Rethugs are all striking out in fear and anger now. They need therapy, and electroshock treatments.

George W, you are going down.

"I’d like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike – as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave . . . like this.

Can your associates arrange this for me, Mr. Morden?" Babylon 5 - Vir

Keep digging. But we should require our lawmakers to actually read all legislation that they vote for. Had Diane read it, would she have voted for it. Bush makes me miss Nixon.

We must make sure we pull every legal lever to stop the remorseless BushCo grinding takeover of our beloved America. We liberals need to reach out to our generations Barry Goldwaters. In the end it was the responsible GOP members that undid Nixon.
Josh maybe you can invite former Congressman Bob Barr ( yes of the late Lets Impeach Clinton posse) to do a guest blog on TPM .Congressman Barr has come out against the assault on our Civil Liberties. We all share common values lets restore our Comity and vigorously defend our Constitution.

I cannot make heads or tails out of J.R. Ford's comment. He seems to be saying that nothing can or should be done by Congress about Bush firing U.S. Attorneys who may be working to investigate Republican officeholders. That in itself makes no sense if we care about uprightness.

Then he, the commenter, says that the reason Congress should not act is to protect the balance of powers among the three branches of government........but then J.R. Ford bizarrely states that the president [executive branch] 'has final authority' over the judicial branch, which, if true even in the instance of this unfortunate Patriot Act provision, certainly negates the 'separation and balance of powers'.

Pitchforks.

Torches.

Any way we can get a forced resignation of George Bush and Dick Cheney?

She voted for the PA...

Bush is obviously arming up for a subpoena war with Congress. Know any Democratic senators from Nevada? House speakers from California? Triangulating presidential candidates formerly residing and practicing law in Arkansas? Intimidation, anyone?

This should be the scandal that brings him down, the wretched excess that alarms everyone who has tolerated previous Bush scandals. If these deposed US Attorneys aren't all over the news, if their subordinates follow their new marching orders without mass resignations, then we truly are boiled frogs.

J.R., your post is a misinformed and misguided pile of tripe. First off, Bush did not appoint those U.S. Attorneys that were fired. Their appointments pre-dated Bush coming into office.

Regardless, while Bush may have oversight of the Justice Department as a part of the Executive Branch of government, the Senate has an unequivocal right to advise and consent on appointments.

This overlooked rule flouts that constitutional provision. Kind of ironic that the Republicans who have such a hard-on for the Constitution and "original intent" when it comes to things like abortion, always find a way to sidestep the Constitution when it's convenient.

The U.S. Attorney's position is supposed to be free from politicization, so that U.S. Attorneys can operate without the fear of retaliation for the exercise of their prosecutorial discretion. Does that in fact happen all the time? Of course not, it's an ideal, but an ideal that we should look to achieve as we don't want prosecutorial decisions driven by politics.

It has been ingrained in longstanding governmental tradition that U.S. Attorneys are not be removed from office unless there was some form of misconduct, until now. The appearance of impropriety is blinding in this case, but it's not surprising considering the history of this administration.

I do not want to have a king. America does not want to have a king. Has anyone communicated this concept to the Bush family?

There's no way this will turn out well. I can't believe the absurdity and balls of these crooks to use the Patriot Act to cover THEIR ACTS!!!

They lied to get us into a bad war.

They lied to us when Katrina revealed their incompetence and callousness.

The lied to senior citizens, threatened an auditor's silence, and forced CONGRESSMEN to change their votes on the Medicare package with mafia style backroom politics.

At some point people need to go to jail.

Or we will see this over & over & over again.

That's why this is no longer about revenge. It is about stopping bad precedents and setting deterents to ethics abuse when ethics lapses.

On the Clock,

Dianne probably voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act because in it contained no addendum as to how low the Bush Administration would sink in order to save its own skin? Your argument is ridiculous.

When are you Americans going to learn you dont live in the land of the free...you never did. Your country was founded by and based on slavery and power mongering. Undue influence of the judicial process was always present, it's just now that your government is so confident you'll go back to your American idol and McDonalds and wont put up a fight if its out in the open...know what, they're right. So why dont you just reach for the remote...?

Oh No!! A corrupt politician, I never would have guessed...I love all these Anti-Republicrat comments as if the posters party is any cleaner...You all voted for it, authorized it, and emboldened it, live with it..

my boyfriend says that when nixon fired the guys investigating republican corruption, it was called the "saturday night massacre."

what day of the week did this happen on?

Bush was trusted with new powers and as expected absolute power corrupts absolutely. Way to go America!

This is HUGE! I'm outraged. John Doolittle must be brought to justice.

Thanks TPM and Senator Feinstein. This one of the most important immediate battles to be waged.

Dump Doolittle
http://solongjohn.blogspot.com

OK...Clinton gets a hummer and doesn't fess up and lies about it leading to an IMPEACHMENT hearing.

"W" invents a war where, so far, over 3000 Americans die and another 25,000+ Americans are injured and many times more Iraqis suffer the same fate. The premises used were false. By securing Iraq against Al Qaeda he has in fact created a haven for the group in the chaos. He grants a 300 tax rebate to the masses of the country yet is spending $250,000/minute to sustain the war making the debt other administrations ran up look like child's play. He fires US attorneys who oppose him. Can't IMPEACH him though until he gets a hummer from an intern. Then we have a case. We'd better get Cheney a hooker, too.

Finally, anyone thinking about the cost to the VA to nurse 25,000+ injured back to some semblance of a normal life.

It will be harder and harder for those in the middle to ignore the lies that are being told to us every day by the WH.

This goes beyond the pale.

They are getting ready to declare marshall law.

"Posted by: Chuck Darwin
Date: January 16, 2007 09:51 PM

Any way we can get a forced resignation of George Bush and Dick Cheney?"

Yes, it's called impeachment.

Why haven't articles of impeachment been filed against this criminal administration? When even Republicans are starting to take up arms against Bush's out-of-control administration, why aren't we voting on whether to remove him from office RIGHT NOW?

Quote: "They are getting ready to declare marshall law." - bummed.

Maybe somebody here is interested in checking out the information Philip Schneider leaked to the public in 1995. You find him on Wikipedia and there is a video of one of his lectures on YouTube and GoogleVideo as well. If any of his claims are true there´re even more dreadful things going on. Looks like somebody is starting to have a backup plan.

How about a little balance? Read the following:

"The Pot Calling the Kettle “Interim”
Democrats with short memories rail about Bush’s removal of U.S. attorneys.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

In lambasting the Bush administration for politicizing the appointment of the nation’s United States attorneys, Democrats may be on the verge of redefining chutzpah.
The campaign is being spearheaded on the Judiciary Committee by Senator Dianne Feinstein. She contends that at least seven U.S. attorneys — tellingly, including those for two districts in her home state — have been “forced to resign without cause.” They are, she further alleges, to be replaced by Bush appointees who will be able to avoid Senate confirmation thanks to a “little known provision” of the Patriot Act reauthorization law enacted in 2006.

Going into overdrive, Feinstein railed on the Senate floor Tuesday that “[t]he public response has been shock. Peter Nunez, who served as the San Diego U.S. Attorney from 1982 to 1988 has said, ‘This is like nothing I’ve ever seen in my 35-plus years.’”

Yes, the public, surely, is about as “shocked, shocked” as Claude Raines’s Captain Renault, and one is left to wonder whether Mr. Nunez spent the 1990s living under a rock.

One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention.

Were the attorneys Clinton fired guilty of misconduct or incompetence? No. As a class they were able (and, it goes without saying, well-connected). Did he shove them aside to thwart corruption investigations into his own party? No. It was just politics, plain and simple.

Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. For a dozen years, Republicans had been in control of the White House, and, therefore of the appointment of all U.S. attorneys. President Clinton, as was his right, wanted his party’s own people in. So he got rid of the Republican appointees and replaced them with, predominantly, Democrat appointees (or Republicans and Independents who were acceptable to Democrats).

We like to think that law enforcement is not political, and for the most part — the day-to-day part, the proceedings in hundreds of courtrooms throughout the country — that is true. But appointments are, and have always been political. Does it mean able people are relieved before their terms are up? Yes, but that is the way the game is played.

Indeed, a moment’s reflection on the terms served by U.S. attorneys reveals the emptiness of Feinstein’s argument. These officials are appointed for four years, with the understanding that they serve at the pleasure of the president, who can remove them for any reason or no reason. George W. Bush, of course, has been president for six years. That means every presently serving U.S. attorney in this country has been appointed or reappointed by this president.

That is, contrary to Clinton, who unceremoniously cashiered virtually all Reagan and Bush 41 appointees, the current President Bush can only, at this point, be firing his own appointees. Several of them, perhaps even all of them, are no doubt highly competent. But it is a lot less unsavory, at least at first blush, for a president to be rethinking his own choices than to be muscling out another administration’s choices in an act of unvarnished partisanship.

Feinstein’s other complaint, namely, that the Bush administration is end-running the Constitution’s appointment process, which requires Senate confirmation for officers of the United States (including U.S. attorneys), is also unpersuasive.

As she correctly points out, the Patriot Act reauthorization did change prior law. Previously, under the federal code (Title 28, Section 546), if the position of district U.S. attorney became vacant, it could be filled for up to 120 days by an interim appointee selected by the attorney general. What would happen at the end of that 120-day period, if a new appointee (who would likely also be the interim appointee) had not yet been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate? The old law said the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney would then shift to the federal district court, whose appointee would serve until the president finally got his own nominee confirmed.

This was a bizarre arrangement. Law enforcement is exclusively an executive branch power. The Constitution gives the judiciary no role in executive appointments, and the congressional input is limited to senate confirmation. U.S. attorneys are important members of the Justice Department — the top federal law enforcement officers in their districts. But while the attorney general runs the Justice Department, U.S. attorneys work not for the AG but for the president. They are delegated to exercise executive authority the Constitution reposes only in the president, and can thus be terminated at will by the president. Consequently, having the courts make interim appointments made no practical sense, in addition to being constitutionally dubious.

The Patriot Act reauthorization remedied this anomaly by eliminating both the role of the district courts and the 120-day limit on the attorney general’s interim appointments. The interim appointee can now serve until the senate finally confirms the president’s nominee.

Is there potential for abuse here? Of course — there’s no conceivable appointments structure that would not have potential for abuse. Like it or not, in our system, voters are the ultimate check on political excess.

So yes, a president who wanted to bypass the Constitution’s appointments process could fire the U.S. attorney, have the attorney general name an interim appointee, and simply refrain from submitting a nominee to the senate for confirmation. But we’ve also seen plenty of abuse from the Senate side of appointments — and such abuse was not unknown under the old law. Though the president can nominate very able U.S. attorney candidates — just as this president has also nominated very able judicial candidates — those appointments are often stalled in the confirmation process by the senate’s refusal to act, its imperious blue-slip privileges (basically, a veto for senators from the home state of the nominee), and its filibusters.

But that’s politics. The president tries to shame the senate into taking action on qualified nominees. Senator Feinstein, now, is trying to shame the White House — making sure the pressure is on the administration not to misuse the Patriot Act modification as an end-around the confirmation process.

Why is Feinstein doing this? After all, the next president may be a Democrat and could exploit to Democratic advantage the same perks the Bush administration now enjoys.

Well, because Feinstein is not going to be the next president. She is still going to be a senator and clearly intends to remain a powerful one. Aside from being enshrined in the Constitution, the confirmations process is a significant source of senatorial power no matter who the president is. Practically speaking, confirmation is what compels a president of either party to consult senators rather than just peremptorily installing the president’s own people. Over the years, it has given senators enormous influence over the selection of judges and prosecutors in their states. Feinstein does not want to see that power diminished.

It’s worth noting, however, that the same Democrats who will be up in arms now were mum in the 1990s. President Clinton not only fired U.S. attorneys sweepingly and without cause. He also appointed high executive-branch officials, such as Justice Department civil-rights division chief Bill Lann Lee, on an “acting” basis even though their positions called for senate confirmation. This sharp maneuver enabled those officials to serve even though it had become clear that they would never be confirmed.

Reporting on Lee on February 26, 1998, the New York Times noted: “Under a Federal law known as the Vacancy Act, a person may serve in an acting capacity for 120 days. But the [Clinton] Administration has argued that another Federal law supercedes the Vacancy Act and gives the Attorney General the power to make temporary law enforcement assignments of any duration.”

What the Clinton administration dubiously claimed was the law back then is, in fact, the law right now. Yet, for some strange reason — heaven knows what it could be — Senator Feinstein has only now decided it’s a problem. Like the public, I’m shocked.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies."

Did all of this occured after; when the Republicans lost control of the house to the Democracts?

Everyone should keep your eyese and ears open now
even if he make a sudden involuntary expulsion of air from the nose and mouth due to corrupition of his nostrils.

Oh that powder stuff

As an independant voter , I notice so much strife and conflict in our representation in Washington DC. That perhaps GWB should be scrutinized under the same laws of Impeachment that William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton was charged under. Under the Impeachment process , Clinton is the only US President to be convicted of a felony.

Yes , Bill Clinton is a convicted felon.

Convicted by trial in the Senate.

But it seems , even though the Democrats in Washington are in control of the House and Senate , they do not have enough evidence to bring GWB to a trial , as Bill Clinton was , and then convicted of a felony.

There is no person in the Democratic Party that is willing to do anything other than mouth off about GWB , because other than that , unlike Bill Clinton who was convicted of a felony , they know such an attempt would fail , and that would cost them votes. Pelosi even said publicly before taking office that she would block any attempt to Impeach GWB.

I was taught at an early age , that it is not a right to vote , but that it is a RESPONSIBILITY. And with that RESPONSIBILITY comes researching the issues and the candidates.

If you are a Democrat and do not like GWB , then you should not have voted for Pelosi or any other Democrat that will not have the intestinal fortitude to do anything other than just lay down and hide , and mouth off about GWB and do nothing.

I do not know what party or candidate I will vote for next election. I am an independant and undecided.

As far as anyone forced to resign , well that is an option so you do not get fired. Get a job and see how that works.

I guarantee you that I will be extremely well in formed before I cast my vote.

I strongly urge you to do the same.

SD

I not only support the idea that our current President should be impeached, I think that he, the Vice President, Secretary of State should all be impeached for lying to the American people. They should not just be impeached, they should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship, never allowed to enter the U.S. again and receive no retirement in any form. Perhaps that would teach those who wish to control this country that, as we did more than 200 years ago, that we are an independent nation, and those elected must respond to the people. Our nation was not founded on the the principle of the "Divine Right of Kings." It was founded on the basis of democracy, and those 'leaders' must do what the people, all the people want, and not just what special interests want.

I have been reading all of this garbage that you lefist are spewing out and it is ironic that if Bill Clinton does these horrible things...it is more than ok....but if President Bush does the same thing.....it is impeachable! You people have what is called a mental disorder called liberalism. It is ok in your mind for the liberal judges and the ACLU to trash the constitution.

When people continue to deny that there is a God and do not see fit to give worship, they will be turned over to a reprobate mind..........This has, I am afraid, happended to the Godless liberals of America, and thus a part of our country! We will fall from within,,,,it has already started.

Right on! Finally you show some spine. I have had little cause to trust you in a long time. You nhave been totally weak in opposing this war.....

All cats are grey in the dark

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.

Let's all vote for total anarchy so we can be alone with our thoughts. No government escapes corruption and no society escapes decadence.
ding dong, the witch is dead, etc.

We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president.

At the time, critics of the president linked the firing to an effort to stave off the prosecution of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski.

So, because Clinton did it, it is now legitimate? Well, thank you for that helpful tip.

Clinton didn't fire any US attorneys. US attorneys are appointed to serve four year terms by the incoming President. Like every other President, Clinton came into office and did his job by appointing US attorneys to serve four year terms. No one was fired. No one was surprised by it. No one had their appointment cut short. Rant all you like, but that is how it works.

There have only been two US attorneys fired in the last twenty five years, both by Reagan, one for breaking the law, the other appearing a little nutty, prior to dubya firing eight for purely political reasons.

That is why the firings by dubya are unprecedented.

Clinton's a criminal? Impeached for lying about a blowjob? Let's be real...it was never worth the time, money and national disgrace. The public at large was badly duped by the whole sorry affair and swallowed the hook, line and sinker. That was and always will be a private matter between he and his wife...not mine or anyone else's business.

As has been stated ad nauseum...the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, the problem, as I understand it here, is that the current administration, yet again, wasn't completly forthcoming with the facts/truth; how many lies or half-truths can one tell before total confidence is lost in them? Seems this administration still doesn't trust the public with the truth. Again...lesson not learned.

I served this country for 26years, and I have no confidence in this administration's ability to adequately represent the values of the American people. We are actually a country of moderates...think about it...who care for our fellow man, want peace above war, and are willing to share with others so all may enjoy the blessings of a bountiful existence.

To borrow from a CNN documentary, we were warned...of what would come if Jr. was elected. The GOP loyalist still stand firmly behind him, some calling him the "greatest President in history"...draw your own conclusions, I and about 70% of the American public have.

God Bless us all!

For all you liberal wackos out there, do me a favor. Perform the Google search "Clinton fires US Attorneys", read through the first five articles, and then get back to us. Be aware of the facts, for once, before you open your kool-aid drinking mouths.

Clinton

ALL

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/19/174006.shtml

I am just wondering, where was this outrage when the Clinton Administration fired 93 US Attorneys in March 1993. As an American first and then a conservative I was wondering why can't ANY president fire a US Attorney, why is their job so damn sacred, afterall those of us in the "real world" can be fired for any reason what so every, just wondering.

I just want some consistancy from our politicians, isn't that what we should have.

Also is Dianne Feinstein really the person to be giving anyone a lecture on ethics/character, afterall she had to resign her position on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee for funneling Military Contract to her husband's companies (Perini Corp. and URS Corp). I hate politicans and we as a nation deserve better than we have, they are ALL crooks, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Something else that drives me nuts is you have John Edwards talking about "Two Americas", one for the rich and one for the poor. This is a man who has 4 or 5 homes that are valued at over $1 million each and he flies on a private jets, what the hell?? Where is the consistency there??

How about Al Gore, Mr. Environmentalist himself. This is the same Al Gore who flies around on private jets, drive in SUV's and owns a house that consumes 20x the electricity of a normal home. Talk about the height of hipocrisy.

Then there's good ole Newt Gingrich, (don't worry I am going after the Republicans, even though I am a Republican) who while prosecuting Bill Clinton was carrying on an affair too, hell I guess that didn't matter though????

Then there's those Republicans in congress who claim they are conservative when they are up for election or are back home with "the folks", but no they aren't.

Something else that drives me crazy is the fact that the Political Parties and their cohorts in the media (tv., talk radio, etc) want us to get mad and yell and act like idiots who can't see beyond the D or R in front of their names!!!

I am 33 years old and have been listening to political talk on radio and TV since I was 16 and I have finally had enough!!!!

Damn it people let's be consistant here, not morons who can't see beyond the D or R in front of the politicans names!!!!!!

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

sale@mp3.com