« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dems Mum on Ousted U.S. Atty Number
Last week, two senior Democratic senators had plenty to say about the attorney general's dissembling over how many U.S. attorneys he had pushed out of office in recent months.
"How many U.S. Attorneys have been asked to resign in the past year?" Sen. Dianne Feinstein pressed attorney general Alberto Gonzales at a Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday. "I 'm asking you to give me a number."
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) also asked Gonzales how many he'd ousted. When the former White House counsel averred it was a confidential personnel matter, Leahy wouldn't have it. "I don't care about the people," Leahy retorted. "Just get us the numbers."
But that was then; now, appetite for further public discussion of the matter appears to have waned.
"I'm not going to get into that," said Scott Gerber, spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), when I asked him what kind of follow-up there has been on the matter since the hearing. I asked Gerber if he could explain his reticence; he declined.
Leahy's office declined comment, instead referring all questions on the matter to Feinstein.
Both offices pointed to legislation co-sponsored by Feinstein, Leahy and Rep. Mark Pryor (D-AR) that would fix the loophole which allows the administration to replace ousted U.S. attorneys with appointed successors for indefinite terms. The bill is scheduled for discussion at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow.
Comments (19)
Crust wrote on January 24, 2007 10:52 AM:This makes no sense to me politically or substantively. Any theories to explain the reticence?
J wrote on January 24, 2007 11:03 AM:I can only imagine is that they're getting information and letting Webb and the stories of this week have the headlines for the moment.
Stephen Johnson wrote on January 24, 2007 11:18 AM:They can bring this back up once they have more damning evidence.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps she is waiting for the number from the AG. The ball is in his court.
Legalize wrote on January 24, 2007 11:21 AM:Could be two things: (a) why pick this fight, which might appear highly techincal and nit-picky to the public, when the administration is getting its ass handed to it in ways the public roundly suports. Perhaps they feel that the PUBLIC will see this as a sidetrack; (b) perhaps they are placated by the fact that the administration claims the new nominees will be brought before the Senate for approval.
Pinson wrote on January 24, 2007 11:46 AM:One other possibility is that she may be hearing unflattering things about USA Ryan in SF and some of the others. Maybe not likely, but it's possible she doesn't want to get too out front on this.
Redbeard wrote on January 24, 2007 11:50 AM:Another possibility: the legislation to close the loophole might be in danger of some Senators blocking it, and she doesn't want to push anyone into Bush's arms.
dump doolittle wrote on January 24, 2007 12:07 PM:"Another possibility: the legislation to close the loophole might be in danger of some Senators blocking it, and she doesn't want to push anyone into Bush's arms."
This sounds plausible.
gtash wrote on January 24, 2007 12:11 PM:So that all goes to Feinstein for explanation. What about Leahy?
JeffC wrote on January 24, 2007 12:12 PM:Or maybe they played her some of her own conversations recorded through their illegal wiretapping.
chris Cruse wrote on January 24, 2007 12:15 PM:Carol Lam (US ATTY in San Diego) subpoenaed Congress for documents from the committess that Cunningham was on. The Republicans ignored the requests and the Democrats have to respond now. Some of those documents may have been destroyed or removed by departing GOP staffers. So, the Dems have a bit of a sticky problem. It is easy to focus on Bush and the problem of unusurped presedential power. But what about Congress? Do the Dems agree that the US Attys can subpoena these documents. Where are all the investigations going? It is one thing for Congress to have an investigation on itself (and likely to have very gentle results) but Lam's subpeona may be breaking new ground that Congressfolk aren't too happy about. Feinstein may be hearing from her fellow Senators and not too sure of how to deal with the whole issue. And...I doubt that just GOPpers may have danced with the corrupt lobbyists- even if they were the predominate ones. So where is all of this going. Talk to us DF- we are the people.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 24, 2007 12:28 PM:I can only hope that the Senate and Congress are wholesale hiring the displaced attorneys and putting them to work investigating the Grand Inquisitor/Attorney's General and his and his immediate predessor's evil deeds.
EasyRider wrote on January 24, 2007 12:37 PM:Maybe they are going to hit AG with Contempt of Congress and put him butt in jail. Then we can impeach his not so cherry ass.
Misha wrote on January 24, 2007 12:42 PM:How about when Congressman Byrd (at least that is who I think it is) the fifty one hundred year old man, asked Peter Pace/Gates who gave the US permission to bomb Somalia? I hear they have done it again. Do we have permission like that? No jokes I am serious.
gjdodger wrote on January 24, 2007 12:50 PM:Pryor said this morning he'd talked with Feinstein within the last couple of days and she was going to try to get their bill to rollback the Patriot provisions scheduled in the Judiciary Committee. As to why Feinstein's office doesn't want to talk about it, they may just be trying to get information on the full scope of the purge.
KY3Democrat wrote on January 24, 2007 12:54 PM:Maybe Feinstein and others are compiling a
portfolio of un-American and unconstitutional
activities by the AG and is building a case for
impeachment of Gonzales.
Appointing US attorneys without Senate approval
RB wrote on January 24, 2007 1:02 PM:(or input from judicial branch in lieu of)
is unconstitutional. AG end-runs around this
principle could land him in a trial by the Senate.
Remember, a crime does not have to be "illegal"
to be impeachable; Spector's provision may not
be enough for the AG to avoid an accusation...
Don't forget that Lam has Felix Arellano in custody, a luckey bust by the Coast Guard while he was out fishing. Biggest drug dealer in history; might be worth billions. Any connections?
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2007 3:35 PM:Explanation for the reticence? Easy - the White House agreed to submit the interim USAs for Congressional approval, so Congress agrees to not make it a public issue. Congress then "fixes the indefinate glitch" with new legistlation racks up a small political victory over the plenary executive.
JF in California wrote on January 24, 2007 5:49 PM:I have been suspicious of Senator Feinstein for some time now. She has had a few high visibilty stands on critical issues, but too many times she has support corporate and elite interests over those of just plain folks.
dubiousraves wrote on January 24, 2007 6:50 PM:Probably DiFi felt she had to go back to polishing up the Flag-Burning constitutional amendment she's co-sponsoring.
Pandering... it's much harder than keeping the executive branch in check.