Comments (10)

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 10, 2007 2:56 PM:

It is my fervent hope and desire that we all kill off the “. . . for political reasons” phraseology and substitute the far more accurate and truthful:

“. . . to impede and subvert justice.”

“. . . for political reasons” is the fascist plutocratic framework of those in the White House. It steals that thunder and terror of the truth of the situation. It hides the destruction of the ‘American Way’ in obscuring language. It condemns our children to living in fear of jack-booted doppelgangers masquerading as angels of justice and democracy.

We stand at the precipice between the valley of ‘continuing to live in an Orwellian universe’ AND the land our founding fore fathers craved from the dirt with their bare hands and fed with their and their children’s blood.

Please join me in squelching en-DARK-enment from our land. Type “. . . to impede and subvert justice.”

Jeremy wrote on April 10, 2007 3:04 PM:

So here we go again....

1) One reason given for firing the attorneys was to free up slots so that other good Repub soldiers could have resume-building time as USAs. The revelation that six (!) USAs are working in other postings while still holding down their USA seats puts the lie to that one; that we're adding yet another case in which a Repub is given another job but continues to cling to his USA seat just really nails that coffin down tight.

2) Iglesias was called out for being absent from his USA job too much. Ditto, and now nailed down tighter as well.

So we're seeing two more of the excuses that were offered being totally disproved.... so just what was the reason for the firings, anyway?

Anonymous wrote on April 10, 2007 3:16 PM:

RE:
"So we're seeing two more of the excuses that were offered being totally disproved.... so just what was the reason for the firings, anyway?"

Supress Abramoff investigation......Oh wait, what was the question?

freepatriot wrote on April 10, 2007 3:25 PM:

so the whitehouse talking points have been proven false by facts on the ground

if Mr Iglasias wasn't fired for missing work ( a violation of the law since he's a National Guardsman), why was he fired ???

looks like dominichi and his lapdog congresswoman are the true suspects in this case

bordersmuggler wrote on April 10, 2007 3:46 PM:

Quoting from the April 4 story in The Hill:

“[Iglesias’s] dismissal from the Justice Department — that is the one clear-cut example of a dismissal that appears to be based almost entirely on political motivation and political interference,” [Gerry Hebert, the executive director of the Campaign Legal Center and a 21-year veteran of the Justice Department] said....

“Pete Domenici needs to be placed under oath and asked whether he talked to Bush or Gonzales or Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, and what he said,” Hebert said.

Unlike other Bushies under investigation, Senator Domenici appears to be deeply disturbed that this impropriety has come to light. He is probably aware that after a long career of public service to New Mexico, his lasting mark will be this incident.

Node of Evil wrote on April 10, 2007 4:09 PM:

I searched through the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization bill (checking anything around the word "attorney) and it seems these are the only two provisions regarding the appointment and allocation of U.S. Attorneys. More might be in there, but if so it doesn't mention the Attorney General or U.S. Attorneys directly. While doing this search I did notice a bill from 2003, called the "21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act". I think it lays the groundwork for much of the re-ordering of priorities in the Bush Administration and Attorney General's office. Among other things it appears to centralize the legal authority over national security in the Attorney General's office with the creation of an Assistant Attorney General for National Security. The appointment of that person is done largely at the discretion of the White House, although there's a bit of dancing in the language about whether or not Congress has a say in the matter:

(d) PROCEDURES FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—(1) Section 17 of Senate Resolution 400 (94th Congress) is amended—
(A) in subsection (a), by striking "(a) The" and inserting
"(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b), the";
(B) in subsection (b), by striking "(b)" and inserting "(2)";
and (C) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
"(b)(1) With respect to the confirmation of the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, or any successor position, the nomination of any individual by the President to serve in such position shall be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and, if and when reported, to the select Committee for not to exceed 20 calendar days, except that in cases when the 20-day period expires while the Senate is in recess, the select Committee shall have 5 additional calendar days after the Senate reconvenes to report the nomination.
"(2) If, upon the expiration of the period described in paragraph (1), the select Committee has not reported the nomination, such nomination shall be automatically discharged from the select Committee and placed on the Executive Calendar."

Just after that there's a bit about how the Senate can, of course, decide to take back this authority, but I'm fairly sure that never happened. Also tucked away was an ammendment which modified the wording of Title 19, Sec. 1913 to read as follows:

Sec. 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys

-STATUTE-
No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure, or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its departments or agencies (...) from making any communication whose prohibition by this section might, in the opinion of the Attorney General, violate the Constitution or interfere with the conduct of foreign policy, counter-intelligence, intelligence, or national security activities. Violations of this section shall constitute violations of section 1352(a) of title 31.

So, the Attorney General is given wide leeway (if I'm reading this correctly) to determine whether or not the expenditure of Justice Department funds for lobbying activities is a good or bad thing, based on whether or not those activites may affect national security or violate the Constitution. There was definitely a consolidation and concentration of power in the Atorney General's office as legislated by this bill, I haven't read the full text so there's probably lots more. Essentially, though, I get the impression that the role of Congress in all of its is to receive reports, and to trust that the Attorney General is giving them the right information.

Wretched Refuse wrote on April 10, 2007 11:37 PM:

I say Revolution. I am sick of trying to bandaid this poor Constitution that the Republifucks have pillaged and raped time and time again.
It is time and appropriate as the Declaration of Independence calls us to do:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

How appropriate code word = loss

wanderindiana wrote on April 11, 2007 1:06 PM:

This read from March 16, 2007 at Crime & Federalism is worth your time:

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2007/03/connecticut_buc.html

"Consider Connecticut, where prosecutorial business is booming and the U.S. Attorney's office is far from moribund. Kevin O'Connor, the top federal prosecutor, has been kicked upstairs. He now splits his time between Washington and Connecticut. The result seems to be an emboldened Connecticut office."

wanderindiana wrote on April 11, 2007 1:11 PM:

More background on O'Connor here:

http://www.inqnews.com/Article.php?id=640

"I asked O'Connor about the efforts of the Project Safe Neighborhood. 'The efforts of this program are working in Connecticut. We are ridding the streets of guns the best we can and putting felons caught with guns in jail,' said O'Connor."

Watch his ties to PSN.

wanderindiana wrote on April 11, 2007 1:23 PM:

So Kevin O'Connor thinks it's okay to put peaceful protestors on terrorist watch lists:

http://tinyurl.com/2earr4

"O’Connor suggested that liberty needed to be sacrificed for peace of mind. 'Public security justifies the fact that these lists may be over-inclusive,' he said. 'No one knows with 100 percent certainty who is a threat and who isn’t.' ”