The untold story of the firing of Nevada’s former U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden may yet be unraveled. The House on Tuesday voted to continue a lawsuit seeking testimony from the Bush administration about the politicizing of the Justice Department. As part of a routine package of rules governing the opening of the new Congress, the House agreed to continue the lawsuit it brought last year after President George W. Bush’s former officials ignored subpoenas to produce documents and appear before the House Judiciary Committee.
The move by the Democratic-controlled House is an assertion of congressional authority after several years of what scholars see as executive branch overreach by the Bush administration.Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said Congress should do no less. “A very fine U.S. attorney from the state of a Nevada was unceremoniously removed for no reason – I would like to know why, I would like it top be made public and I would like those responsible punished,” Berkley said. “By passing this rule we have assured this will be done”…
As part of the investigations, the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed testimony from former White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had been among those possibly involved in the decisions. It also sought documents from Joshua Bolten, the former White House chief of staff. When the White House cited executive privilege in refusing to comply with the subpoenas, the House sued for contempt. Separately, the committee also sought information from Bush’s former top adviser Karl Rove.
Because the subpoenas expired Tuesday, with the start of the new Congress, the House passed rules to ensure they could be swiftly reissued. Without the subpoenas the underlying lawsuit could be challenged. The committee expects to reissue the subpoenas in coming days.
|
never let go of the u.s. attorney scandal…
Saturday 24 March 2007 In January 2006, Kyle Sampson responded to Harriet Miers inquiry about replacing U.S. Attorneys with this email: There are practical obstacles to removing and replacing U.S. Attorneys. First, wholesale removal of U.S. Attorneys would cause significant disruption to the work of the Department of Justice. Second, individual U.S. Attorneys often were originally recommended for appointment by a home-state Senator who may be opposed to the President’s determination to remove the U.S. Attorney. Third, a suitable replacement must be found in consultation with the home-state Senator, the difficulty of which would vary from state to state. Fourth, a background investigation must be completed on the replacement — a task often complicated if the outgoing U.S. Attorney stays in office. Fifth, after nomination, the Senate must confirm the replacement.
None of the above obstacles are insuperable. First, a limited number of U.S. Attorneys could be targeted for removal and replacement, mitigating the shock to the system that would result from an across-the-board firing. Second, the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) could work quietly with targeted U.S. Attorneys to encourage them to leave government service voluntarily; this would allow targeted U.S. Attorneys to make arrangements for work in the private sector and "save face" regarding the reason for leaving office, both in the Department of Justice community and in their local legal communities. Third, after targeted U.S. Attorneys have left office or indicated publicly their intention to leave office, then the Office of the Counsel to the President can work with home-state Senators and/or other political leaders in the state to secure recommendations for a replacement U.S. Attorney. Finally, after background investigations are complete and the replacement candidate is nominated, the Attorney General can appoint the nominee to serve as interim U.S. Attorney pending confirmation, thereby reducing the time during which the leadership of the office is uncertain.
In March 2006, when the Patriot Act was reauthorized, there was a change slipped in which gets around many of the obstacles Sampson mentions:
SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination.The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days. Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight
In April 2006, Karl Rove gave a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association:
He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.
Mary of the left coaster has an absolutely must-read post about all of this, Politicizing the Justice System. This is not a simple little scheme that has appeared as the U.S. Attorney Scandal. It is a carefully orchestrated plan to replace the U.S. Attorneys in States that are on the line – to make registration difficult for Minorities and poor people – traditional Democratic voters. It’s basically a scheme to jury-rig the 2008 Presidential Election. The lawyers chosen to replace the removed lawyers are Federalist Society types, extreme Republican Party loyalists or operatives. No wonder that Bush is going to the wall to keep Rove and Miers from testifying. EITHER they are escalating their corruption OR we are finally getting a peek at its depth. Digby weighs in with Rove’s previous exploits suggesting the latter.
|
It was Karl Rove’s agenda. He gave a disdainful speech at the Republican Lawyers meeting alleging widespread voter fraud. At a Conference of experts to look into this issue, a Republican Lawyer from Missouri, Thor Hearne, had rapidly incorporated a group of fellow operatives as the American Center for Voting Rights who were the only people at the conference who found evidence of fraud. The apparent target was to shut down organizations like ACORN who were registering Minority Voters, to expunge lower income people from the voting rolls, and to intimidate voters at the polls. Prosecuting "voter fraud" cases was part of this plan. Karl Rove was an expert at methods to shave little pieces from the vote in key areas and the U.S. Attorney firings seemed to be part of that effort. Two bloggers stand out in keeping this story on the front burner until the Congress looked into it – Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and Brad Friedman of the Bradblog.
In order to get the justice dept. up to snuff, we need a person leading the charge who knows where to start. If you read Eric Holder’s biography you start to realize that he has been around the Washington and the Justice Dept a long time. He has had quite an extensive career almost from a to z. He was also a U S Attorney for a time and prosecuted some really big Democrats. For every negative that he might have with the Republicans he has a positive. He was made a superior court judge by Reagan years ago. He was in gifted programs in HS and went to Columbia University for his undergraduate degree and the same for his law degree. If I were a crook working in the House or the Senate I wouldn’t want him confirmed as AG. There is a question about his views of detainees and their rights according to the Geneva Convention. I’m sure that we will learn how he feels about that at the confirmation hearings.
“’m sure that we will learn how he feels about that at the confirmation hearings.” I understand that he’s going to be one of the ones that gets really grilled. That’s fine with me. Frankly, I don’t care about his politics or his ideology. What I care about is his committment to justice. The Department of Justice is not a Political Department, it’s a Legal Department, and we haven’t had one for a long time. As long as he involves himself in Law Enforcement. Like you say, he’s a Lawyer – that’s all we need…