More Republican corruption

[overthebow]

Bush has taken to replacing U.S. Attorneys with Republican political operatives.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011958.php

Okay, so we already know that the White House has now taken the unprecedented step of firing at least four and likely seven US Attorneys in the middle of their terms of office -- at least some of whom are in the midst of corruption investigations of Bush administration officials and key Republican lawmakers. We also know that they're taking advantage of a handy provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the White House to replace these fired USAs with appointees who don't need to be approved by the senate.

Given that these new USAs are being plopped into offices currently investigating Republicans and other administration officials and others into states with 2008 presidential candidates, there's certainly ample opportunity for mischief.

So we're looking into just how the White House is appointing.

Well, let's start with the estimable J. Timothy Griffin, US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas since December 20th.

If you hadn't heard about Griffin's appointment, don't feel bad, the guy he replaced hadn't either. Griffin's appointment was annouced on December 15th before the then-US Attorney Bud Cummins had even been given a chance to resign. Cummins got the call on his cell phone the same day while he was out hiking with his son. Cummins, who subsequently said he got forced out for political reasons, resigned on the 20th, the same day Griffin was sworn in.

So who's Griffin and what experience does he bring to the job?

Well, top of the list seems to be his stint at the White House where he worked for Karl Rove doing opposition research on Democrats. That was until late last year. According to this Arkansas Times report, for the last ten years -- with the exception of two one year stint -- he has always worked as a Republican party opposition researcher digging up dirt on Democrats. Deputy Research Director for the RNC from 1999-2000. Research Director for the RNC from 2002-2005. Oppo Research Director for Karl Rove 2005-2006. Prior to 1999? Well, he was associate independent counsel investigating Henry Cisneros from 1995-96. After that he went to work for Dan Burton on the Hill to investigate Asian money contributions to the DNC.

Back in 2000, when he was in charge of digging up dirt on Al Gore, he apparently had a poster hanging on the wall behind his desk which read: "On my command - unleash hell on Al."

So clearly, Griffin's a pretty apolitical guy.

Now, why would Karl Rove want his top oppo researcher being the US Attorney in Arkansas for the next two years?

And is Ed Gillespie suiting up to take over the Duke Cunningham investigation in San Diego?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

No, there's less...

Voters saw to that.

Enjoy your cheap tuna so Samoans can work for slave wages.

No wonder so many of them join the Marines.

Where they have to go die for a lie...

You guys have the power now, it's YOUR corruption that matters most. It's getting people killed.

 

[overthebow]

No, there's less...

Voters saw to that.

Enjoy your cheap tuna so Samoans can work for slave wages.

No wonder so many of them join the Marines.

Where they have to go die for a lie...

You guys have the power now, it's YOUR corruption that matters most. It's getting people killed.

Do you have a phrase generator that just spews this stuff out, AJ?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

bot bot diddy bot

End the war on drugs deude...












YOU GOT DA POWAH!!!

 

[overthebow]

No, right now I'm going to go watch The Daily Show on my Tivo before going to work.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Did he decimate the travel office?

Order up files?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

No, there's less...

Voters saw to that.

Enjoy your cheap tuna so Samoans can work for slave wages.

No wonder so many of them join the Marines.

Where they have to go die for a lie...

You guys have the power now, it's YOUR corruption that matters most. It's getting people killed.

There are less Republicans, however those still in office (I'm looking at you Mr. Bush) are still up to their old shenanigans. This is but one reason why the USA Patriot Act needs to be repealed post haste. It's nothing but another attempt to consolidate power solidly in the executive and marginalize the congress.

I won't even get into the whole American Samoa minimum wage argument again. You've already been shown where the blame with that lies, you just want to keep pushing your definition of reality, as usual.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'll tell you what Bush didn't do. He didn't fire every US attorney in the United States like Clinton did when he came to power.

Did he appoint new ones without Congressional approval? Nope.

Were they all in the midst of investigations into Democratic politician's wrongdoings? Nope.

It it even close to the same issue? Nope.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Let Craig Livingstone just slip and and start going through FBI files?

Fitting beginning seeing how it all ends with Sandy stealing files...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Let Craig Livingstone just slip and and start going through FBI files?

Fitting beginning seeing how it all ends with Sandy stealing files...

Is Sandy Berger the new "Republican Tourettes"? Both BB and Cap'n Oblivious keep hammering it over and over.

Is "Chappaquiddick!!" old hat now? When was the memo?

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Less filling!

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

I'll tell you what Bush didn't do. He didn't fire every US attorney in the United States like Clinton did when he came to power.

This is what happens if you believe everything you read on NewsMax. Bush didn't fire them because they resigned, which had been customary.

US Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Historically, the people appointed have been political supporters of the President. Historically, the US Attorneys appointed by the outgoing President tender their resignations voluntarily. In the case of Clinton, they didn't.

In the past, people appointed to the US Attorney's office were approved by the Senate, and even if the person had been a political supporter of the President, at least their record would get reviewed and only qualified people were appointed.

Bush is now appointing political hacks with no prosecutorial experience and without Senate approval.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Unable to defend the actions of the current President, conservatives instead attack the Former one for something entirely different. Doesn't that song and dance get old after awhile?

Bush has started firing US Attourneys that are in the midst of investigations against his own party and replacing them with people with little or NO experience. As many as 4, possibly as many as seven have been replaced.

This is in no way comparable to the previous administration's actions. These replacements by Bush without senate confirmation are just one more "fuck you" to congress from Bush, Cheney, and Rove and an attempt to stymie investigations, nothing more.

 

[unregistered]

 

[overthebow]

Puleeeze, Bush didn't fire them en masse the day after he took his oath and he has less than two years left. It isn't even close to the same thing but you can always impeach him.

Clinton didn't fire the US Attorneys the day after he took office.

That impeachment thing won't work unless Bush is caught giving Cheney a blow job.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Puleeeze, Bush didn't fire them en masse the day after he took his oath and he has less than two years left. It isn't even close to the same thing but you can always impeach him.

No, it isn't close to the same thing. As was already pointed out it is customary for US Attourneys to resign and be replaced when the President that appoints them leaves office. When Clinton took office they did not, so he fired them, which was his right. But it wasn't the day after.

What Clinton did not do was target those Attorneys investigating members of his political party for replacement, nor did he appoint new US Attorneys without Congress' approval of the nominees. This is just one more reason why the Patriot Act needs to be rewritten at the least, repealed completely at the most.

What Bush has done is the issue here. You want to deflect and bring up immaterial points about Clinton.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Nope, the equity of a blanket firing of of all but one of those US attorneys speaks for itself. I'm not trying to deflect any wrong doing on the part of Bush at all, I would feel the same way towards him as I do Clinton, but Bush did not fire every US attorney when he took office and neither has any other president except Clinton. I think a public servant should be judged on the merit of his work and not his ideology unless he fails to carry out the lawful enforcement policies of the persident.

Previous Presidents didn't HAVE to fire them, it was customary for them to resign when the President that appointed them left office. Those US Attornies that Clinton fired did not resign, as was customary, to be replaced. I don't expect you to see that distinction, but rather see it as blatently partisan.. But their refusal to resign their posts was the blatently partisan act.

The fact is, Bush is replacing US Attorneys because they ARE investigating and carrying out the enforcement of the LAW. Their duty is to prosecute infractions of the law, ALL infractions of the law. Not just the ones that the President wants them to and ignore those he does not.

What is happening here is simple, those US Attorneys are investigating and prosecuting members of Bush's administration and key Republican lawmakers. He does not approve, so he fires them and appoints a know nothing lackey in their place without even the approval of the Senate.

 

[overthebow]

Previous Presidents didn't HAVE to fire them, it was customary for them to resign when the President that appointed them left office. Those US Attornies that Clinton fired did not resign, as was customary, to be replaced. I don't expect you to see that distinction, but rather see it as blatently partisan.. But their refusal to resign their posts was the blatently partisan act.

The fact is, Bush is replacing US Attorneys because they ARE investigating and carrying out the enforcement of the LAW. Their duty is to prosecute infractions of the law, ALL infractions of the law. Not just the ones that the President wants them to and ignore those he does not.

What is happening here is simple, those US Attorneys are investigating and prosecuting members of Bush's administration and key Republican lawmakers. He does not approve, so he fires them and appoints a know nothing lackey in their place without even the approval of the Senate.

Hey man, you're wasting your breath. Unless, of course, you are just trying to set the record straight for someone else who stumbles into this thread.

In that case, carry on.

 

[garbage can]

I'll tell you what Bush didn't do. He didn't fire every US attorney in the United States like Clinton did when he came to power.

And don't forget the white house travel staff.

 

[garbage can]

There are less Republicans, however those still in office (I'm looking at you Mr. Bush) are still up to their old shenanigans. This is but one reason why the USA Patriot Act needs to be repealed post haste. It's nothing but another attempt to consolidate power solidly in the executive and marginalize the congress.

The people who are marginalizing congress and the constitution are the liberal activist judges.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The people who are marginalizing congress and the constitution are the liberal activist judges.

So called "liberal activist" judges are not the final authority, their decisions can be overturned by higher courts, if need be the SCOTUS. The administration, using a provision from the USA Patriot Act, is once again bypassing one of congress' functions and giving itself the final say.