posted on April 6, 2007 11:24:26 AM new
3 U.S. Attorney's Lawyers Resign Posts
Updated 1:44 PM ET April 6, 2007
By PATRICK CONDON
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Three lawyers in the U.S. Attorney's office in Minneapolis resigned their management posts and will return to prosecuting case. The moves come as the U.S. Justice Department is under fire for its replacement of eight U.S. attorneys last year.
U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose confirmed Friday that John Marti, a first assistant U.S. attorney, Erika Mozangue, head of the office's civil division, and James Lackner, who heads the office's criminal division, have "decided to go back to being prosecutors," spokeswoman Jeanne Cooney said.
"The community will benefit from their focus on prosecuting high-profile, sophisticated cases in the years to come," Paulose said in a written statement.
She did not say why the three stepped down and indicated that she would have no further public comment. "We have work to do," her statement said.
Paulose, 34, replaced former U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger after he resigned in early 2006. Prior to her appointment, she had served as senior counsel to U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.
The three resignations come as Congress investigates the U.S. Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year and whether the moves were politically motivated. Its findings so far have torpedoed morale at Justice Department headquarters in Washington and in U.S. attorneys' offices nationwide.
Heffelfinger, who has said he left of his own accord, was not among those eight. However, Paulose was one of 15 federal prosecutors appointed after Congress changed the USA Patriot Act to let the Justice Department fill vacant U.S. attorney jobs without judicial review. She was confirmed by the Senate in December 2006.
Democrats and Republicans alike have called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign for the botched way the firings were handled and described to Congress.
In a statement Friday, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse described Paulose as "dedicated to leading an effective U.S. attorneys office in Minnesota and enforcing the laws to ensure public safety."
"Three managers have determined to go back to the line to be full-time prosecutors protecting the community they serve and the department respects their decisions," Roehrkasse said. "We are confident during this transition period that the U.S. Attorneys office will remain focused on its law enforcement priorities."
John Kelly, deputy director of the Justice Department's executive office of U.S Attorneys, visited Minneapolis on Thursday to try to resolve the situation, according to two aides in Washington who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The prosecutors stepped down after Kelly's visit. The Justice aides said it is not uncommon for the office, which oversees all 94 U.S. attorneys' districts nationwide, to make such visits to handle personnel issues.
Marti, Mozangue and Lackner did not immediately return phone messages Friday.
The St. Paul Pioneer Press, citing sources it said did not want to be identified discussing staffing changes, reported that the three were unhappy with Paulose's management style.
Tim Anderson, a non-attorney who had been the acting administrator in the office, declined to discuss reports that he, too, had given up his management role.
"It's something that I'm not able to comment on. Sorry," Anderson told the AP.
Both of Minnesota's U.S. senators declined to comment on the resignations. New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat and harsh critic of Gonzales, said the moves in Minnesota were an example of federal prosecutors being "deprofessionalized."
"We wonder in how many other offices the same lack of confidence is taking its toll," Schumer said.
___
Associated Press writer Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
posted on April 6, 2007 02:19:12 PM new
Real slimeball cozy friend of Gonzales, she even had a COLOR GUARD, has been known to quote bible verses at work...a typical "my way or the highway" hitman for the bushits.
After the Purge we get Rachel PauloseLawIf you have a pulse then you know that the biggest news story of the past week has been the politically motivated purge of U.S. Attorneys not deemed loyal enough “Bushies.” The eight fired attorneys were all ones that Karl Rove and the Whitehouse felt weren’t acting partisan enough. They were either pursuing corruption cases against Republicans or not pursuing cases against Democrats hard enough. Evidence didn’t really matter, nor did the fact that of the eight attorneys 6 were Republican and two Independent. The most vociferous of the fired attorneys has been David Iglesias:
United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political. [Link]
What’s the first thing you do after you fire eight attorney’s who don’t play political ball? You hire new ones of course. You’d probably go for someone you know you could trust. A loyal “Bushie.” Meet the only (as far as I know) Indian American U.S. Attorney. Her name is Rachel Kunjummen Paulose and she was appointed to the recently vacated job in Minnesota. She is the youngest attorney, and the first woman in Minnesota to hold this post (thanks for the tip Ravi):
It seemed like a fairy-tale: University of Minnesota graduate goes to Yale Law, gets a few high-profile jobs, including stints at Dorsey & Whitney and the Justice Department, and winds up, at age 33, the youngest serving U.S. Attorney, the first woman to hold that position in Minnesota and the first U.S. Attorney of South Asian descent. Her appointment to the post is sponsored by Republican Senator Norm Coleman, but also endorsed by outgoing Democrat Mark Dayton, who makes it his final priority in the Senate to see her confirmation through in the waning hours of the session.
This is the narrative we have received from the media of the meteoric rise of Rachel Paulose, the new U.S. Attorney in the Minnesota district. But with the recent furor over the firings of the “Gonzales Seven”—several of whom were involved in ongoing corruption investigations, and others of whom have revealed that they were pressured to speed up investigations by sitting members of Congress—and their replacement by up-and-coming partisans, the curious case of Rachel Paulose merits a closer look. [Link]
The blog Minnesota Campaign Report has some opinions about how Paulose may have gotten the job at such a young age:
Paulose was nominated for the post by Sen. Norm Coleman. Some might wonder why a 33-year-old woman—a woman with quite impressive credentials, it’s true, but young nonetheless—would be promoted from relative obscurity to be the top prosecutor in the Minnesota district…
So what made Paulose the right choice? Senator Coleman praised her as “capable [and] experienced,” and said he was “confident [that] Rachel will do an exemplary job.” But a little research reveals more reasons Paulose may have gotten the nod—her connections to Republican politics and the conservative movement:
-According to IndiaWest, Paulose is “a registered Republican and has worked for GOP candidates,” though she cites a “lack of involvement in big-donor contributing and fundraising” as evidence that she will run her office in a non-partisan manner. However, FEC records show that Paulose has donated $1,500 to Norm Coleman’s campaign since November 2005…
-An article by McClatchy Newspapers states that, “according to a former boss, [Paulose] has been a member of the secretive, ideologically conservative Federalist Society,” an organization “dedicated to reforming the current legal order” by “developing and promoting far-right positions and influencing who will become judges, top government officials, and decision-makers,” according to People for the American Way. “Many members of the Federalist Society advocate a rollback of civil rights measures, reproductive choice, labor and employment regulations, and environmental protections,” PFAW states. [Link]
Paulose did a couple of interviews outlining what she’d like to do as a U.S. attorney. You can see clips of one such interview here and here. She also did an extensive interview with India West:
She said the U.S. Attorney’s office will focus on six areas: terrorism; economic crime, including fraud and public corruption; Internet crimes against children; gun and gang violence; drug trafficking; and civil rights, including human trafficking, immigration violations, and identity theft fraud.
Paulose jumped at the chance to expound on these priorities - mentioning that the Minnesota U.S. Attorney’s office has two terrorism case pending, indicted three Minnesota city council members on corruption charges, and vigorously pursued a case of Internet pharmacy fraud totaling about $20 million in illegal sales. The defrauder faces a possible sentence of 20 years in prison.
Paulose pledges to keep the heat on child pornographers who, she said, are becoming “more graphic, more heinous and frankly appalling.” She also emphasized her office’s increasingly tough sentencing requests for weapons’ offenses, with violent crime on the increase in the urban areas of Minnesota.
“We must protect all citizens, young and old, from the violence that threatens our way of life,” she said in a statement. “We must hold everyone, particularly public officials, accountable for their actions. And we must ensure the civil rights of all people.”
While she has already been informally sworn into office, Paulose plans a formal investiture ceremony in March. She is looking for a large enough location to accommodate “all of my relatives who are coming (to Minneapolis) from all over the United States…” [Link]
The funny thing is that the press started looking into Paulose not because of her partisan background but because they seem to think that the big hoopla surrounding her “coronation,” may have been too extravagant (see the clip on the right hand column here):
While past investitures have been simple ceremonies, an internal document obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS details plans for a more elaborate event. The document lists a processional, a professional photographer, a color guard and a choir. All of those were included in the March 9 ceremony. Paulose’s office called the document inaccurate and said it was discarded months ago.
Paulose said she personally paid for most of the ceremony. According to her office, the cost to taxpayers was $225. But David Williams of Citizens Against Government Waste says the staff time spent planning the event also represents a significant cost to taxpayers. [Link]
In any case, Paulose will probably only have this job for two years. After that she will be purged, along with all the other U.S. attorneys, when a new President takes office.
abhi on March 25, 2007 11:47 PM in Law, News, Politics · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
posted on April 6, 2007 03:43:43 PM new
Here linduh , I'll help you keep that thread about banans down so you can escape some of the embarassment of making a fool out of yourself once again
Gonzales Aide Who Asserted Fifth Resigns
Updated 5:57 PM ET April 6, 2007
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - A top aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales abruptly quit Friday, almost two weeks after telling Congress she would not testify about her role in the firings of federal prosecutors.
There was no immediate reason given, but Monica M. Goodling's refusal to face Congress had intensified a controversy that threatens Gonzales' job.
She resigned in a three-sentence letter to Gonzales, calling her five-year stint at Justice an honor and telling him, "May God bless you richly as you continue your service to America."
Asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Goodling had rejected demands for a private interview with a House committee investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
She was senior counsel to Gonzales and was the department's White House liaison before she took a leave amid the uproar over the ousters.
The Justice Department declined comment on the resignation.
Goodling is at the center of the controversy because, as the bridge between the Justice Department and the White House, she may be best suited to explain how deeply Karl Rove and other members of President Bush's political team might have been involved in the firings. Congress also wants her to testify on Gonzales' role in light of his shifting explanations.
Her resignation came less than two weeks before Gonzales' own planned testimony to Congress, which may determine his fate as attorney general. Several Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in calling for his resignation or dismissal over the firings and other matters at Justice.
Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, confirmed she had resigned but declined further comment.
Her resignation is the third by a Justice Department official who helped plan and coordinate the dismissals of the prosecutors, an effort that began shortly after President Bush won re-election in 2004.
Gonzales' chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned under fire March 12 for orchestrating the firings.
Additionally, Mike Battle, the former director of the department's executive office of U.S. attorneys, announced several weeks ago that he was leaving to join a private law firm. Battle's resignation has not been linked directly to the controversy, although he helped notify some of the U.S. attorneys that they would be asked to leave.
"While Monica Goodling had no choice but to resign, this is the third Justice Department official involved in the U.S attorney firings who has stepped down," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was among the first senators to question the firings and the first to call for Gonzales' resignation.
"Attorney General Gonzales' hold on the department gets more tenuous each day," Schumer said in a statement.
Gonzales is also under fire for the FBI's improper and in some cases illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes.
Goodling's lawyers have asked Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, not to compel her to appear at a public hearing knowing of her intention to invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions.
Her lawyers have said such a hearing would be a perjury trap for her. They note allegations that Goodling misled Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty before he testified to Congress about the ousters, causing him to give an incomplete and possibly inaccurate account.
Goodling's mother, Cindy Fitt of Osceola Mills, Pa., said the resignation had been anticipated. "She told me I'm to say 'no comment' for everything," the mother said in a brief telephone interview.
___
Associated Press writers Ron Fournier in Washington and Mark Scolforo in Harrisburg, Pa., contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted on April 7, 2007 08:47:28 AM new
Wow mingopig,
You really need to get out and see reality once in a while. Plus start reading credible articles.
Your first article states that Heffelfinger resigned. This couldn't be further from the truth. HE RETIRED. Huge difference, but then again, Demomorons twist the truth into lies. And they tell these lies so often, they begin to believe them as the truth.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on April 7, 2007 08:53:03 AM new
You're wrong again , sybil.
I have nothing to BE embarrassed about. I stated what I was told by Vendio.
==============
That's right Stonecold. But not mentioning the 'retirement' makes it not look as bad as mingo hopes to make it.
I still can't believe she's even mentioning this over and over and over again.
It's allowed by ALL Presidents...and clinton AND carter used their executive privledge to ALSO do the same thing.
But...these wacko liberals....it's okay for them...but not for the opposing party to do the EXACT same thing.
LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 7, 2007 08:55 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2007 09:00:38 AM new
Poor linduh, just can't comprehend that Clinton and Carter did not fire attorneys... bushit fired attorney's because they weren't "bushy" enough.
Only once in history has this ever been done before and it wasn't Clinton or Carter.
posted on April 7, 2007 09:03:28 AM new
Oh, and if it was all so legal and above board WHY all the bushit lying, obsfucation, two-stepping, and resignations ??????
????????????
WHY are even REPUBLICANS calling for gonzales to step down...????
[ edited by mingotree on Apr 7, 2007 09:04 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2007 09:26:20 AM new
White House backtracks in row over U.S. attorneys
POSTED: 12:07 p.m. EDT, March 12, 2007
Story Highlights• Bill would end attorney general's power to appoint prosecutors minus Senate OK
• Fired U.S. attorneys allege pressure from Justice Department, lawmakers
• Alberto Gonzales agrees to let aides testify about dismissals without subpoenas
• Reversal abrupt for administration known for standing firm despite opposition
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Slapped even by GOP allies, the Bush administration is beating an abrupt retreat on eight federal prosecutors it fired and then publicly pilloried.
Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.
A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf, bearing two offerings:
President Bush would not stand in the way of a Democratic-sponsored bill that would cancel the attorney general's power to appoint federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation. Gonzales' Justice Department previously had dismissed the legislation as unreasonable.
There would be no need for subpoenas to compel testimony by five of Gonzales' aides involved in the firings, as the Democrats had threatened. Cloistered in the stately hideaway of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the attorney general assured those present that he would permit the aides to tell their stories.
It was a striking reversal for an administration noted for standing its ground even in the face of overwhelming opposition.
Gone were the department's biting assertions that the prosecutors were a bunch of "disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress."
And the department no longer tried to shrug off the uproar as "an overblown personnel matter," as Gonzales had written in an opinion piece published Thursday in USA Today.
Agency officials also ceased describing majority Democrats as lawmakers who would "would rather play politics" than deal with facts.
The shift from offense to silence was so abrupt that one of Bush's chief advisers who was speaking out of town apparently missed the memo.
"My view is this is unfortunately a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it," presidential adviser Karl Rove said Thursday during a speech at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service.
Back in Washington, a consensus was emerging among senators of both parties, and Gonzales himself, that the firings had been botched chiefly because the prosecutors had not been told the reasons for their dismissals.
The matter snowballed -- some of those fired complained publicly, and a senior Justice Department official warned one that further complaints in the press would force the agency to defend itself, according to an e-mail made public this week.
On Tuesday, during an eight-hour marathon of congressional hearings, the Justice Department followed through. William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general, publicly enumerated the reasons each prosecutor was fired, one by one.
Flash forward two days, to Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reading Gonzales' USA Today column into the record. He paused.
"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," he mused. "But these [prosecutors] who were plastered across the newspapers all across the country, they will never recover their reputations."
Two staunch White House allies, Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, lamented the damage to the prosecutors' resumes -- adding, however, that the uproar had been the result of poor execution rather than a political purge.
The prosecutors weren't the only ones whose reputations suffered. One, New Mexico's David Iglesias, said the dismissals followed calls from members of Congress -- Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, New Mexico Republicans -- concerning sensitive political corruption investigations.
Still unclear is whether Gonzales will allow his aides to speak with the Senate panel in private or at a public hearing. The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday also demanded to speak with the officials.
They are: Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle.
Sampson is Gonzales' chief of staff, Elston is staff chief to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty and Mercer is associate attorney general. Goodling is Gonzales' senior counsel and White House liaison, and Battle is the departing director of the office that oversees the 93 U.S. attorneys.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
posted on April 7, 2007 10:09:43 AM new
Stating a lie doesn't make it true, sybil.
Both clinton AND carter did exactly as I said. FIRED attorneys.
Research it yourself.
And this is nothing more than another WITCH hunt.
Dems don't have time to take care of the important things like funding our troops.
But they'll waste time with more and more witch hunts.
tsk tsk tsk
It does look like they're going to be spending the next 18-20 months doing NOTHING but trying to find something to hang this administration on.
Not at ALL interested in getting done what the voters changed parties so they could take care of.
Nope....more witch hunts.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 10:26:51 AM new
We all could only GUESS at why they did so.
Because they have made no comments about why THEY have.
But you sure appear to fill in the blanks FOR THEM. lol lol lol
The dems have nothing else to do....to actually take care of the people's business.....so, they like you, are continuing to make a mountain out of some tiny ant hill.
Keep trying....maybe you can turn this into the same thing Fitzpatrick did with his case where he couldn't get any proof of anything the dems had been accusing this administration of for a couple of YEARS. LOL LOL
I sure wouldn't volunteer to be put in front of a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth dems who are on a WITCH hunt.
No way.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 10:31:37 AM new
Only a repug like you would refer to law breaking as an ant hill....that's the problem with this whole bushit administration...total and complete disregard for the laws including the Constitution...
"""I sure wouldn't volunteer to be put in front of a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth dems who are on a WITCH hunt.""""
posted on April 7, 2007 11:11:03 AM new
How quickly the memories of the liberals forget about their parties OWN actions....OWN firings of the attorney's.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 11:22:07 AM new
And you seem to have forgotten Reagan did it.
It is NOT legal, nor ethical, to fire attorneys because they don't follow party lines.
Why can't you understand such a simple sentence ???
Oh, I know, you have no morals or ethics and think, like a true repug, that laws are only there for OTHERS....THAT explains your whole defense for the lawbreaking that goes on in this administration.
posted on April 7, 2007 11:29:43 AM new
And here's one that carter fired....one year into his four year term.
It all sounds as current as tomorrow's headlines: a U.S. attorney is fired, he goes public to defend his reputation, the President knows more about the forced exit of the lawman than previously claimed, and the Justice Department as well as the White House are soon under fire from the media and Capitol Hill.
The year was 1978 and the U.S. attorney forced out of his job was David Marston. Appointed by President Ford as the top federal lawman In Philadelphia, Marston had racked up convictions of political leaders of both parties in Pennsylvania. After a year under Jimmy Carter, however, Marston was abruptly removed. "Stunned" is how the young, 35-year-old prosecutor described his removal, as it came right after his successful prosecution of a powerful state senator on racketeering charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 11:42:39 AM new
Some interesting background.....
In the aftermath of Watergate, President Jimmy Carter directed Attorney General Griffin Bell to prepare legislation that would make the attorney general an appointed post for a definite term, subject to removal only for cause.
Carter's idea was to keep the attorney general independent of presidential direction to ensure that the Justice Department's authority would never again be abused for political purposes, as it had been during the ethically troubled Nixon presidency.
Despite Carter's noble intent, Bell refused. In a little-known memorandum to the president dated April 11, 1977, he explained why.
Any law that restricted the president's power to remove the attorney general — and, by inference, to fire any U.S. attorney — likely would be found unconstitutional.
The president, Bell reasoned, is held accountable for the actions of the executive branch in its entirety, including the Justice Department; he must be free to establish policy and define priorities, even in the legal arena. "Because laws are not self-executing, their enforcement obviously cannot be separated from policy considerations," Bell wrote.
Carter argued that the attorney general is different from other Cabinet officers. The job entails dual responsibilities:
carrying forward White House policies like any other Cabinet official and representing the law of the United States, whether it coincides with the president's policies or not.
Bell agreed, but he found that insufficient to justify separating the attorney general and subordinate U.S. attorneys from presidential direction.
Bell anchored his reasoning on Supreme Court precedent, especially Chief Justice William Howard Taft's opinion in Myers v. United States (1926).
sybil - reagan did it too. BUT you're claiming all of them COULD do this but this admin. CAN'T lol lol lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 7, 2007 11:49 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2007 11:51:04 AM new
You said NEITHER clinton NOR carter had done so.
I've proven that to be incorrect. Even though YOU couldn't FIND anything about it on the whole world wide web.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 7, 2007 12:02:21 PM new
Also from my link above....
Yet, to illustrate the subtlety of the Senate Judiciary Committee's inquiry, the court also held that a president can remove any appointee from office for a particular prosecution "on the ground that the discretion regularly entrusted to that officer by statute has not been on the whole intelligently or wisely exercised."
Belatedly, D. Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' former chief of staff, made the same point in his Senate testimony last Thursday.
The U.S. attorneys who were dismissed had been evaluated not just on their professional skills, Sampson said, but also with respect to their relations with other law enforcement and government leaders and their support for the president's priorities.
Rather obviously, Sampson was seeking to anchor the dismissals squarely in the court's precedent that gives the president and the attorney general wide latitude to remove staff.
Bell's analysis is instructive. His refusal to draft Carter's desired legislation does not mean the Senate shouldn't inquire into whether the Bush White House or the Gonzales Justice Department sought to improperly influence a particular case. But it does mean that the Senate has no legitimate basis to object if it turns out the U.S. attorneys were removed because they failed to bring the cases the president or his attorney general sought to give emphasis. The first is corruption and obstruction. The second is political direction.
Bell concluded 30 years ago that blunting that presidential direction would make the attorney general "overly responsive to Congress, and this would clearly affect the separation of powers among the three branches that is established by the Constitution." The same holds true today.
Ultimately, Bell shared Carter's concern that the Justice Department not abuse its authority for political purpose. But, said Bell, the only certain check on that misuse of power "involves trust and integrity — two things no law can provide or guarantee."
When Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 17, history, precedent and the Constitution will be on his side.
It remains to be seen, however, whether he can convince his Senate inquisitors that he possesses those two things no law can provide or guarantee.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Are YOU a Bunghole?
