Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: Two U.S. Attorneys in Calif. Resign

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Eugene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:05 AM
Original message
AP: Two U.S. Attorneys in Calif. Resign
Two U.S. Attorneys in Calif. Resign

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

(01-17) 04:14 PST San Francisco (AP) --

Two U.S. Attorneys in California announced they are stepping down, as critics
alleged political pressure from the Bush administration was pushing them and
others out of their jobs.

Kevin Ryan, chief federal prosecutor for the state's Northern District, and
Carol Lam, who headed the state's Southern District, both announced Tuesday
they would be leaving.

The two are among 11 top federal prosecutors who have resigned or announced
their resignations since an obscure provision in the USA Patriot Act
reauthorization last year enabled the U.S. attorney general to appoint
replacements without Senate confirmation.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, complained on the Senate floor
Tuesday that the White House is using the provision to oust Ryan, Lam and
other federal prosecutors and replace them with Republican allies.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/17/national/a041434S29.DTL

Related LBN thread: Lam's ouster concerns lawmakers (Bushco's U.S. Attorney "purge" now happening)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! N/T

IMPEACH THE FUCKER ALREADY!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. Thanks...You can say that again for me!
I can't quite say it as eloquently as you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Ditto
Be afraid. Be Very Afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Get Gonzales before a Committee. . IMMEDIATELY.
He needs to be dragged in, sworn in and interrogated. (Maybe it's time for you to redefine torture again, eh' gonzo?)

Investigations could be stopped in their track by this manipulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Sec 502 of the (un) Patriot Act.
It is the law.

an unread, unstudied and unconstitutional law, to be sure, but nevertheless the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. Unfortunately, this is a consequence when legislators don't take the time
to read the legislation they enact. There wasn't a debate of note (if any) of this provision, among many others. It was a gesture to say "fuck you" to the nine dead hijackers of 9-11. An empty gesture. The PATRIOT Act planted the seeds of fascism and they obviously have taken root and are now pushing up out of the ground.

Can you imagine how shortsighted it is to replace otherwise competent prosecutors? In order to punish (prosecute? persecute?) non-team players with this administration, examples such as the ones cited above are used to send a signal to the remaining prosecutors. Perhaps their replacements may not be as able to appropriately prepare criminal cases for successful prosecution and conviction, thus jeopardizing public safety and integrity of the court system.

Congress has to focus on tweaking and changing the PATRIOT Act on a piecemeal basis ASAP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Exactly. I have no sympathy for Congress when a law they pass has "secret"
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:02 AM by MJDuncan1982
provisions.

WAKE UP AND DO YOUR FUCKING JOB!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brer cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That sums it up quite well.
We need to tell it to our Reps and Senators.

k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I agree in spirit, but in the meantime, the barn is burning down.
This means martial law, nothing less.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. But the solution is simple. Congress should do its job and amend the law. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. can't argue with that. But, we still have someyellow bellies in our party
who fear any hint of being called unpatriotic, or unAmerican, or anti-troop.

All they need is some bastard like Indiana Congresscritter Pence who last week suggested that anyone against the surge was an ally of Al Qaida and too many Democrat congresscritters start filling their Depends with their digested lobbyist-based breakfast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
31. I agree whole heartedly with you except for one thing: The last
congress passed a lot of this bulls--t in a rush deliberately making it so no one got to read it before the vote. Often they waited until the middle of the night. The congressmen and women who introduced this traitorous actions into law are the ones to blame and if they are still in office they should resign immediately. I am not talking about Democratic legislators who were not their in the committees because they were not told there was a meeting or locked out nor am I talking about Democrats who did not have time to read it.

What I am talking about is pugs + Lieberman who conspired to destroy the checks and balances of our great nation. May they rot in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
4. Thank goodness we didn't filibuster that necessary law
We bring these things on ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. So why did DiFi vote for it?
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 09:39 AM by bemildred
Edit: not bashing you, just asking why they don't vote no when these "tricks" are played on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enough already Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. I was being sarcastic
I don't buy that anyone is being "tricked". I've seen too much bullshit from our own to believe anyone is being "tricked" anymore. Our side is voting for the war, the so-called patriot act, and now they refuse to de-fund this bullshit. Nobody is being "tricked", it's all intentional and calculated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zeke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Asnwer...
Because she's the female Joe Lieberman.
No, she's the female Mitch McConnell.
BECAUSE SHE'S A REPUKE IN DEM CLOTHING!.THAT'S WHY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. Chum of Condiliar
I Remember when she put an arm around Condiliar at her confirmation Senate hearing. DiFi said Condiliar would make a great Secretary of State, as $$ signs were dancing before DiFi's eyes. BushCo later rewarded her husband 's firm with a 2.5 billion military contract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
10.  " DERAILING ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS"
And/or future ones of which we know there will be many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
12. God, that's what happens when..
.. legislators either don't read bills thoroughly or else go along and vote regardless.

You get what you vote for: a tinpot dictator with a legal enforcer. So sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
15. They Were Investigating Bush Pal Dusty Foggo - CIA
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20070109-1655-congressman-bribery.html

4:55 p.m. January 9, 2007

WASHINGTON – Three House committees are delaying responding to grand jury subpoenas issued in connection with the bribery case against jailed former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

The subpoenas were issued to the Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees by the federal grand jury in San Diego that has been considering evidence in a defense contracting investigation stemming from the Cunningham case.

The subpoenas set a Jan. 11 deadline for compliance but prosecutors and House lawyers have agreed to extend that until Jan. 31, congressional staffers said Tuesday.

....
The San Diego grand jury has been considering evidence against Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor identified as one of Cunningham's coconspirators.
...
Investigators are also investigating Wilkes' childhood friend Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, a former high-ranking CIA official, for his role in the awarding of a government contract that went to Wilkes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. blatant cronyism, political power grab, perhaps worse.
Yesterday, there was a thread about how great things were going to be, now that people were waking up to the Cabal. A couple of people responded that these guys were total evil, and they would surprise us in a way that would shock our sensibilities.

case in point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Rabble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Thats the key to this.
This scandal will be sordid beyond belief. Foggo and Goss resigned over this.

This move by the Bush Crime Family should be seen as a new "Saturday Night Massacre".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
33. Lam went after companies hiring illegal aliens to build the border fence!
San Diego U.S. attorney reportedly asked to step down
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/16//news/sandiego/1_04_311_15_07.txt

Lam's office has made white-collar crime a priority, and has taken on a number of high-profile cases -- among them the successful prosecution of Cunningham on charges of bribery and tax evasion -- since her 2002 appointment by the Bush administration.

Other cases that came during her tenure included December's criminal convictions of the chiefs of Golden State Fence Co. for hiring illegal immigrants, and the potential death penalty case for the long-sought and recently nabbed Francisco Javier Arrellano-Felix, the alleged head of a Mexican drug cartel.



http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/36411.php

According to federal investigators, Golden State Fence Co. had repeatedly been warned not to hire illegal immigrants but did so anyway.
How brazen. It's as if company officials either didn't care about the law or perhaps never thought they'd get caught. Now that they have worked out a plea agreement with the government, the company and top executives have openly admitted to repeatedly hiring illegal workers between January 1999 and November 2005.
During roughly the same time period, Golden State Fence Co. enjoyed a boom in business. According to The Associated Press, sales for the company went from $60 million in 1998 to $150 million in 2004.
As part of the plea, the company agreed to pay a penalty of $4.7 million. In addition, Mel Kay, company founder, chairman and president, will hand over $200,000, and office manager Michael McLaughlin agreed to pay $100,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rexcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
17. What the republicans don't understand...
it is a two-way street. What goes around comes around. If the political tenor continues there will more than likely be a Democratic President in 2008. Unfortunately we as a nation are paying a heavy price for the current occupant of the White House. One can only hope that enough republicans in the House and Senate will see this as an issue that needs fixing now and change the law, and when *Bush vetoes the bill it will be overridden, but I am not holding my breath on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. Expect the whining to reach deafening levels January 2009
from the Cons. I completely agree with you. They really believed their majority would be permanent and were lying if they said they'ld be voting the same way with a WH(D).

The interviews for the spots probably go something like:
1) Do you believe in the Unitary Executive of the President Bush?
2) Please restate your position on Roe v Wade
Thank you. Can you start tomorrow?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I would imagine that there is a proviso written in whereby * can rescind it
in the 11th Hour of his term.

And, now that it has seen the light of day, it will not stand a chance of reinstatement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
35. Unfortunately Bush will probably use a signing statement instead of a veto if he sees this coming...
... Congress won't get a chance to veto it. Perhaps this will be the issue that forces the Supreme Court to rule on the boundaries of the so-called "signing statement" that this president has fallen in love with and has used more in his term to date than ALL of our presidents have in the past put together!

In my book, if the SCOTUS does rule on this and rules for the president, I think that might also be grounds for impeachment of a few justices on the court too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Threaten those justices with deportation to Iraq if they don't rule correctly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
19. I would expect repubs to support the patriot act
but this needs to be rubbed in the noses of Dems who supported this piece of shit legislation! Like a prior response said - THEY NEED TO READ THIS STUFF BEFORE VOTING ON IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aggiesal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
20. DiFi voted for it. She has nothing to complain about.
We, in California, begged her to vote against it,
yet she voted her own pocket book and could see
$$$$'s signs for her hubby's DOD company.

Now she has the gall to complain?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zeke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Amen.......
She won re-election big-time.
So she had no worries opposing this foolish act.
Which begs a question: why did she actually vote for it?

Furthermore, why aren't Dems prepared with a laundry
to-do-fix-it-list of itmes loike this to change in-
stantly upon taking power?

They have to wait for Gonzales to put more hacks into
power positions before Di-Fi says notices?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
22. The Patriot Act is a travesty. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
26. Hmm. Protect baseball owners and corrupt GOP politicians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
28. What kind of fascistic bullshit is this?
The slope isn't just slippery, it's covered in oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. When a German Judge refused to join the Nazi party...
...he was "retired" and replaced.

Junior may not have paid attention in history class, but somebody in BushCo™ obviously did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-17-07 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
30. Listen to Robert Parry..........
Edited on Wed Jan-17-07 05:52 PM by charles t



The first 100 hours were fine, but didn't even approach the issues threatening our democracy.

If Bush packs the judiciary and the federal prosecutorial staff with those who believe in a "unitary executive", our hours will be numbered.

The PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed NOW.

As Parry points out, millions of Republican leaning independents, moderates, libertarians, and conservatives did not cross party lines and throw out the GOP because of consensus economic issues. They voted Democratic because they were sick of a war based on lies, sick of an unrestrained president, and sick of the trampling of civil liberties.

And if the Democratic leadership does not address these fundamental issues, their mandate and support will be transient.






Dems, We're Citizens, Not Consumers

By Robert Parry

As the Democrats regain control of Congress for the first time in 12 years, the party leaders still don’t seem to understand the forces that sent them into the wilderness in 1994 or the reasons they were summoned back in 2006............Typical of their cluelessness was a “100 Hours Survey” distributed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in mid-December. The survey asked Democratic contributors to rank nine priority issues in order of importance for the new Congress.

The issues included raising the minimum wage, financing stem-cell research, revising the Medicare prescription drug program and stiffening ethics rules. The only national security issue on the list was the implementation of all the remaining – but unspecified – recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

No reference was made to ending the Iraq War, launching investigative hearings on President George W. Bush’s actions, reasserting checks and balances on the Executive, or restoring constitutional safeguards that have been overridden during the “war on terror,” such as the habeas corpus right to a fair trial.

Though many issues on the DCCC’s priority list surely have merit, what’s missing is any commitment to the larger purpose of the American Republic....................

....


www.consortiumnews.com/2007/010307.html















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
32. Obstruction of Justice (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
34. Guess who put that provision in the law?
The 'crisis' provision. Our good buddy Arlen Specter. The old whore rides again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
36. Editorial in Voice of San Diego puts a human face on this corruption!
Edited on Thu Jan-18-07 09:45 AM by calipendence
The following editorial notes that one of the consequences of having those like Duke Cunningham in power was that the culture of corruption prevented a potentially very useful device "The Armadillo" from being aquired by the military (since there was no "bribe" money offered to use it). Had it been used, many soldiers as well as Iraqis could have had their lives saved from land mines.

Carol Lam is being likened to the Armadillo as both being a "casualty of war". And because they are casualties of war, we all have that many more other "casualties of war"!!! Folks, this corruption isn't just about people "making money on the side". These decisions cost our government it's reputation as well as costing many people their lives! That is why it is SO important to shut this sort of abuse down! This isn't just a blow job in the office!

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/01/18/letters/406casual.txt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zara Donating Member (470 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-18-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why do they roll over and resign? Why not refuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC