Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jason McClure from Legal Times in on cspan now. Very interesting

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:29 AM
Original message
Jason McClure from Legal Times in on cspan now. Very interesting
Q&A. US Attorney's all serve "At the Pleasure of the President" and he has the right to hire and fire them at will. I KNOW that's true!

I WONDER at whatpoint does the firing of these 8 US Attorney's become alegal problem for the Justice Dept. or the President?

We as Dems may not LIKE what happened, but it MAY be perfectly legal and these hearings are really all for show!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. IIRC Archibald Cox served at the pleasure of Nixon too,
so firing him was legal. Legal, but a very bad and desperate move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. F*#! THE "PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT"! This cabal is in the WH due to FRAUDULENT
ELECTIONS! We need the Dems to move quickly to IMPEACH before more lives are ruined.

INDICT
IMPEACH
IMPRISON
NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madame defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. However...
I remember reading somewhere yesterday that the last time any US attorneys were fired was in 1981, and then it was 3. I think the number of attorneys being fired under suspicious/false reasons is the issue, not that the president has the right to hire/fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cspanlovr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. That's depressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. self-delete
Edited on Tue Mar-06-07 09:42 AM by The Witch
self-delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. You don't get to intimidate those working in the US Attorney's
office in order to prevent exposure of corruption in ones own party... That's called obstruction of justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. was he only on for a half hour?
Edited on Tue Mar-06-07 09:42 AM by The Witch
damn, I missed him... freakin heartburn..

:waits for video to go up on c-span.org:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. US Attorney Oversight in Appointments Process? Changed last year by Specter?
I understand that prior to the passage of a bill in the waning days of the last Congress there was a mechanism for oversight of appointments, that this was changed by a little-noticed insertion into the bill which now allows Bush to appoint without oversight (supposedly inserted by Senator Specter).

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think that as many of the members of Congress are lawyers and many remember the Nixon firing of Archibald Cox, special prosecutor, these are more than show hearings. This is an issue they understand thoroughly, can be passionate about, and can use to shed some light on the Bush administration. I think it resonates with Congress just as the Bush administration's sleasy treatment of wounded veterans resonates with the public.

Daniel Schorr on NPR this week compared it to the Saturday Night firing of Archibald Cox.

I understand there is legislation in the works to repeal the passage Specter put into the law.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riderinthestorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
9. But it sounds as though there was some pressuring going on
We are only getting solid information on one of the fired US Attorneys (I believe only 3 were subpeonaed) which indicates that Domenici and Wilson were crossing legal boundaries with their actions towards Iglesias.

I would bet there are similar issues with all of the firings which will make whether their service "at the pleasure of the President" moot. While it is technically true that they can be fired at any time, if they were fired to (in reality) obstruct an investigation, that's a BIG legal problem.

And 8 being fired at the same time is unprecedented and deeply troubling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Four of the fired attys were subpoenaed and are testifying today.
H.E. “Bud” Cummins, III
Former U.S. Attorney
Eastern District of Arkansas
Little Rock, AR

David C. Iglesias
Former U.S. Attorney
District of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM

Carol Lam
Former U.S. Attorney
Southern District of California
San Diego, CA

John McKay
Former U.S. Attorney
Western District of Washington
Seattle, WA

There is ALSO a HOUSE Judiciary Committee Hearing tomorrow. I don't know if the same four will be testifying at that one of if it's some of the others. Todays' hearing is of course the Senate Judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
10. See other DU threads for more complete info
But as I recall, Congress had to approve the appointments UNTIL a Repub shill working for Arlen Specter slipped in an amendment to the Patriot Act saying that Bush could make appointments without Congressional approval. The prosecutor in Arkansas was fired so that a former Repub operative and a close friend of Rove could replace him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
12. Hearing starting now on CSPAN 3
They just said this is the second hearing. I wasn't around yesterday afternoon. :shrug:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROakes1019 Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. at the pleasure
The president may nominate, as with any cabinet post etc., but the Senate confirms. This latest end run around Senate confirmation is a product of the Patriot Act and has been abused in this case. Previously, the president could appoint a US Attorney for something like three months but the Patriot Act made it possible for a temporary appointment to become permanent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-06-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
14. Did he introduce himself like "Hi, I'm Jason McClure. You may remember me from..."? -nt
Edited on Tue Mar-06-07 10:16 AM by Commie Pinko Dirtbag
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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