Posted on 10/21/2005 10:12:30 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
U.S. Federal Prosecutor McNulty Named Deputy Attorney General Associated Press October 21, 2005 10:49 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- Paul McNulty, a federal prosecutor in Virginia, was chosen Friday by President George W. Bush to serve as the No. 2 Justice Department official, following the withdrawal of a nominee who faced questions about his business ties.
As the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, Va., since 2001, Mr. McNulty has prosecuted several high-profile terrorism cases. Earlier this year, Mr. McNulty's office obtained a guilty plea from Zacarias Moussaoui, who admitted to conspiring with the Sept. 11 hijackers and now could face the death penalty.
His nomination as deputy Attorney General must be confirmed by the Senate, but the White House announcement said he would serve in an acting capacity until then. The post has been vacant since James Comey resigned in August.
Mr. Bush's previous nominee for deputy Attorney General, Timothy E. Flanigan, withdrew his nomination in early October, citing uncertainty over when he would be confirmed. Senators complained that Mr. Flanigan lacked prosecutorial experience and also questioned his dealings with indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Mr. McNulty, 47 years old, is well-known on Capitol Hill. He served as spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He later directed the Bush transition team for the Justice Department and worked in the deputy's office until Mr. Bush appointed him to the prosecutor's job in Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Anyone expert opinion on the constitutionality of *ACTING* appointments?
Well this should make the libs heads explode
I believe that because he is in the DOJ he may be assigned the duties of not the actual position.
I certainly hope so!
I dont think that is accurate ... I believe that temporary positions have been assigned until there is a nominee confirmed more or less forever.
This better be very clear. Does not seem right to me.
It would be shameful to play Clinton games.
Well, Bolton did not take the UN position until the Recess appointment.
I don't believe it is constitutional. Whether it is standard practice, I don't know.
The only such abuse I can remember is Clinton appointing his crony to DoJ.
Well, I found in the OMB manual that there are set provisions for health care for various acting position where the full position would require senate approval.
Here for example is a page from the manual that includes what benefits an acting postmaster is entitled to.
On the FBI web site you can see various FBI directors served as acting directors. Here is one example from 1919.
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/allen.htm
Here is another example from 1973.
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/directors/ruckelshaus.htm
I suspect that this is normal practice because someone has to be in charge until a permanant person is in charge.
This is the OMB link I forgot in that last post.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/handbook/fehb06.asp
Great move by Dubya.
Why waste time playing the scumbag Democrats' games when he doesn't have to?
Oh yeah - - welcome to Free Republic.
May be I am misunderstanding the Clinton game. The difference here may be that Clinton appointed him as acting after being assured of losing Senate confirmation, and also through the end of his term.
Any more insights?
Always worry about abuses of constitution, no matter which party does it.
Hmmm. Think I'll take a peek at his posting history.
Dear TexasForever,
Yes. But, on three useful topics. :-)
Thanks for the compliment! :-)
See post #12
LOL. You are easily flattered.
"May be I am misunderstanding the Clinton game. The difference here may be that Clinton appointed him as acting after being assured of losing Senate confirmation, and also through the end of his term."
A related question would be does the acting position has less power? Otherwise what's to keep the president from bypassing Senate approval indefinitely.
But I have to say in this case I think the President did the right thing- it's not McNulty that was withdrawn from the permanent position consideration but Flanigan.
Part of the attack on Flanigan was political but he also didn't have a prosecutorial background. The President responded with an interim appointment with impeccable credentials. If the dems go after McNulty they political nature of the attacks will be clear.
Nice to know you on Freep! We are all on the same team, although we do have some skirmishes. :-)
The filling of offices by "recess appointments" is completely Constitutional and appointing cronies is Constitutional, too. If your concern is the appearance of sleaziness, I agree that Bush should remain vigilant and careful. But at the same time, if he can circumvent the unnecessary, politically-charged obstructionism of the scumbag rats, then good for him.
By the way, you want to compare Bush to Clinton? I would advise that you take it easy on that kind of stuff until you are far more familiar around here. Just some FRiendly advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.