Posted on 03/08/2007 3:27:25 PM PST by steve-b
Six fired U.S. attorneys testified on Capitol Hill yesterday that they had separately been the target of complaints, improper telephone calls and thinly veiled threats from a high-ranking Justice Department official or members of Congress, both before and after they were abruptly removed from their jobs.
In back-to-back hearings in the Senate and House, former U.S. attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico and five other former prosecutors recounted instances in which they felt pressured by Republicans on corruption cases and, and one said he was warned by a Justice official to keep quiet or face retaliation.
Iglesias - whose allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate Ethics Committee inquiry - offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican and Rep. Heather Wilson, both Republicans of New Mexico, saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat.
Another former prosecutor, John McKay of Seattle, alleged for the first time that he received a call from the chief of staff to Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington, inquiring about an inquiry into vote fraud charges in the state's 2004 gubernatorial election. McKay said he cut the call short....
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
None of these was a Clinton appointee.
We need to go the FreeRepublic pages of each state that had a prosecutor fired and ask, what is being cover up. My guess is that we will find cases of voter fraud and corruption that were just ignored if there was a (D) following the name.
One of the big ones (not one of these, though) was a New Yorker who was a Clinton holdover, IIRC.
Havent those Justice officials learned by now that laws do not apply to Democrats?
Mary Jo White was, I believe, the only Clinton holdover, because of some big case she was in the middle of. But even she was replaced in 2002 (by Comey, who was later replaced by someone else).
I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. I had heard differently.
Belated reply - in today's Seattle Times, McKay claims he investigated complaints about the 2004 election and found no evidence of fraud. He might be lying or leaving out something, but that's what he said.
When did FR become such a fact-free zone? It is like no one even cares if what they say is true, as long as it has the proper partisan slant.
Probably here.
Mary Jo White held over for a couple of years, then left. That, and her seat, has absolutely zero to do with this issue.
the southern district covering manhattan, that US attorney (a Dem) stayed on longer. I forget his name now.
I thought that I read on the Evergreen article that McKay had claimed that the voter fraud was a state issue, not a federal issue, because ot was a state office that was in contention. The fact remains that it was a federal election.
Kelley (who was a Dem) replaced Comey on an "interim" basis, but stayed two years. Michael Garcia was the permanent replacement.
My memory is failing but I seem to recall that there was someone from NY who was fired and it was not MJW. My memory might be totally faulty, though.
May Jo White. She stayed on until 2002.
No, not here. I know nothing of you, so I won't presume that you are an ass. Don't presume anything about me.
Are you even following the story? These guys were all appointed by Bush.
Are you going to let a little thing like reality interrupt a perfectly good rant?
You're right. LOL
U.S. Attorneys are presidential appointees. Every U.S. president fires the prior president's appointees and puts in his own. Bush fired every Clinton-appointed US Attorney (with only one exception out of 93, and that one was replaced within a year) and appointed his own people. (What was unique about Clinton was that he fired every sitting US Attorney en masse; most presidents --including Bush in 2001-- let the former administration's US Attorneys continue to serve until the new appointee is nominated and confirmed. Clinton did this because he wanted the Arkansas US Attorney, who was investigating Whitewater, out right away, and he fired all of the US Attorneys at once to try to hide what he was doing.)
It is well within the President's power to fire his own appointed US Attorneys at any time, but historically, this has very, very rarely been done. Bush has now fired 8 of his own appointees in a matter of weeks, which is legal, but unprecedented.
The other reason this is different from 1993 is that Bush proposed (and Congress passed) a change to the law last year (it was a little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act renewal): it used to be that, if a US Attorney died, resigned or was fired, the President would have to seek Senate confirmation of his successor; if the successor wasn't appointed and confirmed within 120 days, the judges in that district's federal court would elect the temporary successor, who would serve until the president nominated a successor and the Senate confirmed him. Under the new law, Bush can fire a US Attorney and appoint a successor who can serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. When Clinton fired all of the U.S. Attorneys in 1993, his new appointees all needed Senate confirmation, and the courts appointed interim successors for any not confirmed within 120 days.
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.