"Mistakes were made."

[shereads]

I still say NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

And you know this, how? People who make laws for a living seem to think one was broken.

I haven't researched the law; I'm relying on public statements that would, if they were untrue, have been easy enough for the Justice Department to refute. A spokesman for the fired attorneys, and participants in a discussions on Meet the Press, addressed the question you raised in your earlier post: Why a cover-up? What's special about these firings? Wasn't Karl Rove correct when he said presidents can hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will?

What I learned was that federal attorneys are protected from termination for the duration of the term of the appointing president, except for reasons of job performance - as measured by objective criteria like the rate of convictions relative to the number of cases they prosecute.

I can attest that the same practice is common in the private sector, among corporations interested in protecting themselves from wrongful termination lawsuits. Written performance reviews aren't about mentoring; they're an employer's proof that promotions, pay raises and firings are based on objective criteria that were made clear to the employee, including a warning if necessary to give the employee an opportunity to correct a deficiency. Companies don't always adhere to the guidelines, and most employees who lose their jobs are too busy finding new jobs to sue. But if Acme Bat Suits, Inc. recognizes the importance of having such procedures in place, how much more important is it for the U.S. Justice Department?

These people are given the power to destroy the lives of private citizens, Box. It stands to reason that the rules governing the performance of their jobs - and that protect them from political pressure in deciding which cases to prosecute - are more stringent than at Home Depot.

Precisely how and when it it legal to intervene in a federal case by firing the prosecuting attorney? I don't know. You're the one who says it's not a crime, so you tell me.

As for their employee files becoming a matter of public record, the fired attorneys themselves have the right to access those files - as you would choose to do if you were the victim of a firing that could end your career, if potential employers believed you were terminated for being lousy at your job. You'd use what was available to prove that you had an excellent record based on the criteria you were given.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And you know this, how? People who make laws for a living seem to think one was broken.

And other people who make laws for a living think none was broken.

I haven't researched the law; I'm relying on public statements that would, if they were untrue, have been easy enough for the Justice Department to refute. A spokesman for the fired attorneys, and participants in a discussions on Meet the Press, addressed the question you raised in your earlier post: Why a cover-up? What's special about these firings? Wasn't Karl Rove correct when he said presidents can hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will?

So the people you are believing are the fired lawyers and their mouthpieces? Either lawyers or politicians will lie when it fits their needs, and when one is both, that person is especially untrustworthy. They will say whatever they feel like saying, without caring for the truth. That applies to Rove and W and others also, by the way.

What I learned was that federal attorneys are protected from termination for the duration of the term of the appointing president, except for reasons of job performance - as measured by objective criteria like the rate of convictions relative to the number of cases they prosecute.

Is there actually a law about this? I concede it is a custom, but I doubt there is an actual law. There might be, but I don't know of one. They are not considered to be civil service employees, you know.

I can attest that the same practice is common in the private sector, among corporations interested in protecting themselves from wrongful termination lawsuits. Written performance reviews aren't about mentoring; they're an employer's proof that promotions, pay raises and firings are based on objective criteria that were made clear to the employee, including a warning if necessary to give the employee an opportunity to correct a deficiency. Companies don't always adhere to the guidelines, and most employees who lose their jobs are too busy finding new jobs to sue. But if Acme Bat Suits, Inc. recognizes the importance of having such procedures in place, how much more important is it for the U.S. Justice Department?

You are comparing employees and political appointees. Grapes and grapefruits. The attorneys are aware they serve at the pleasure of the president who appointed them. Presumably, the authority can be delegated to the AG. Maybe it ain't right, but it is the way the system works, to the degree that it works.

These people are given the power to destroy the lives of private citizens, Box. It stands to reason that the rules governing the performance of their jobs - and that protect them from political pressure in deciding which cases to prosecute - are more stringent than at Home Depot.

Precisely how and when it it legal to intervene in a federal case by firing the prosecuting attorney? I don't know. You're the one who says it's not a crime, so you tell me.

Firing federal prosecutors who are involved in cases happens regularly. On January 20, 1993, I think it would be safe to say there were some federal cases being prosecuted. However, all the federal prosecutors were fired on that day, or shortly thereafter. Likewise January 20, 2001.

As for their employee files becoming a matter of public record, the fired attorneys themselves have the right to access those files - as you would choose to do if you were the victim of a firing that could end your career, if potential employers believed you were terminated for being lousy at your job. You'd use what was available to prove that you had an excellent record based on the criteria you were given.

That's the whole problem. The employee files are confidential but the individual employees have access to their own. They can then sort through the files and show the positive reports, letters, etc. to anybody who might be sympathetic, and keep the negative aspects to themselves. I would do the same thing, and I expect you would too. To quote your own words, You'd use what was available to prove that you had an excellent record based on the criteria you were given.

 

[shereads]

That's the whole problem. The employee files are confidential but the individual employees have access to their own. They can then sort through the files and show the positive reports and letters, etc. to anybody who might be sympathetic, and keep the negative aspects to themselves. I would do the same thing, and I espect you would too. To quote your own words, You'd use what was available to prove that you had an excellent record based on the criteria you were given.

First of all, I'm not relying on one source. And I wouldn't rely on more than one source, if I were aware of anyone specifically refuting their allegations. Blanket statements that nobody did anything criminal are meaningless, considering how easy it would be for the ones who know the real truth to google the law and show us.

Secondly, I haven't heard anyone say that all of the firings were criminal; just the one case in California. Neither are the other firings merely unethical (as in typical). They are unprecedented in number and timing - which means that every previoius administration has either known something you don't about why this is a big deal, or they have been incredibly resistant to a tempting political tactic that they knew was within their rights.

As for the confidentiality of employee files, I doubt that it applies to federal employees. But even if in the private sector, I wouldn't be allowed to selectively reveal parts of my employee file - which is technically not my property but that of the company that put it together - and withhold the parts that made my employer's case for firing me. Why do you think companies keep these files, if they can only be used against them and not to support a firing? Surely the Attorney General has watched enough Court TV to know that when one side introduces evidence that would otherwise have been confidential, the other side is free to walk through that door.

Last but not least, the Attorney General knows more about the law as it applies here than you or I, and he's the one who decided to cover his ass by denying involvement. E-mails are a bitch, aren't they?

 

[S-Des]

Secondly, I haven't heard anyone say that all of the firings were criminal; just the one case in California.

I'm waiting until this all fleshes out before forming any real opinions. I know I've heard enough people speak on it that something is definitely out of the ordinary, if not unethical or illegal. A congressman was on last night who had complained to Gonzalez about the California prosecutor. She was refusing to prosecute cases of the Coyote's smuggling illegals across the border, telling the border security agency to not bother unless the groups were larger than 12 (at least this was his story). If it's true, it is possible that the argument could be made by Gonzalez that it was job performance related (although I don't know legaly if not liking the cases your prosecutor picks is the same as them doing a bad job).

In the end, this could wind up being like all the Clinton "scandals" that Republicans dredged up for years until something stuck. On the other hand, it could be they finally did something to get their asses in a sling that is provable. But it's still too early to be sure about anything (except there is no way the Dems will let this go until it's completely investigated).

 

[Boxlicker101]

First of all, I'm not relying on one source. And I wouldn't rely on more than one source, if I were aware of anyone specifically refuting their allegations. Blanket statements that nobody did anything criminal are meaningless, considering how easy it would be for the ones who know the real truth to google the law and show us.

Secondly, I haven't heard anyone say that all of the firings were criminal; just the one case in California. Neither are the other firings merely unethical (as in typical). They are unprecedented in number and timing - which means that every previoius administration has either known something you don't about why this is a big deal, or they have been incredibly resistant to a tempting political tactic that they knew was within their rights.

As for the confidentiality of employee files, I doubt that it applies to federal employees. But even if in the private sector, I wouldn't be allowed to selectively reveal parts of my employee file - which is technically not my property but that of the company that put it together - and withhold the parts that made my employer's case for firing me. Why do you think companies keep these files, if they can only be used against them and not to support a firing? Surely the Attorney General has watched enough Court TV to know that when one side introduces evidence that would otherwise have been confidential, the other side is free to walk through that door.

Last but not least, the Attorney General knows more about the law as it applies here than you or I, and he's the one who decided to cover his ass by denying involvement. E-mails are a bitch, aren't they?

If you are referring to Carol Lam as "the one case in California", she actually resigned. It was under pressure, but it was a resignation, so there can't be anything illegal there.

Why wouldn't federal employees' personnel files be confidential? Individual employees or former employees would have access to their own files, and they could probably make copies, which could then be shown to try to prove a point.

 

[Seattle Zack]

The March 2007 edition of Esquire has a profile (and an article by) Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, possibly one of the most patriotic men in the history of our young country.

He was, of course, the U.S. Navy attorney who successfully challenged the President in the Supreme Court regarding holding suspected enemy combatants without trial. The case made history but cost him his naval career.

It's an incredible article, written from the inside, with such passion for the laws and constitutionality of our nation that it actually gives me some hope.

"If we are to be a great nation, then we must be willing to be a nation bound by the rule of law in our treatment of all people. That means using something other than coerced confessions to convict our enemies."

The tactics the Bush administration used against him are appalling. The article is almost cinematic, I could just imagine a spiteful Rummy on the stand (in full Jack Nicholson regalia) snarling, "You can't handle the truth! Yes, I ordered the Code Red!"

 

[shereads]

The March 2007 edition of Esquire has a profile (and an article by) Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, possibly one of the most patriotic men in the history of our young country.

He was, of course, the U.S. Navy attorney who successfully challenged the President in the Supreme Court regarding holding suspected enemy combatants without trial. The case made history but cost him his naval career.

It's an incredible article, written from the inside, with such passion for the laws and constitutionality of our nation that it actually gives me some hope.

"If we are to be a great nation, then we must be willing to be a nation bound by the rule of law in our treatment of all people. That means using something other than coerced confessions to convict our enemies."

The tactics the Bush administration used against him are appalling. The article is almost cinematic, I could just imagine a spiteful Rummy on the stand (in full Jack Nicholson regalia) snarling, "You can't handle the truth! Yes, I ordered the Code Red!"

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll pick up a copy. On a similar theme, I came across this editorial in an e-zine called The Jurist:

David M. Crane is a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and former founding Chief Prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (2002-2005). He previously spent over 30 years in US federal government service as a Senior Inspector General, Department of Defense, Assistant General Counsel of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the United States Army Judge Advocate General’s School.

No One Is Above the Law: New DOJ Leadership Needed

As Chief Prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunal in West Africa called the Special Court for Sierra Leone, I told the people there that no one is above the law. It was a statement I staked my personal and professional reputation on to prove to a horrified and beaten-down population that the law is the cornerstone of any free and democratic nation. As an American lawyer I used the United States as the example of how we hold our senior leaders accountable for their transgressions.

On Friday, FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that he was the one in charge and should be held accountable for the apparent misuse of an important, yet intrusive law enforcement tool: national security letters. Absolutely, he should be held accountable. This Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, has not served our republic well. From missteps related to prisoners of war, torture, political pressure on district attorneys, to arrogant abuse of power related to national security, including violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and this recent misuse of authorities under the Patriot Act, the chief law enforcement office of the United States has bungled his job.

The cornerstone to this great nation is the law. We are in our second Cold War, an ideological struggle with religious criminals who seek to dominate an entire ancient religion for their own personal agenda. Civilization can only win this struggle by holding fast to the rule of law, using it as the ultimate weapon against those who seek to harm us. When we step away from that principle we begin to move down a very dark path indeed.

Both Gonzales and Mueller admitted publicly that members of our FBI broke the law. Those who did should be appropriately dealt with under the law. Yet the report hints of systemic problems, lack of oversight, sloppy administration and follow-up. It even appears that there was some intent to under-report the use of national security letters. This is a leadership and management issue at the highest level.

As a former senior inspector general in the Department of Defense and someone who has lead and managed federal and international organizations, large and small for over three decades, I know when an agency is poorly led. The FBI and the Justice Department are poorly led. This recent report by the Inspector General of that department shows this fact.

New leadership is needed in the Justice Department. As these violations of law and policy were under the watch of Robert Mueller, he should resign. No one is above the law, not even the Director of the FBI.

Congress should show leadership, as well and oversee more closely the Attorney General. The term “trust, but verify” is so apt here to ensure that the rule of law is followed in our own Justice Department. How many times can you forgive, overlook, or second-chance conduct that clearly steps away from a document that boldly declared centuries ago: “We the people of the United State, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice…”

 

[Seattle Zack]

Here's more about Charles Swift but you really should grab the mag for the full story.

"What bothers me most," says Swift, "is that there seems to be an urgency inside the government to do something about this issue, but no great commitment to doing it right."

 

[shereads]

Here's more about Charles Swift but you really should grab the mag for the full story.

It's a plan.