Powered by TypePad

« The Republican's Obama | Main | Pardon Me.... »

March 21, 2007



Once again I ask; Is the Exec subject to Sarbanes/Oxley, legal eagles?


What a silly question.

bio mom

If you carefully read the NY Times articles (not editorials) about the released emails regarding the prosecutor brouhaha, the “conspiracy” theories die. Today there is an excellent review of the Lam firing and yesterday of the Iglesias firing. Of course, partisan types will not take the time to carefully read and would rather subscribe to hysterical headlines that fit their own agendas. I have never been very impressed with Gonzalez. But this flap is absurd. And I Schumer is a real slime-ball, involved in promoting this and as a major player in the Plame set-up of the Bush administration. He should have stayed in the House. He lowers the integrity of the Senate, and that is really saying something!



And your silly answer is?



Well looks like they've already edited out the "wing-nut" and fixed the spelling. FWIW


Sarbanes Oxley creates reporting requirements for publicly trade corporations. Not the executive branch of the federal government.

The exec branch is "subject" to Sarbanes Oxley only in that SOX creates requirements for the applicable agencies to promulgate regulations implementing the statutory requirements.

What sort of conspiracy loon fever spawned that silliness?


Uh, one of the requirements is EMAIL Retention. What, the Exec is not subject to Federal Law?

clarice feldman

In every family there are smart members and dumb members.

Cecil Turner

Kaus is wrong, and the best indicator is the June, 2006 letter from Feinstein:

“It has come to my attention that despite high apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of California appear to lag behind. . . . It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases … I also want to stress the importance of vigorously prosecuting these types of cases so that California isn't viewed as an easy entry point for alien smugglers because there is no fear of prosecution if caught.” [emphasis added]


"In every family there are smart members and dumb members"

At least SPQR has a reply. You didn't.

Aren't you a lawyer?


Where is this being discussed? I'm surprised someone didn't argue that it's in the constitution. :D

Great Banana


I'll try to make this easy for you.

Not every federal law covers every person or every organization. For instance, Title VII (employment discrimination) only applies to employers with more than 15 employees. And, congress has exempted itself from much of the law.

So, Sarbanes-Oxley, as codified, applies only to PUBLICLY TRADED companies, of which the executive branch is not a PUBLICLY TRADED company. Thus, by its own terms, Sarbanes-Oxley does not apply to the executive branch. Nor does it apply to any other entity that is not publicly traded.

If you want, I can also explain "publicly traded" to you. Or if you need me to I can also explain "entity".

So, sarbanes-oxley is NOT applicable to the executive branch. And, it does not apply to you unless you are a publicly traded company.


Though rife with condescension (of which lawyers reek), I appreciate a simple answer
to a simple question. Forgive me if I don't just give you a pass without further inquiry


I still want to know where they are discussing this.


C'mon Cleo, it wasn't your idea, I'm sure. Tell me where it is, I want to see this place. :D


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Lam's critic, leaks the border patrol document criticizing Lam on May 18 2006, just days after the resignations of CIA Director Porter Goss and his deputy Dusty Foggo and the searches of Foggo's home and CIA office as a result of Lam's corruption investigation.

Coincidence? you be the judge.


Also known as 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002'. I don't think that applies to the administration...

Oh wait! You've maybe confused yourself by uttering BushCo to many times.

So just to clarify, the administration is not a publicly traded company.


Head (but not a "Small Face")Muckraker spinning NYT article on Lam:

"This is a murky story no doubt. But there's plenty of reason to believe that rather than being the reason for disgruntlement with Lam, the immigration issue, from the start, was the best available cudgel to use against her for her aggressive pursuit of the Cunningham case."

Sing it Rod:

If I gave you time to change my mind
I'd find a way to leave the past behind
Knowing that you lied straight faced while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe


Posted by: bubarooni

'Nuff said.


ok, sorry. nuthin' personal.

i was just dying to throw that BushCo thing in there...


OK, am I the only close reader of this blog who also reads Page Six?
From today's P6 under the heading:

We hear .... "That Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to Hudson Institute members Monday at the Union League Club. Asked about a possible pardon for Scooter Libby, he smiled and said, 'You can imagine how I feel about that.' Libby himself was seated in the front row."

clarice feldman

Libby works at the Hudson Institute, Tonto.

Great Banana

Though rife with condescension (of which lawyers reek), I appreciate a simple answer
to a simple question. Forgive me if I don't just give you a pass without further inquiry

Why ask the question if you are not going to take the answer?

I am condescending toward you because I have read many of your comments, and never for a minute believed you would accept a simple fact as the answer if it in any way went against your pre-conceived notion. thus, I am not surprised that you intend to hang on to your fantasy of a sarbanes-oxley violation.

Have fun with that.


"Have fun with that."



So just to clarify, the administration is not a publicly traded company.

Posted by: bubarooni | March 21, 2007 at 10:15 AM

The administration is a wholy owned subsidiary of Haliburton and Exxon-Mobil.


The administration is a wholy owned subsidiary of Haliburton and Exxon-Mobil.

Perhaps that explains George Soros' recent massive investment.



If so that would be listed in the paperwork required in Sarbanes-Oxley. I must've missed that.

I have heard that DOW Chemical might have a connection though. They do make napalm and you know admin officials like their babies extra crispy.

Great Banana

I think it would be funny if President Bush responded to this current controversy by firing all the other U.S. Attorneys as well.

then, what would the left say?

Gabriel Sutherland

Spartacvs: Can you substantiate the claim that Issa was the source of the May 2006 leak?

This paragraph stood out to me from the WaPo report published today.

For all their vivid detail, the e-mails and other records shed little light on the Bush administration's motives for carrying out the firings in the way it did. The new documents also provide little evidence that Justice officials sought to interfere with public corruption probes, as many Democrats and some of the prosecutors have alleged.

Gabriel Sutherland

Semanticleo: What is your point in asking about Sarbanes-Oxley? Presume the executive branch is required to meet it's standards for retention. Presume it is not required to meet the standards for retention. Just get to your point.

Great Banana


The point is, he has some "facts" at his disposal and is looking for a crime to fit those facts into.

Great Banana

Some leftist on some other blog probably made the claim that "missing emails" violated Sarbanes-Oxley and constitute a crime.

With talking point in hand, the left pours forth.

Like most things with the left, they don't know what they are talking about.

Charlie (Colorado)

Leo, you idiot, even privately held companies aren't subject to SOX rules.


I think it would be funny if President Bush responded to this current controversy by firing all the other U.S. Attorneys as well.

then, what would the left say?

Posted by: Great Banana | March 21, 2007 at 11:00 AM

I see a bad moon arising
I see trouble on the way...


Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Lam's critic, leaks the border patrol document criticizing Lam on May 18 2006, just days after the resignations of CIA Director Porter Goss and his deputy Dusty Foggo and the searches of Foggo's home and CIA office as a result of Lam's corruption investigation.

This is interesting - the Judge in the Foggo/Wilke's trial just admoniished the government yesterday -and is considering an investigation of his own - for LEAKING to the media DURING *the ivestigatio*n of Wilkes/Foggo.

Hmm. Sounds like Spart has the wrong leaker, huh?

Might be more to Lam and the Democrats than meets the eye.


Answer the question Semanticleo


Gabriel, Google is your friend.



You are correct and that is a reason for justifying so many companies being taken private today.

The total cost of S/O compliance goes straight to the bottom line of the private entity.


Google is your friend.

And SpartyPants is your villiage idiot.


God I love you guys. I think the lefties like getting spanked before they run.

C. Bowers

The President is still being too nice. He should ID 2 more attorneys, from places where we can live without replacements or with crappy replacements or pick some attorney that might matter to Schumer or Leahy like Fitzgerald, and fire them with the clear statement "without cause" attached. Let's see what that brings. Time for offense.

Also time to fire the high ranking Democrats in Justice, State, Defense, CIA and FBI - clean house. Must be something to cite in their records. Nobody is perfect.

Also time to press for inditements on the Times and Post leaks. Then indite the leakers. That will clear out a bunch more of the creeps.


Seems I read somewhere that in the document dump there were going to be a restricted portions of the documents that would only go to congress.

Will have to look around, but that could explain the gap.


A couple of questions...

I have seen this statistic bandied about that quotes this congressional research service study showing that very few US Attorneys have been fired before the end of their four-year terms.

I have also seen discussion that the traditional practice is that USAs serve their terms, and then stay in them indefinitely until fired. And that frequently when the incoming president is of the same party as the outgoing president, some significant number of USAs are retained in the new administration. In the case of Reagan followed by Bush, there were some USAs fired by Clinton who had been there for 12 years -- the first four years being their 4-year terms, and the next eight being "extensions."

Most of the current USAs were appointed to 4-year terms in the 2001-2002 time frame.

So, of the Recently-Fired Eight,

-- how many were appointed more than 4 years ago? (So in the next CRS study they won't count as being fired before their terms were up, either, and so it will still be true that it is rare for USAs to be fired before the end of their terms.)

-- how many were relatively new when this whole evaluation/review process started 2 years ago? (In many jobs, new hires are given an explicit probationary period. In many more, a probationary period is implied. How many of the Deep-Sixed Eight were new enough 2 years ago to fit into the category of having failed during their probationary period?)


One more question. There has been discussion of the new rules allowing for USAs to be appointed without Senate approval, and that the replacements for the Deep-Sixed Eight will not have to be confirmed by the Senate. But isn't that true under the old rules, too? Bush can appoint the replacements as recess appointments in 3 weeks over the Easter break, and their appointments are valid until after Bush leaves office, no Senate confirmation required.


Banana says: "I think it would be funny if President Bush responded to this current controversy by firing all the other U.S. Attorneys as well. then, what would the left say?"

Would you consider this to be a "leftist" viewpoint?

"Bob Barr blasted the White House, saying “the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who’s the toughest hombre in all this.” Rather than fighting accountability, Barr said, “the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush 1 administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.”

Gabriel Sutherland

Spartacvs: I'm holding out. I think you're a nice fella. I don't have any reason to believe you are not a nice fella. However, asking me to research your claims is a stretch. You're falling fast from nice fella to average hack.

Seriously, just give me something that indicates Congressman Issa was the source of the May 2006 leak. You made that claim. The least you can do is provide the supporting link.


Very good points and I hope President Bush takes advantage of the Easter break nomination opportunity.
C Bowers: I like how you think.

Charlie (Colorado)

The total cost of S/O compliance goes straight to the bottom line of the private entity.

You're not kidding. SOX compliance costs for computer security and retention issues are driving a *lot* of Sun/StorageTek's sales right now.



This enough for you?

Also: after Lam notified the DoJ that more investigation was expected following the investigation that put Cunningham behind bars for more than eight years, the White House got a letter from the Department of Justice saying there was a "real problem" with Lam. A week after the White House was alerted to the "Lam problem," one Republican lawmaker Darryl Issa (R-CA) [from the Congressional district adjacent to Cunningham's] stepped up his efforts to smear Lam's record on immigration, leaking altered documents about Lam to the Associated Press and appearing on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight to complain about Lam's performance.

Read a report about this here



Right now there is a lot of discussion of stock trading boards about the number of IPOs being moved to foreign exchanges to avoid the SOX requirements.

Gabriel Sutherland

As an sys admin, I can tell you that compliance with SOX is a lot like compliance with the Bureau of Software Licensing(industry license cops). Most companies are not fully compliant, but they're doing their best to comply. By 'best' I mean 'very little at all'.

In places where I have consulted, it was astonishingly to learn that email retention was not a priority. Beyond email, instant messaging was worse. These methods of communication are more common than phone calls and a lot of these companies record all their phone calls.


Before you ask:



"Leo, you idiot, even privately held companies aren't subject to SOX rules."

Chaco. Late for dinner again.


Gabriel Sutherland

Tom: Thanks. Here's the same link you provided in HTML format.
The Daily Background Report


The Bush adminstration needs a serious lesson in how to treat liberals.


Bush should have announced the following actions in his press conference:

1. Due to Senator Schumers diligence, it has come to my attention that politics may have been involved in the firing and hiring of US attorneys; to alleviate his concerns
I am initiating an immediate investigation into the firing and hiring of US attorneys in New York in the past ten years, especially those that were recommended by politicians, like Senators.

2. I have requested the US attorney in new York inform the Senator that we are interested in any correspondence he may have had with the US attorney office regarding any friends, acquitances or contributors of the Senator. I wish this to be a joint effort where the Senator can help show us just how to conduct this investigation.

3. In addition, I am requesting that any friends or contributor of the Senator that may have been investigated in the last 15 years, that those files be re-reviewed by the US attorneys office to insure their was no political influence in the outcome of those cases.
This will require all of his contributors be notified of their potential need for counsel during this investigation.

4. I realize now how critial it is that we insure no political influence is involved in the US attorney's offices and this comprehensive investigation of the US attorneys activities during the 1990s in New York, with New York politicians should help alleviate Senator Schumers concerns. We hope as the Senator has asked of us, that he will ask for the full cooperation of his friends, construtients and contributors to fully cooperate with this investigation.

4. Of course we do not want to just limit this in depth review to New York, so if any other Senators wish to come forward and raise concerns about politics playing a part in the US atorneys offices in their states, we will happily ablige them with an in depth review in their states.
I understand Senator Leahy may already be volunteering for an exensive review of political contacts between US attorneys and all politicians in the State of Vermont.

We are currently reviewing whether we should expand this pilot program to Senator.
Leahy's state.

Thank You, and I look forward to Senator Schumers complete cooperation with this investigation. I am confident he will fully cooperate, what could he possibly have to hide??

Gabriel Sutherland

Tom: Ok, now that we have some supporting information of the claim that Issa was the source of the May 2006 leak, I'm still left with the same question.

Where is the evidence to support the claim that Issa was the source of the May 2006 leak?

To the Daily Background link, you quoted the portion that says Issa was the source of the leak, however, the Daily Background(guy with a website?) doesn't provide any corrobating evidence to support the claim either. AKP(Arlen Parsa, the guy) just writes that Issa was the leaker. There isn't any link to any source to support that statement.

Do you know more about this than I, Arlen Parsa, and Spartacvs? We all still need supporting evidence that Issa is the source of the May 2006 leak?


Hey, did you know this:

ABC7 News has learned the Chicago office of the FBI is one of the regional headquarters where agents abused the power of the Patriot Act. That law gives agents the power to demand phone and financial records without a court order.

The Justice Department investigation focused on counterterrorism cases in four field offices, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Chicago. Those four invoked Patriot Act provisions more than any other US cities. The I-Team has learned more cases with problems were found by investigators in Chicago than anywhere else.

FBI illegally used Patriot Act to pry out info on Americans
A Justice Department investigation found the FBI has repeatedly violated the Patriot Act and some of those actions could be illegal. In this Intelligence Report: Chicago has more problem cases than any other FBI field office.

...No one from the FBI in Chicago has returned the I-Team's phone call looking for comment on Friday's critical report.

The Justice Department audit does not reveal which Chicago investigations may have been conducted illegally or improperly. But, you can be certain on Monday, defense lawyers will be trying to find out if their clients might have been subjected to such tactics and whether those cases could be thrown out.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story section=investigative&id=5108101



If you doubt that this CRO thing is real, just take a look around. SOX compliance cost American companies an extra $6 billion in 2005. In 2006 the bill may be nearly double that. Here is why. To date, the Fortune 1000 were the only ones complying with SOX. Mid-market firms are doing it because everyone now knows that financial transparency is good for business.


No, I don't.

And to be honest I can't figure out where Issa is coming from these days. He appears to have moved much more to the center, considering his past, which doesn't really bother me.

clarice feldman

ts,That's very interesting.


Well, we know of governemnet leaking...

SAN DIEGO- A federal judge sharply criticized the government Monday for leaking information to the press ****during**** the investigation into a former top CIA official and a San Diego defense contractor.

Responding to complaints from defense attorneys during a hearing, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns called the leaks a "big problem."

Burns said he intends to enact an order that will restrict the public disclosure of state secrets or other legally protected information by both sides.

"If there are any more leaks it's my intention to get to the bottom of it," Burns warned.

Before indictments were returned last month details about the investigation into Kyle "Dusty" Foggo and Brent Wilkes were leaked to The Associated Press and other news organizations.
Wilkes' attorney, Mark Geragos, said after the hearing that he intends to file a request for a full investigation of the disclosures.

Government attorneys condemned the leaks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Forge called them "reprehensible."
Defense attorneys included stories from the AP, the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek in documents filed with the court last week challenging an order Burns issued spelling out requirements for defense access to classified evidence. The defense asked that the order be expanded to include the prosecution in light of the leaks.


The initial leaks last year were similar to Curt Weldon - that impeded the investigation and forced raids

Anyways, there was already an internal FBI - and probably DOJ - probe underway - before Weldon - into government leaks

Rick Ballard

Gee, who's the USA who would be supervising FBI investigations in Chicago? The fellow helping with the warrants (or deciding that warrants weren't necessary)?


Yeah Clarice and notice "Philadelphia" too.



Smartest man in the room?


Hmmmm... you don't think maybe Fitz was pushing the envelope? Cause it's not like he is known to do that.

What goes around comes around.


Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Forge called them "reprehensible."

Uh huh.

November 28, 2005

Public comments from U.S. Attorney Carol C. Lam at Monday's press conference:

Good morning, and thank you for being here on such short notice. Joining me here Monday are FBI Special Agent in Charge Dan Dwilewski, the IRS Special Agent in Charge Kenneth Hines, and Special Agent in Charge Richard Gwin of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, as well as Assistant United States Attorneys Jason Forge, Philip Halpern, and Sanjay Bhandari.

This morning, Congressman Randall Cunningham entered a plea of guilty to two felony counts in federal court here in San Diego...

...While Mr. Cunningham has reached a resolution of his case through a plea agreement and his entry of a guilty plea today, the investigation continues with respect to other co-conspirators.


Patterico is down.


1) JOM-alanch link/Hordes of Mongols
2) Pat "Sauron" Leahy, Eye of Burlington
3) Ken Kesey resurrection
4) Dog ate the WordPress bill
5) Sunshine, Oversight, Tolerance, Discourse, Fair Play, of the left, for a good cause naturally.


I commented over on the other thread when leo first brought up the giggler about the government being subject to SOX that the government doesn't comply with GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles). It's not some technical compliance issue, either, they don't even follow the spirit of accounting rules. Things like having separate accounts for capital and operating expenses. Accounting for pension contributions and payouts separate from the rest of the budget. Things like using revenue-neutral estimates for tax changes. (Imagine a company which didn't take into account that they would sell more of their product if they lowered the price and less if they raised the price.)

When people throw around deficit numbers and social security numbers and the like, everybody needs to know that these numbers are absolute fantasies. Forecasting using real rules is certainly a guess, but at least it's an educated guess. As opposed to just pulling numbers out of the air.


Also, recall that Mary McCarthy got polygraph popped just after Foggo details were leaked. McCarthy was in the IG office. IG was conducting a Foggo investigation too.


Doh. Back up with LAT Banner. Gotta adjust the trigger pressure.


I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that this whole flap about "appointing US Attorneys without Senate confirmation" is once again liberal spin. In fact, IIRC, under the old law, the President could appoint an "interim" US Attorney for 90 days. If the Senate did not confirm that person within that (short) time, he/she was out of the job and the Chief Judge of the District -- who may be a political opponent of the administration -- got to pick the successor. This could have been abused by a Democratic Senate, because instead of voting someone down -- their right -- they could simply have done NOTHING for 90 days and got a friendly judge to pick someone they wanted. The change was designed to prevent this abuse. "Interim" US Attorneys stay on the job unless and until they are voted down by the Senate. There was some concern that the Administration would abuse this by calling everyone "Interim" and never submitting a candidate to the Senate who could be voted down. Gonzales promised not to do that and to submit all "interim" appointments to the Senate for confirmation.

This seems to be the right result. It allows the Senate to keep its rightful role of confirming or rejecting appointees but makes them actually do it rather than just running out the clock on Administration appointees.

I think this is the way this works, anyway...



As I recall, the IRS's defense against a blistering GEO report on their lack of accountability for how they used their budget was something to the effect of 'Our accounting practices were not designed to ever be audited.' Your taxes at work.


I don't know for a fact, but I think Bush raided Tony Snow's Viagra stash prior to his
blustery press conf yesterday.

His response to questions about 'GapGate'
are typically flaccid.

video @ muckraker.com

clarice feldman

I thnk the Lam case is a very weak reed for the Dems and it was selected only to keep Cunningham's conviction before the public eye. If so, it was a mistake because for the handful of sentient voters for whom there is any interest in this matter, being so easily proven wrong on your first charge kind of diminished interest in the rest of the game.


Uh oh - the big kids are at the playground.

Great Banana


So, if President Bush fired ALL U.S. Attorneys, much like President Clinton did, what would the left say?

That is exactly my point. If they are all fired, then it is exactly what Clinton did. thus, it become comical watching the left parody their flip-floppiness on every issue, just so they can say Bush = Evil.

And, Barr's quote is pretty funny. I think the real litmus test is what did Clinton and Reno do? Did they improve american's views of DOJ? Somehow, I doubt it.


Other laws I want to know if the Executive Branch is following:

Have all employees been certified as journeymen electricians?
Since the human body is 70% water, are they individually complying with the Clean Water Act?
Does the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom still have it's mattress tag?
In Hawaii one can be fined for not owning a boat, are they paying the appropriate fines?
In Montana, seven or more indians are considered a raiding or war party and it is legal to shoot them. Why are they not shipping Daniel Snyder and six players to Montana?
In North Carolina elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields. I don't think they are in violation of it, but found the ban interesting.


Clarice --

I generally agree, but I do not think the strategy was to keep Cunningham before the public. I think instead they knew that the only real possible impeachment level scandal here was if someone was fired in order to spike an investigation. The Dems knew that they had nothing close to that, but Lam was the closest they had so they went with it. Iglesias, no matter how self important and virtuous, is not a scandal just because some people wanted him to be more aggressive. And the charge that the guy in Arkansas was moved to make room for a Rove crony is not a scandal even if true.

The Democrats have had a hard time answering the "So what?" question here. They went with Lam because it was the best they had on something actually important. And they figured, probably correctly, that the media would not shine too bright a light on the fact that there is nothing in the Lam case to suggest an effort to protect anyone from prosecution.

C. Bowers

Patton -

Thanks for filling it out. Good work. Now how do we mortals get the Administration to move on it.


It is kind of strange though that Feinstein didn't warn the people running this that she had personally complained about poor output from this particular person. Really kind of makes the whole thing look amaturish to me. Like they rushed into it to try and cover the fact that they are going to get punked on the Iraq funding bill in the Senate.

clarice feldman

Well, theo you may be right, and yes, Ranger, the Feinstein letter makes the issue re the Lam firing preposterous.

We need a better scandal! Seriously, something with sex in it. (Maybe Foggo but I'd bet my bottom dollar that one's bi-partisan).

Rick Ballard

I still read this as a spiking operation. Some Dems are about to be exposed (Hi, Sanchez sister!!!) and when the hammer drops the screams of "political prosecution" are going to echo across the land.

Innoculation on a grand scale.

MOM could be in the mix as well as just corrupt Dem pols. I don't see why the Dems are worried though.

No one expects honesty from a Democrat in the first place.


Well, if you look at some lefty sites, they are talking about this as impeachment in absentia. I think the Dems in congress know that have to do something to keep their base happy while they fold like a lawn chair on Iraq.


From Patterico:

Leahy for the subpoenas after he was against them.




IIRC the Arizona investigation into Renzi was leaked -- in the same fashion

Also, dumbass CREW always seems to creep into these beforehand...

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn CREW - Sloan a former US Attorney was coordinating between them and Democrats and leaking to the media.

And with internal probes long underway, not hard to figure out whose leaking...perhaps that's why Tony Snow added the challenge to York...if Democrats TRULY want to find out about these firings...


Didn't Bush also fire damn near everybody when he came into office in 2000? As did Reagan and Bush Sr.? And in general, they try to allow a finishing up of current caseloads or even terms in some cases.

I think it's common at the start of a first term, cleaning house as it were, but to do with 21 months left is rather bizarre and I'll lay odds, unprecedented.

Also, I have yet to read a straight forward reason for the firings, other than the stock "serve at the pleasure of the President" line, but if that is indeed the case, what did these attorneys do so wrong that they would be fired in such a manner?

Read on: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

Senior Justice Department officials began drafting memos this month listing specific reasons why they had fired eight U.S. attorneys, intending to cite performance problems such as insubordination, leadership failures and other missteps if needed to convince angry congressional Democrats that the terminations were justified.

The memos, organized as charts with entries for each of the federal prosecutors and labeled “for internal DOJ use only,” offer new details about disputes over policy, priorities and management styles between the department and several of its U.S. attorneys.


Impeachment in absentia. I say put it up for a vote now. Today. Stop wasting our f--king time.


--(Hi, Sanchez sister!!!)--

What did she do? I know she had donation associations with IGate - what else?

Rick's right about the Dem rule of thumb - if they are alleging it, you can be sure they are engaged in it themselves.

clarice feldman

ts et al do not go off the wall on that Chicago report. It's a bit of fluff about nothing.


Clarice & Theo

Reading your posts (and Balkinization, and Volokh) the thought occured to me, sadly, that this administration began and may end with SCOTUS. That W prevails in both is cold comfort.

The Dems have become Cromwells; militant, secular Calvinists egged on by the Soros impeach/hang 'em crowd (FDL has a cheering section going in the comments for Cheney's blood clot). I wasn't crazy about Bubba, but impeachment wasn't exactly a positive thing for GOP, and I never wanted the guy on the yard-arm.


Rick, the point about NSLs is that the US Attorney has nothing to do with them. The DoJ audit would have been conducted by OIPR, the same outfit that gave us "The Wall." You know, the lovely legal setup that gave us 911. Read the wording of the story:

...the FBI has repeatedly violated the Patriot Act and some of those actions could be illegal.

That means:

1. Some may be illegal, but on the other hand none may be illegal.

2. What's the story on the non-illegals, i.e., possibly all of the "violations?" It could be the problem of miscounting the letters, or it could just a mess of administrative boo-boos.

3. Anyone reading this probably has more important things to worry about. Do not, repeat, do not hold your breath waiting for Bushitler to declare himself dictator for life to cover up for these violations.


--It is kind of strange though that Feinstein didn't warn the people running this that she had personally complained about poor output from this particular person. ---

Rick's right about the Dem rule of thumb - if they are alleging it, you can be sure they are engaged in it themselves.

Tells me Feinstein isn't privy to inside coordination - Schumer's in charge of opposition research - oh I bet Schumer's got some communications he'd rather keep on the down low or lump onto some lowly staffer to take his hit again.


What is the relevance of something someone said 8 years ago (especially without the specifics of the situation, etc.) have to the topic at hand? If we're going to sift through things politicians said or changed their minds about over the course of time, this could take the rest of our lives.

Answer this: Forget the "oath," but why no transcript?

Rick Ballard


Thanks for the info. Is this bookkeeping again? Misreporting the number?


The "no transcript" may be something to trade for the subpoenas. If the Dems give up subpoenas but insist on transcripts the WH can then "compromise". Just a chip, in other words.


--ts et al do not go off the wall on that Chicago report. It's a bit of fluff about nothing.--

I haven't referred to that except for the post it came in.

If you are thinking when I say "internal probe" I am referring to Chicago - I am not.

I am referring to Director Mueller's statements at some speech to some outfit last year - he was asked? or just indicated that he was very troubled by all the FBI leaks to the media about investigations (referring to all the "political" leaks around the election) - and said there had been an internal probe into gov leaks as well as investigations outside the FBI as well.

He added that while the leaks were obviously not fair to the individuals they were/are very harmful to the investigations themselves, sighting the Weldon leak that forced them to raid.

And if IIRC that is the same scenario surrounding the Foggo/Wilke's leak - they raided a day or so after the leak.


I know some of you are going to jump me for this, but it's too funny to let slide.

I just heard Paul Begala on the situation room say that at one point in the Clinton years, the Republican congress requested over 1,000 subpoenas relating to: his Christmas Card list.


Bush should tomorrow fire eveyone it is in his power to fire that Schumer ever recommended for a job.

If Schumer wants to keep politics out, Bush should start with Schumer himself.


What is the relevance? You mean I should ignore why a leftwing dipwad like Leahy was against before he was for it? It's called compare and contrast. It's how you discern when and idiot is about to change their spots.

Why no transcript - it is a SHOW TRIAL. A mockery of justice. It's intent is to prove a psuedo crime and render a verdict or confession outside a legal construct. There is no need for an official or legal record of a sham - the President called them on it. End of story.


You may very well be right, and I'd bet most would readily accept the offer. I guess we'll see.

As for Executive Privilege, I think Snow cashed that ticket when he said the President has "no recollection" of discussing the attorney situation. If that's the case, what "privileged" executive conversations are being "protected?"



I won't jump on you - it is my supreme hope that the Democrats are incapable of denying the same over reach temptation that many Republicans exhibited towards Clinton - Clinton also claimed executive privilege for Secret Service detail called to testify before the GJ.

The comments to this entry are closed.