Here we go again

Hiring and firing U.S. attorneys is not illegal... unless it is part of a common plan to pursue malicious prosecution.

What is the U.S. Attorneys scandal all about? It is often discussed in terms of a few U.S. attorneys having been fired and a few new ones having been hired, according to political allegiances. Sounds upsetting, but tell us again how that conflicts with the President's prerogative to control the executive branch as he sees fit?

More and more evidence keeps coming out, though, as to what was behind the partisan-motivated hirings and firings: a common plan, orchestrated from the Department of Justice and the White House, to pursue malicious prosecution of Democrats, and to push fraudulent voting restrictions designed to disenfranchise Democratic voters, ironically in the name of cracking down on voter fraud.

We learned that Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic brought charges of corruption against the office of Democratic Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle, throwing one of his career civil servants in jail, before the appeals court found the case so baseless that it took the astonishing step of ordering her released immediately after oral argument.

Then we learned that the Democratic former governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, who was recently sentenced to over seven years in prison on charges of corruption, was apparently the target of malicious prosecution organized by Karl Rove, according to evidence that includes a sworn affidavit from a Republican lawyer (hooray for the highly endangered conscious of a conservative!). This is just beginning to get notice, including by the editorial board of the New York Times. The U.S. Attorney brought more than 100 charges against Siegelman before most were dismissed, and had asked for a sentence of 30 years in prison and a $25 million fine. Compare this with Republican former Alabama governor Guy Hunt, who was prosecuted for a similar crime: the prosecutors sought probation (and he was later pardoned).

Now, the McClatchy newspapers - rapidly establishing themselves as America's new "newspaper of record" - have a terrific piece on the story behind the firing of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, due in part to his unwillingness to bow to pressure to prosecute cases of voter fraud where he found the evidence to be without merit. And, lo and behold, the point man for pressuring Iglesias, Patrick Rogers, was heavily involved with the nationwide campaign to pass restrictive voting requirements, a campaign celebrated by Karl Rove last year at a conference of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

The scary part? Patrick Rogers is now a candidate to replace Iglesias.

Bonus scary part: one of Patrick Rogers's colleagues at his pro-disenfranchisment group, Cameron Quinn, was appointed last year as the voting counsel at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

David Iglesias happens to have been one of the experts on the subject of voting fraud, and was convinced the evidence did not support any prosecutions for voter fraud, despite Rogers's repeated promptings.

Rogers's group was also responsible for trumpeting allegations that ACORN was engaging in voter fraud in Missouri prior to the 2006 election, in its drive to register poor and minority voters, based on a few workers whom ACORN had already fired - and those allegations were followed up by indictments brought only a week before the election, a blatant violation of the DOJ's policies, by Bradley Schlozman, the interim U.S. Attorney appointed by Alberto Gonzales. This is the same Schlozman who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not believe this prosecution could have any possible effect on the election.

So, we have:
1. A Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney in Wisconsin pursued what has been effectively identified by the appeals court as a meritless prosecution, against the Democratic governor of Wisconsin, during a close election;
2. A Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney in Alabama pursued a prosecution against a popular Democratic former governor of Alabama that included over 100 charges that were dismissed by three different judges, and that included sentencing recommendations grossly disproportionate to the alleged crime; the U.S. Attorney also is married to a senior campaign official of the Republican governor who defeated said Democratic former governor, based on a controversial recount; a Republican lawyer signed a sworn affidavit that the prosecution was apparently arranged ahead of time with Karl Rove;
3. A Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney in Missouri opened a voter fraud prosecution against Democratic-leaning campaign workers, a week before a close election; and
4. A U.S. Attorney in New Mexico was fired apparently in part for not bringing meritless prosecutions of voter fraud, and the lawyer who repeatedly prompted him to pursue such prosecutions is being considered as his replacement;
5. Carole Lam, the U.S. Attorney in San Diego, was fired after prosecuting GOP Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and was preparing to follow that up with prosecutions of his co-conspirators among the Bush administration; etc.

Here is what Congress, the media, and any remaining honest prosecutors need to ask:

Were Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and other officials in Washington organized in a common plan to install U.S. Attorneys who would avoid prosecuting Republicans and who would bring trumped-up, politically timed, or meritless prosecutions against Democrats?

If so, the President's authority to direct the executive branch is irrelevant; anyone involved in such a common plan to break the law would be guilty of a felony.

You are aware which party got the US involved in Vietnam?

Anyway, I'll agree with you that split power does seem to lead to better government. Reagan was at his best with a dem congress, as was Clinton with the repubs. They seem to keep each other honest.

One of my problems, Duck, is living in CA and watching what one unrestrained party has done to this once great state. From school spending to property rights to crime to livability, things are bad and getting worse with the dems in power.

Schwarzenegger, though registered a repub, is not really opposition after trying to reform the public pension system in the state a couple of years ago and having his hat handed to him.

CA is very lib/progressive, with virtually all state positions filed by dems. The left wing of the party is king here, no moderates allowed. And it shows.

This, at the federal level, where the left would be able to cut our military (again) to fund social programs scares the **** out of me.

Property rights, gun rights, free speech. And taxes? No proof? When has the left NOT redistributed income?

Political appointees are almost always chosen based on party affiliation, but it is illegal under federal law to base employment decisions for career positions on such political considerations.

Section 2302 section b of Title 5 quite clearly states.

(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority"
(1) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment"
....
(E) on the basis of marital status or political affiliation
...
(10)discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;

You have claimed that a federal law was violated. You cannot, upon challenge, tell me which law it was. I win.

if one party lays his argument out clearly, and someone trying to argue an opposing view responds only with irrelevant jibes or insults, it would be the universal verdict that, at least formally, the former party's views have prevailed.

Office of Personnel Management
The Office of Personnel Management took over for the former Civil Service Commission as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (5 USC 1101).
The U. S. Office of Personnel Management . . .

Administers a merit system for Federal employment that includes recruiting, examining, and promoting people on the basis of their knowledge and skills, regardless of their race, religion, sex, political influence, or other nonmerit factors.

(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority"

...

(3) coerce the political activity of any person (including the providing of any political contribution or service), or take any action against any employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any person to engage in such political activity;

...

(6) grant any preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation to any employee or applicant for employment (including defining the scope or manner of competition or the requirements for any position) for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment;

...

(10) discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the employee or applicant or the performance of others; except that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit an agency from taking into account in determining suitability or fitness any conviction of the employee or applicant for any crime under the laws of any State, of the District of Columbia, or of the United States;

...

Brandon9000 wrote:

You have claimed that a federal law was violated. You cannot, upon challenge, tell me which law it was. I win.

You win?

Brandon9000 wrote:

if one party lays his argument out clearly, and someone trying to argue an opposing view responds only with irrelevant jibes or insults, it would be the universal verdict that, at least formally, the former party's views have prevailed.

I see, so if someone doesn't provide any evidence and doesn't provide anything to dispute the other side's evidence then they get to declare they win if they merely ask for more evidence than was originally provided?

All of this after you claimed that 90% wouldn't hold up to objective scrutiny.


What a crock of BS from you Brandon.

When accusing someone of violating a law, one must say which law. Merely stating that some smart people agree with you doesn't free you from the requirement to specify which law was violated, which, when backed into a corner and trapped like a rat, you finally did.