Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Patrick Leahy: hitting back hard on politicizing the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 07:58 PM
Original message
Patrick Leahy: hitting back hard on politicizing the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys!
Here is part of Sen. Patrick Leahy hard hitting statement today regarding the hearing on “Preserving Prosecutorial Independence" and the implication's of Shrub's administration stonewalling and hiding behind "executive privilege". There is a storm brewing folks, which will end up in the courts - though I imagine the outcome will be ultimately tried in the court of public opinion. The sentence will be history remembering Shrub's administration as the most secretive and paranoid in United States history; even more than NIxon's. I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will be relentless and aggressive in their search for the truth.

:kick:

You can run, but you can't hide!
Joe Lewis


<snip>

The White House continues to try to have it both ways, but at the end of the day it cannot. It cannot block Congress from obtaining the relevant evidence and credibly assert that nothing improper occurred. What is the White House hiding? Was the President involved and were his earlier statements to the American people therefore misleading? Or is this simply an effort by the White House legal team to protect White House political operatives whose partisan efforts have been uncovered in a new set of White House horrors?

For months, I have been giving the White House every opportunity to work with us voluntarily to provide the information we have sought. This week, the White House ignored an opportunity to meet its burden of explaining its blanket privilege claims. Specifically, what is it the White House is so intent on hiding that they cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged? Would we see the early and consistent involvement of Ms. Taylor and other high-ranking White House political operatives in what should be independent and neutral law enforcement decisions? Ms. Taylor’s honest testimony could help us begin to answer these questions. It is apparent that this White House is contemptuous of the Congress and feels that it does not have to explain itself to anyone -- not to the people’s representatives in Congress, nor to the American people. I urge Ms. Taylor not to follow the White House down this path.

This is a serious matter with serious consequences for the administration of justice. This is about improper political influence of our justice system – it is about the White House manipulating the Justice Department into its own political arm. It is about manipulating our justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. It is about pressuring prosecutors to bring cases of voter fraud to try to influence elections – of sending a partisan operative like Bradley Schlozman to Missouri to file charges on the eve of an election in violation of Justice Department guidelines. It is about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the Department’s professional ranks – such as the admission by the Department’s White House Liaison Monica Goodling that she improperly screened career employees for political loyalty and wielded undue political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies. It is about political operatives pressuring prosecutors to bring partisan cases and seeking retribution against those who refuse to bend to their political will -- such as the example of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, who was fired a few weeks after Karl Rove complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported “voter fraud” enforcement cases in Mr. Iglesias’ jurisdiction. It is about high-ranking officials misleading Congress and the American people about this political manipulation of justice.

Along the way, this subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading and stonewalling the Congress in our attempts to find out what happened. This Administration has instituted an abusive policy of secrecy aimed at protecting themselves from embarrassment and accountability. Apparently the President and Vice President feel they, and their staff, are above the law. In America no one is above the law.


complete statement here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200707/071107.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. As long as he does not impeach Bush all by itself f,does not stop the senate to work until the war
is ended and every soldier is home, he is worth nothing.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. You forgot "leading an angry mob of leather clad vigilantes to Dick Cheney's secure location" EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
2. I've heard a lot of tough talk from him
When he fuckin does something like send some federal marshals out to drag Harriet Myers's bony ass into the hearing room and charge her with contempt of congress I'll regard him as a serious individual. Right now he's just a blowhard in love with the sound of his own voice but lacking the backbone to act on the things he says.

I think the WH has seen through him as well. They're openly thumbin their noses at him.

He has to act now or lose all credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. John Dean said today she could be tried in Congress itself...
Heard it on Randi this afternoon --- though he may have been referring to Sara Taylor. Either way, he said Congress has the authority to actually try them on the spot. Sorry, can't quote the law but he said the last time Congress did so was in the 1930's regarding a corrupt Postmaster General.

Can someone help provide clarity here? :)

And yes tularetom, I agree with your premise that talk is cheap. Lets see real action rather than political pontification. OK Patrick, show us the money!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KAT119 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Here it is: RiverStone....
'Inherent Contempt' allows the House to send the Capitol Police to pick up said person and deliver him or her to the House.


Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
left is right Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Serves at the pleasure of the President"
Heard this all day to day. Why, oh why doesn't anyone confront this stupid statement? While selected by the president, USAs are confirmed by the Senate. They are employees of the citizens of these United States and they take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. * acts like their oath was to him personally. I don't care if he lets his office secretary go for not pleasing him but I am stridently opposed to him firing USAs for any reason except malfeasance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. Go get em, Dark Knight
After all, they never did learn to mind their surroundings. ;)

Patrick Leahy = the goddamned Batman. :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC