Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/Archive 1
Missing Footnote
I noticed down in the body of the article there is a quotation that isn't footnoted, and at least to my eyes, you can't tell who said it. Since editing this page is apparently such a touchy subject, I haven't tried to flag it or anything (pretty new to wikipedia), but can't someone give the attribution for this quote:
"A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules."
Terminology
The terminology used in the process of changing US Attorneys is mixed language. "Fire", "terminate", "dismiss", "resign", "force out", as well as other terms all relate to the same act of changing a US Attorney. However, the usage, along with the context, is an indication of the frame the author is constructing.
For example, a newly elected White House would "seek the tender of resignation" of the existing US Attorneys. Is this "firing" them? Is it "terminating" them? Is it exercising the powers of "enforcing the United States Constitution"? All can be viewed as truthful. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
1993 firings
I added a brief note about the 1993 termination of every single US Attorney by Attorney General Janet Reno. Further links are necessary, but they are buried in archives at the moment. Still searching for more material to provide further analysis.
Supporting evidence for "unprecedented" claim. Please review. I'll go ahead and post this in a few hours without objection.
At once, she fired all ninety-three of the country’s United States attorneys. According to no less an authority than Ted Olson, President George Bush’s chief post-election attorney, Reno’s move was extreme and unprecedented. “In order to maintain continuity in thousands of pending prosecutions, and as a statement to the public that elections do not influence routine law enforcement, the nation’s top prosecutors are traditionally replaced only after their successors have been located, appointed, and confirmed by the Senate.
http://www.regnery.com/regnery/010309_absolute_ch1.html -- Gabrielsutherland 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is a ridiculous red herring that should be removed. Its inclusion serves a purely partisan purpose: to implicitly equate what the Clinton Administration did with what the Bush Administration did and thus provide a "well, maybe it was wrong, but Clinton did it too!" justification for the firings. Not only is this a classic political dodge, but it is disingenuous and inaccurate as well. The Clinton Administration "cleaned house" when it took office; it fired the previous administration's appointees and replaced them with its own guys. This is common practice in Washington, and every administration does it, including the current administration. It has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations that the Bush administration had an ongoing policy of targeting its own appointees in retaliation for their investigations of the administration's political allies. Azathoth68 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue of Clinton's firings of US Attorneys in 1993 is not clearly related to the subject of this article. To be included, a source should be found which directly relates the two, and the issue should be presented as one of "Some defenders of the Bush administration have argued that because Clinton fired all the US Attorneys when he came into office, Bush's action has precedent." Or something along those lines. As it is now, the narrative voice of the article is itself spouting one side's propaganda. john k 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Azathoth68 and John Kenney raise the same question. What is the relevance of the 1993 dismissal? The relevance goes to the heart of the question. Why were these US Attorneys dismissed? The premise must be understood. One, that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President; Two, that the US Attorneys are replaced when a new President is elected; Three, that US Attorneys are almost never "fired", but asked to tender their resignations as a courtesy to the President that asked them to serve.The discussions themselves about whether to seek the tender of resignation from a US Attorney take place at the White House. Adivsers to the President provide their insight as to the approach of replacing US Attorneys, of which the political fallout can be troubling, but ultimately is a power granted to the Executive Branch by the United States Constitution.
I disagree completely with the notion that the 1993 information is a red herring. It's the context that is necessary to explain to readers the exact role of US Attorneys and the process by which they are replaced.
I have changed the source from National Review in 1998 to the New York Times from 1993 to provide a more "moderate" source of information. I also added "President" to the suceeding sentence. US Presidents are always identified as President <firstname> <lastname>. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just coming here to get a little background on the whole issue, I found it very useful to note that it's considered SOP to replace these people with political appointees. The version of this section that I read didn't sound apologetic at all, but provided useful context about what the normal process is like. It helps to put context around what is different (and perhaps wrong) about this particular case.Granite26 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I added a link from the WSJ that links the 93 firings to the current situation. I am of the opinion that 93 situation is totally distinct, and in no way justifies the current situation but needs to be included here since it is part of the discussion and does make clear the political nature of the US Atty position. The relevant distinction between the two cases are (a) in 93 they all went so in some sense it was fair and not influenced by specific ideology or performance on prosecutions, and (b) in the current case may indeed be political payback (expanding the k-street philosophy) but time will tell. jcp 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Gonzales op-ed
Could someone please add gonzales opinions that he stated in his op-ed regarding this matter to this article.
More information
Washington Post article on genesis of firing
New addition
Just found this article Good start!
I added this to the '1993 firings section' but it might be better somewhere else. Podestra's counterclaims might be germaine too.
Kyle Sampson noted in a January 09, 2006 email to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision” (underlining original) link - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Plan
Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys. Attached to email from Kyle Sampson to William W. Mercer, December 5, 2006. Terjen 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Before bush, only THREE US Attorneys had been fired since 1981
"Today, a new report concludes that Bush's actions were completely unprecedented. The study was conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) and released by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Linda Sánchez.
The CRS found that of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed in a president's initial term since 1981, 54 left voluntarily before completing a full four-year term. Of those, no more than three had been forced out under circumstances similar to the current situation." link with link to the PDF report too. Lets discuss the removal of the Clinton/Reno '93 firings' section which is a red herring. It should be replaced with the firing of Kendall Coffey who was forced out for (among other things) biting a strippers arm.- FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Name
Is the current article name the correct one? I was the one who originally created the article, but now I am hearing some people toss around terms like "Eight-gate" or "Attorney-gate." What do others think? My other concern is that people may have a difficult time finding this article. Remember 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Dismissing United States Attorneys 2) 1993 dismissal of ALL 93 US Attorneys, establishing a new precedent 3) The 2006/7 debate -- Gabrielsutherland 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Study
Should this page include any mention of this study ? The tie-in would be that some people say that most US attorneys new what the game plan was and avoided retribution by the white house (like the current firing) by focusing on corruption issues of Democrats and not Republicans. I think it is a pretty tenuous link but I have seen people start to mention this study in accord with the recent firings. Remember 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Scandal
As several news o
Bird Supplies: Bird Toys: Build Your Own Bird Toy Pieces - Wicker ...
Bird Supplies: Bird Toys: Build Your Own Bird Toy Pieces - Wicker, Blocks, Leather, Cholla, Sisal ... Cage Liners & Litter
BUILD YOUR OWN BIRD AVIARY, CHOOK (POULTRY) PEN ... or Build a Dog ...
BIRDS (Pet and Wild)... cages, aviary ... How to Build a Milk Jug Bird Feeder; Make Your Own Bird Toys! Quail Cage Plans; Guinea Fowl Housing Ideas; Build a Bird ...
Build Your Own Bird Toys
Wide selection of Build Your Own Toys and related Bird Supplies and Products at discount prices. ... Bird Cage Accessories Bird Cages Bird ...
Amazon.com: How to Build Your Own Aviary, Cages, Nestboxes, Etc. and ...
A little more math will reveal that if you build your own cages, you can probably ... wire bender, perch size, breeding cages, cage unit, hospital cage, flight pen, cage breeding, bird ...
Bird: Toys: Build Your Own Bird Toy Leather Strips and Leather Squares
Build Your Own Bird Toy Leather Pieces String toy pieces on these durable leather strips ... and strips are smooth on one side and suede on the other * Help alleviate cage ...
How to Build an Aviary Bird Cage | eHow.com
How to Build an Aviary Bird Cage. Building an indoor or outdoor aviary is the nicest thing you can do for your birds. Birds are flock animals and enjoy the company of their own ...
How to Build a Large Bird Cage | eHow.com
How to Build a Large Bird Cage. Building your own bird cage can be very rewarding. This article explains how to build a large cage for housing finches or other small birds.
Build your own nesting box for your chicken coop | Ideas 4 Pets
Bird Cage Covers; Bird Cages; Bird Play Stands; Car Carriers; Car Dog Guards; Cat Activity Centres ... 8 Responses to “Build your own nesting box for your chicken coop” lin Says:
Harrod Horticultural (UK) - Build Your Own Cage Aluminium Tubing
Build Your Own Cage Connectors ... 100m where stated • When purchasing Heavy-duty Anti Bird Netting for the roof of your own Fruit Cage ...
Ecology Designs Birds! - How to Build Your Own Aviary, Cages ...
How to Build Your Own Aviary, Cages, Nestboxes, Etc. and $ave a Bundle: The Ultimate Step-by-Step Guide ... McDonald has had the opportunity to visit some of the most successful bird ...