Why Holder and Obama Have NOT FIRED The BUSH Appointed, ROVE Vetted DOJ Attorneys.

[Segami]

From OpedNews:



It's an unprecedented outrage. There are scores of attorneys-- partisan, engaging in serial prosecutorial misconduct, like the cases of Gov. Don Siegelman and Cyril Wecht, and these Bush-appointees are still on the job, doing damage to the US, to justice and innocent victims.

I offer a theory why this breach of trust by Obama, why he has failed to do what every president before him has done. The progressive media should be raising an outcry about this daily, pointing its light at the abuses of the individual prosecutors. The mainstream media should be covering the abuses. All the media should be asking "Why?"

Why are Holder and Obama not firing and replacing these attorneys, as every other president taking office has done? Why are they leaving these partisan appointees, the worst, most partisan bunch in recent history, possibly ever?


I have a theory. Obama and his people, probably starting with Rahm Emanuel, are saving them to trade favors with key Republicans. You see these toxic, partisan attorneys have real value to Republicans, especially when you pair them with Bush appointed Federal judges. Put them together and they can prosecute a frog for hopping, and a public official who pissed off a Republican senator for breathing in the wrong direction. There are so many thousands of regulations and rules that a federal prosecutor inclined to abuse prosecutorial privilege can put the screws to the most honest person in the state.

If a senator, often the most powerful party member in a state, wants to take out the most powerful members, or most up and coming members of the opposition party, the DOJ attorney can be a powerful ally in making it happen. That's what happened to Don Siegelman and Cyril Wecht. They were targeted and accused with charges that were absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable. Wecht had the worst judge imaginable, who was later reversed by a Republican, Bush-appointee.

So, here's my guess on why Holder is holding back. Obama and his advisory team have decided that they can, when the crunch comes, for the next trillion dollar bailout, or when the final push comes to pass the health care bill, trade retention of a toxic Bush-appointed Federal attorney for a vote.

It's reprehensible, unacceptable, but, at a point when history has always seen the DOJ attorneys replaced, we must ask why this has not happened.

There's another hypothese a colleague has offered-- that Obama is bending over backwards not to make waves, to remain non-partisan, or rather, to maintain the lie of non-partisanism in this increasingly ugly, toxic partisan millieu that this 111th congress has been marinating in.

I'm not satisfied with that explanation. It goes against history without enough of a possible payoff, without enough of a reason for keeping the actively destructive prosecutors in place.

One study shows that 85% of the targets of these prosecutors were Democrats. It is insane to leave them in place, doing the same dirty work when the nation elected a Democratic president.

Take Alabama, where the prosecutor who has vilified and terrorized Gov. Don Siegelman is still at work. We have two republican Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. They had plenty to gain getting rid of a powerful and popular Democratic governor, hurting the state's top democratic leadership. They have plenty to gain keeping things that way. And hey, Shelby is ranking minority member of the senate Banking committee. See the possibilities?

To me, this has the fingreprints of Rahm Emanuel, who never met a conservative or DINO he wouldn't sell out a progressive for, all over it.

It's time that progressive talk radio hosts and TV personalities-- Maddow, Schultz, Ratigan and Olbermann-- start counting down the days that these rogue attorneys are still allowed by Holder and Obama to remain in office. They should not be accepted as viable chips to be cashed in. America deserves the DOJ attorneys they voted for as part of the package of electing a president. Obama is letting us down one more way. His defenders say to give him time and that may be a fair request for some things. But he is way past the normal historical time for firing the past administration's attorneys. There's no excuse, no justification that is tolerable. They have to go.

The fruit is rotten, moldy and reeking, crawling with maggots and here, in late august, it is only going to get worse. The Rove-vetted, Bush appointed DOJ attorneys should be fired before the congress returns. Cyril Wecht suggests that the ones Rove had fired should be re-hired. They proved their integrity by refusing to serve their partisan bosses.


<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-Holder-and-Obama-have-by-Rob-Kall-090819-235.html>

[dionysus]

1. i am not sure, but when bush fired the DOJ attorneys for political reasons it was illegal.

so perhaps if obama did the same it would also be illegal. i don't really know.

[Political Heretic]

5. It might look like that now. But if it would have been done after transition - as it ALWAYS is -

it would have just looked normal.

The fact that it was not done is the mystery.... its a departure from precedent.

[Jennicut]

2. This is pure speculation. Also, one of the attorneys was asked to come back

Obama hires back one of the U.S. attorneys fired by Bush and Rove
By John Amato Sunday Aug 02, 2009 7:00pm

This has been long overdue. From Murray Waas:

In an appointment that senior Justice Department officials say demonstrates the Obama administration’s commitment to reversing the Bush administration’s politicization of the Department, a U.S. attorney fired by President Bush was reappointed to his old job on Friday.

Daniel Bogden, who was fired in the fall of 2006 by the Bush administration as the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was offered his old job back by President Obama, and was formally nominated on Friday.

Bogden’s confirmation by the Senate is all but assured: He has spent his entire adult life in government service, and as a former U.S. attorney was confirmed by the Senate previously. He was also thoroughly vetted for his new position by the White House Counsel’s office prior to his most recent nomination, even though he was vetted during his first appointment as U.S. attorney by the Bush administration. Moreover, he has the backing of both his home-state senators: Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican. That Reid is a Senate Majority Leader, and that Reid personally suggested to the President that Bogden get his old job back probably, won’t hurt matters.

Ironically, Bogden’s formal reappointment as U.S. attorney comes exactly one day after former Bush political adviser Karl Rove gave sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the firings of Bogden and eight other U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration. A federal grand jury is currently investigating whether Bush administration officials and members of Congress obstructed justice in pressing for one or more of the firings, and also, whether they misled Congress as to why the prosecutors were fired.http://crooksandliars.com/murray-waas/obama-hires-back-one-us-attorneys-fire

Also, some or all of these attorneys were hired by Bush to begin with so they are a Rethug's appointees. Still, they never should have been fired to begin with.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. PA US Attorneys under consideration

I just read an article yesterday about what is going on here in PA with the 3. Casey and Specter are reviewing candidates right now.

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a13_5carlson.6991929aug18,0,2408838.story

So I doubt the Oped writer really knows what is going on in all of the states regarding this process.... Of course this would be more of an issue for those states that have 1 or 2 repuke Senators, but that criteria applies to fewer states of late.

[izquierdista]

4. Electing people who want to BE President

As the years go on, it seems as though each newly elected President got there because he really wanted to BE President, but is less and less able to ACT like a President. I think the last President who acted like one, sad to say, was Nixon. In the 1960s, the President got on TV, told the public what he wanted to do, and then people went out and got on it. Since then, the three Democrats have been trying to get "healing bi-partisan consensus" and end up looking spineless and lacking in determination. The three Republicans since Nixon have pushed more things through, but the thoughts did not originate with them, they originated in the boardrooms with CEOs who owned the Republicans.

Clinton came into office acting much more Presidential than Obama. He reversed, with Executive Orders, a lot of 12 years of Republican chicanery, probably because he knew how to run a government from his days as governor. This is where Obama's lack of Executive branch experience shows. He should have come in guns blazing, with a tall stack of Executive Orders and another of replacements for political appointments, but his left turn has been hardly noticeable. If the noise from the right wing is going to be the same over a 5 degree turn to the left as it is for a 90 degree turn, I say make it a 90 degree turn. If they don't like it, tell them to get out and work on the next election.

[Segami]

7. Obama could have reached out to Clinton or Carter as special advisers and taken counsel from them.

I agree with you that maybe Obama's ' lack of experience in running a government ' are starting to rear its head. I still believe Obama brings another unique dynamic of moving people (not of lately though ) on issues that has NOT been seen in politics in a long while from other presidents.

[MisterP]

6. because firing them would be as bad as the original purge, or indefinite detention at Gitmo

:sarcasm:
seriously, this is what conservadems were arguing earlier this year
it's indefensible!