Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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)

I think fire, terminate, dismiss, force out are pretty much synonyms that imply a decision made from the employer to get rid of the employee whereas resign implies a decision by the employee to leave the organization on his own decision. In this case we are obviously talking about a firing/dismissing/terminating/forcing out of US attorneys and any of those terms seems appropriate to me. Other opinons? Remember 18:54, 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gabrielsutherland (talk • contribs).

Your citation doesn't back up the claims. Please find something to back up this claim of mass firing or the information will have to be deleted because it is not verifiable. Remember 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I just re-read the article and I see where the article mentions the firings. I will look for a regular news article that also talks about this so we can state more of the facts. Thanks Remember 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1993 termination is a total red herring, and in no way comparable. Further, it "insinuates by implication" by mentioning "there was no Congressional investigation". Did anyone ask for one? Were there any allegations of underhanded politics. Furthermore, at least according to [alternet.org/blogs/peek/46916/ here], Bush also replaced all 93 USA's. I contend that this section, albeit only a sentence long, is biased. -- Sholom 15:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not intended as a comparison. It's relevant information regarding the dismissal of US Attorneys. You don't take issue with the 1993 firings. You take issue with the second sentence in regards to congressional hearings. First, there were calls for congressional hearings. They were denied. Second, there was information that indicated political reprieve. These are facts. The sentence in question is not biased. It isn't opinion. The sentence is a fact.
I welcome more information. This entire Wiki needs context. It provides some in regards to the nature of service of US Attorneys by quoting the relevent section of the Constitution.-- Gabrielsutherland 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a comparison whether it is intended so or not. It's clearly set up as "in 1993 when x happened, there was no investigation, but in 2007, there is an investigation", with an implied message of "double standard." Just because you are citing facts doesn't mean it's not biased. If you want context, you might explain why there was no investigation in 1993 -- or, for that matter, in 2001 (if a similar thing happened). See, every Administration wants "their guys" as prosecutors. What's rare here is an Administration firing "their own guys". -- Sholom 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the extend that the whole 1993 firing section needs more context, but then so does this whole article. First, how often does a president sack the entire US Attorneys. We need to know when did it happen and sources to back up that it happened. Second, even if Clinton was the only president to sack all the attorneys when he came into office, that is different from firing attorneys that have already been appointed because they investigated scandals that you didn't want them to investigate. Is there any other precedent for firing US attorneys who were investigating scandals that you didn't want investigated? Remember 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is precedent. The "independent counsel" statute was supposed to be the legal entity tasked as the solution between the Congress and the Executive branch where neither would be able to control the path of the investigation. Both branches agreed to retire the statute after it was viewed to be acting in the same fashion as previous investigators that were tasked with oversight of one branch of government by another. -- Gabrielsutherland 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Feel free to add this information to the article to flesh out the context.Remember 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'd rather have a news article than a link to a synopsis of a book critical of the Clinton-Reno administration. Even better would be an actual citation in the book itself. But it seems legitimate, I would just make sure to clearly attribute the accusation to Olson. But again it should be noted that Clinton is being accused of excessive patronage; not firing people for investingating things he didn't want them to investigate. Remember 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting David Limbaugh? If that dude said water was wet, it'd be wise to find a corroborating source. I trust you'll work on finding a better source.--HughGRex 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugh, actually the source is quoting Ted Olson. It's very difficult to miss that if you actually read the excerpt. The question Remember asked was about "precendent". The excerpt I provided goes to the heart of that issue by quoting the chief counsel for the 1992 Bush/Quayle campaign. As a campaign attorney, Olson, who later served as our US Soliciter General, is an expert of campaign law especially as it relates to the transitional process between the newly elected administration and the previously elected administration. -- Gabrielsutherland 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it. It's an extremely partisan writer quoting the opinion of a partisan political operative. You need a better source. As Azathoth68 notes below, Clinton's "cleaning house" was a normal operation, and it was not comparable to Bush's firing of 8 attorneys for partisan political reasons.--HughGRex 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"for partisan political reasons" is a subjective reading of the facts we know to this point. Ted Olson was the chief counsel, aka the lead lawyer, for the Bush/Quayle 1992 campaign. There is no evidence to indicate that Olson acted or responded outside the framework of his role as a lawyer for the campaign. Ergo, I note objection to your identification of Olson as "a partisan political operative". A more accurate description of Olson, in this matter, as I have already reflected, is "former chief counsel to the Bush/Quayle 1992 campaign". Your characterization is subjective. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:04, 14 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)

Excellent points. You should include these points in the section with appropriate citations to back up the claims. Remember 16:54, 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)

It is a red herring unless you can provide a source that actually links the issue of a new president replacing the whole slate of US Attorneys with what has just happened. And it is POV is you discuss it in a way that implies that wikipedia's supposedly neutral voice thinks this point is relevant, rather than that it is a point made by (dare I say) Bush administration apologists. john k 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From what I can tell most admins replace at least 90% of the federal prosecutors at the start of their terms. (if the previous president was from the opposite party) This in entirely different than what went on here. FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

I'm trying to find out exactly how many bush kept on in 2001. Not many. That's SOP.

• "June 18, 2001 - As Bush Replaces Prosecutors, a Formidable One Stays On - Nearly five months after President George W. Bush was sworn into office, his administration has begun to replace dozens of top federal prosecutors, ousting Democratic appointees across the country and installing Republican selections."

• "This political rite of change, though, has been postponed in at least one prominent jurisdiction: Mary Jo White, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, has been kept on, largely to complete two politically charged investigations that have already provoked precisely the cries of partisanship Ms. White has so successfully avoided over the last eight years." link - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 23:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From the bush admin DOJ in 2001:

• "WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys. Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities." In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. link - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find. Any more relevant information we can find on the historic aspects of the change in attorneys would be most welcome. Remember 00:42, 14 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. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

See also Politicized justice for an editorial on the op-ed. Terjen 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

More information

Washington Post article on genesis of firing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

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)

Why not simply move the whole "other terminations" section over to United States Attorney#Appointment? That would seem to be a much better place for discussing these things in general compared to an article which is focused on just one specific set of terminations. Bryan Derksen 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because other past firings have often been used by those defending the Bush administration's practices, I think we should at least have a explanation of the information that we have found on how in general firing happen at the beginning of an administration and that the current move is unprecedented. Remember 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not accurate Remember. The 1993 dismissals were brought up to provide context of the process by which US Attorneys are replaced. In 1993 the dismissal of all 93 US Attorneys was a new precedent. The process had never been demonstrated in the fashion by which AG Reno had done. In effect, the context provides the comparitive link of the appearance of impropriety by the White House(I use White House, and not the subjective analysis of "Bush Administration" or "Clinton Administration") in interfering with ACTIVE investigations of key political figures. In 1993 the key political figure was Representive Dan Rostenkowski. In 2006 it can be viewed that the political figures were State governments in Washington, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, all connected to eachtother by lax investigations of voter fraud allegations.

In closing, the public cannot overlook the fact that, while the US Attorneys are generally replaced when a new President is elected, there also exists the possibility that the replacements are politically intended to protect the White House or the interests of the White House in conducting its new agenda. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:22, 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)

I think we need the benefit of time before we use a "-gate" nickname for this. Mostly, I've heard it as the "U.S. Attorneys controvery", which isn't descriptive enough. If people have a difficult time finding the article, one thing that might help is to link to it from other places. At this point, however, the non-creative "U.S. Attorneys 2006 dismissal controvery" is the best I can think of right now. -- Sholom 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would favor a name easy to integrate into wlinks from other articles, e.g. Dismissal of United States Attorneys. Terjen 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving this as is for now. This story is just picking up steam. I see this breaking down into a handful of individual wiki entries. Some information I added about the 1993 dismissal of all 1993 US Attorneys has been removed because some users think it is a "red herring". I disagree with that, but I'll refrain from fighting that battle and instead put my vote in for separate wiki entries. These are their subjects.

1) Dismissing United States Attorneys 2) 1993 dismissal of ALL 93 US Attorneys, establishing a new precedent[could be subsection of 1)] 3) The 2006/7 debate -- Gabrielsutherland 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP REDIRECTING AND CREATING NEW NAMES FOR THIS ARTICLE UNTIL WE COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT THE NAME SHOULD BE. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF CREATING THIS TALK SECTION. Remember 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related issue, I suggest that we consistently capitalize United States Attorney and its variations, just as in that entry. Terjen 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Study

Should this page include any mention of this study [2]? 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)

No. It is not yet published meaning any and all findings are "preliminary" and subject to change. It's clear, the authors will not publish their study until 2008. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandal

As several news organizations are now calling it a "scandal," [3], [4], [5], I have renamed the article accordingly. Eleemosynary 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandal is a POV term that should be avoided especially before any hearing or findings. Controversy is better and reflect the common usage at Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeat: several reputable news organizations are calling it a scandal. That is why the language has been replaced. "Scandal" is not a POV term in and of itself. Eleemosynary 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that my all caps request to stop renaming the page until we had come up with a consensus has been ignored. In the future please discuss these changes on the talk page for at least a couple of days before changing the name of the whole article. Remember 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your request before renaming. As for the term "scandal," I am following the lead of several acceptable news sources, three of which I linked to above. Eleemosynary 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Politically appointed

I added it because not all DOJ attornies are political appointees. I think it is confusing to talk about positive performance reviews and politically motivated firings when the politics of the position are not laid out. These aren't career DOJ attorneys and that needs to be made clear. --Tbeatty 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the Executive Branch. To call these eight attorneys "politically appointed" in the opening paragraph muddies the water and confuses the issue. Eleemosynary 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely necessary to distinguish political appointments from non-political career positions. When the opening paragraph talks about performance reviews when performance is only relevant in the context of how the adminsitration sees it is disingenuous. These aren't career DOJ attornies. They are political appointees and the distinction needs to be clear in order to neutrally present all sides. The intro includes criticism but no response from the administration. This is fundamentally flawed. Keep the criticism and add the position of the DOJ. --Tbeatty 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't like judicial appointments or appointment of a fixed term like FBI director or Joint Chiefs of Staff. These are more akin to cabinet positions and advisor position. They are replaced by the adminsitration in power but they have absolutely no job security like the other appointed but permanent or fixed time positions. --Tbeatty 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument does not hold water. The FBI Director and Joint Chiefs can be fired at any time. You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Stop trying to muddy the water. Eleemosynary 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they cannot. That;s the fundamental difference. It's why FBI directors and JCS's keep their jobs past elections and US Attornies do not. Please stop trying to muddy the waters. --Tbeatty 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The FBI Director and Joint Chiefs can be fired at any time. U.S. Attorneys are often replaced at the beginning of a new administration, but that is not always the case. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Eleemosynary 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Legally, yes. But the distinction is that they have terms (last time I checked, JCS is 2 years and FBI director is 6). they are traditionally not political appointments and are traditionally not replaced at political whim. U.S. attorney has no terms and is therefore purely at the political whim of the administration and it is certainly not the same as career attorney positions within the DOJ. Making it sound like these are just regular prosecutors who lost their jobs is muddying the waters. --Tbeatty 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to above

Tbeatty: Your reductionist, simplistic assertion that United States Attornies serve "purely at the political whim of the administration," equating the gravity of the law enforcement position to that of the White House pastry chef, comes across as an attempt to exculpate the players in the scandal via a GOP talking point. As far as drawing a distinction between USAs and "career attorney positions," the distinction is not relevant in terms of the scandal. The essence of the scandal is that one or more of the attorneys may have been fired for prosecuting Republican lawmakers, or for failing to prosecute Democratic ones. If the White House fired an attorney for the former reason, they obstructed justice, which is a crime. As is lying to Congress, which it now appears is exactly what Attorney General Gonzalez did, which is why Republicans are now demanding his resignation. Eleemosynary 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that is talking points of the critics. Both sides neeed representation in the article, not just the side that considers this a scandal. there is a relevant substantialviewpoint that disagrees with your assertions and it is missing from the article and intro. --Tbeatty 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not my assertions. I am referencing reliable news sources. The Bush Administration is not one of them. Please check Wikipedia guidelines on what merits inclusion as a reliable source. Eleemosynary 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

The article intro only supplies critical viewpoints. I have ttried to add balance without success. also the name has been changed to express a non-neutral point of view. This is an NPOV issue. --Tbeatty 06:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The article intro (which, I admit, needs clarity work) need only lay out the premise of the scandal. Stating the scandal in terms of the players is not, of itself, POV. Your tag was not added in good faith. It will not be permitted to stand merely because you don't care for the article. Get consensus on the intro paragraph, or your tag will be removed. Eleemosynary 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It all may be true. However, there is an administration point of view and it is incumbent upon us to presenbt it. Whether you agree with it is not relevant. It is relevant and substantial and needs to be presented alongside the critics viewpoint. Both the criticism (what you outlined above) and the administration position are talking points so please don't try to claim one viewpoint is corrent. There is no high horse. Just competing adversaries. Both need to be presented. --Tbeatty 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Then present both in the body of the article, under separate headings. Your previous edit brings the article into the all-too-common Wikipedia phenomenon of "Clinton was a great president, except when he wasn't. And he was a horrible president, except when he wasn't." It is not incumbent upon us treat the Bush (or any) Administration as a reliable source. As for your contention that everyone involved in the scandal is just reading from talking points, that's a fallacy. Eleemosynary 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Giving background on the position of U.S. attorney is not Administration talking points and the source was the Tampa Bay tribune. Putting hte contention of crtics in the intro, without a rebuttal is POV. It is incumbent on us to be neutral and this article is not. --Tbeatty 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Will you please give specific examples of sentences that need to be edited/removed/added in order for POV to be lifted? If not, then POV should be lifted now. Is your objection simply that the "serving at the pleasure of the Pres" was removed from the lede? -- Sholom 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly. I think the characterization as a scandal is premature and controversy is just fine. I think the addition of the Rove picture is premature given that it's only very cirumstantial around only one of 8 prosecutors. Rove has not been linked to the firings as Meiers and Gonzalez have. I think the intro is very one sided and tries to obfuscate the political nature of the position and a simple background would help. Either a neutral source background like I provided from a newspaper or something from the adminsitration to offset the critics. Keep in mind the administration believes the firing were appropriate, just mishandled. Critics contend they were entirely inappropriates. Readers would only get one view from the intro and therefore it is not NPOV. --Tbeatty 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Political reaction

Shouldn't we refer to reactions of more than one politician? In particular, Hillary Clinton has now started a petition for the resignation of Gonzales. I added a link to it but User:JzG removed the text because "we do not support online petitions". --KarlFrei 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Prominent Politician reaction is certainly okay, preferably characterized by a reliable source (not the candidates web site if possible). But link spamming to a petition is not okay. --Tbeatty 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can list some reactions in general, or some notable ones (e.g., I think it's significant that Sen Sununu, being a Republican, called for Gonzales' resignation) but we certainly don't want to list every Dem who opposes or GOP who supports the AG. (And, as a tangent, links to petitions in an article like this is political advocacy, not reporting) -- Sholom 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality Tag needs to go

It has been removed twice, by different editors. And has been reinserted by the same editor stubbornly clinging to the specious argument that the Bush Administration's arguments are not being represented. A reading of the article shows just the opposite. One editor's stubbornness does not justify the NPOV tag. Eleemosynary 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I outlined the concerns above. The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned. My concerns are valid. PLease figure out how to put balance in the opening paragraph. --Tbeatty 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)