Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

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."

A search for parts of the quote reveals as potential source the Washington Post article titled Domenici Says He Contacted Prosecutor from March 5, although the exact text seems to have changed slightly since the quoted version. Terjen 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

No. At that time, it was known that many of the attorneys had not been sacked for performance reasons, as they had received glowing reviews. So it was clear that they'd been dumped for partisan political reasons. As you point out, Olson was chief counsel to GHW Bush's campaign (a partisan politcal post); he also argued the Bush vs. Gore case (on GW Bush's side) in 2000, and was named W's Solicitor General—both partisan posts.

In the intervening two weeks, we've found that Reagan fired nearly all the attorneys when he took office. Therefore, Clinton's actions were hardly unprecedented. Limbaugh and Olson are thus proved not to be credible—not exactly the Surprise of the Decade.--HughGRex 00:50, 31 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)

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. [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.

It took me all of 10 seconds to find this page. You should be fine (for now) Granite26 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I propose leaving terms like scandal, controversy etc out of the entry name. Terjen 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While others may refer to this as a scandal, I think the term is pejorative and implies guilt. I think controversy is a more NPOV term. In general I think the article name should state that this is related to 2006 to limit the scope of the controversy. Until this overarching issue has a consensus recognized name by the news media (e.g. "attorneygate") I think the previous name of the article was the correct one. Any other thoughts? Remember 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandal implies someone did something wrong. Bush adminstration disputes they did anything wrong other than mishandle press and Congress informing them wise.

This is a controversy, but nowhere even close to being a scandal. The judgment of "several reputable news organizations" notwithstanding.

Remember, an encyclopedia has a longer shelf life than a tabloid. You can't line your birdcage with Wikipedia.

I tried to add "taking on the characteristics of a scandal." That should hit a happy medium.Qhist 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Laughable, Qhist. You may not accept the hard news reporting of The New York Times, The Associated Press, or McClatchy. But Wikipedia does. You might want to head over to the Watergate article and remove all instances of "scandal," while you're at it. Nixon never admitted guilt, either. Eleemosynary 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more sources are calling it a scandal. there is s adifference between a reference and a newspaper. If you would simply be patient, and not act lik a twelve year old getting everything you want right away, you'd find a concensus might develop over the use of the word scandal. What you might think about what was done doesn't convince others, which is why you need to give it time.70.13.241.221 22:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the addle-brained lectures. Eleemosynary 22:10, 16 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)

Actually, U.S. attorneys have a term of four years, so YES they do have terms. But they are not always strictly adhered to, as Clinton allowed Chertkoff (now head of Homeland Security) to stay on when he took over the White House from Bush I, and Bush II kept a couple of holdovers as well. And yes, U.S. attorneys are political appointments, just like the FBI director or CIA director, and must undergo Senate confirmation - just like any other cabinet positions. As for your "purely at the political whim" comment, no. Not until now have U.S. attorneys been fired at the political whim of an administration. Try some research next time. --Jason (12.149.141.19 21:28, 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)

Get your facts right. AG GOnzo did not appear b4 congress with reference to this issue. Paul NcMulty did.Qhist 00:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.[6] Check the link. His Jan. 18 testimony is now being investigated as perjury. Did Limbaugh not mention that? I'm so surprised. Eleemosynary 15:42, 16 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)

You are referencing quotes in the paper from one side and not the other, and it is bs. Untinl it is demonstrated this is what they in fact did, or at least widely agreed, then it is not a scandal.Qhist 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I've been searching, and I can't find one reliable source that says the Bush Administration acted appropriately. Next time you post here, try to do it with something besides the Limbaugh talking points. Eleemosynary 09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are making a fool out of yourself. There aren't any sources that says the Bush Administration acted inappropriately either. Just a bunch of politicos and opinion pieces arguing both sides. You don't even have basic facts right, accusing AG Gonzoles of perjury when he didn't even appear. There's no hurry here, it will be a scandal soon enough. Don't try to rush it and reveal yourself to be an agent of one side or the other and not an editor of an encyclopedia.Qhist 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do a little more research next time. There are over 50 news organizations referring to the situation as a "scandal." This is hard news reporting, not "opinion pieces." Gonzales is being accused of perjuring himself at his confirmation hearings, and at preliminary hearings in this matter on January 18[7]. As are a few of his deputies. I guess they didn't cover that on Fox News. As for being an "agent" of anything, yes, I'm an "agent" of using reliable sources in an encyclopedia article. Eleemosynary 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No hard news piece has said that the firing was wrong. There are a few instances of misleading or lying to congress, but like I said, these will all come out with time. No reason to ejaculate right away. Enjoy the slow twisting of these assholes for awhile, kid.70.13.241.221 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this deliberate obtuseness? Or just straw men arguments to be shot down for amusement? The hard news is referring to it as a "scandal," not that it "was wrong." The consensus on this page is strongly for "scandal," lady. Eleemosynary 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice you changed my edit to scandal and now it's worse than it was. Look at your results. You knew there was disagreement and it be changed, and it was.70.13.241.221 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That reply was completely incoherent. Try again. Eleemosynary 06:11, 17 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)

Is there an articulate administration point of view? As far as I can tell, the administration's story is changing every few hours. Furthermore, there is not a single administration story, but a bunch of different administration officials trying to pass the buck to somebody else. To demand that this "POV" be presented in the introduction is just an invitation to complete incoherence. john k 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Eleemosynary 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an administration point of view. The talking points of the Democrats is that it's constantly shifting. I have no idea whether that is an objective assessment or not. The administration says that their firings were "related to policy, priorities and management" and this falls under the broader category of job performance (i.e. these attornies were not performing their job with the policy directions and priorities of the administtration.). This has been the position all along but has been obfuscated with sound bites about their performance reviews. It is the administrations position that these were perfectly fine attornies and employees whose direction was not hte same as the administrations and they were forced out because of these differences. --Tbeatty 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You continue to characterize hard news reporting of The New York Times[8], Associated Press[9], Washington Post[10], McClatchy [11]et al, as Democratic "talking points." This is POV nonsense, and has no place in this article. Eleemosynary 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reread what I said. I didn't characterize any "hard news reporting". I commented only on Democratic talking points. What's nonsense and POV is your concurrence that there is no administration viewpoint. --Tbeatty 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read what you wrote: "The talking points of the Democrats is that it's constantly shifting." No, that is the reporting of hard news sources, (The New York Times[12], Associated Press[13], Washington Post[14], McClatchy [15]), all of which Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources. You are equating this reporting with "Democratic talking points." I've never stated there's no administration viewpoint. When several hard news sources report that the administration has changed its "viewpoint" several times in the last week, that's not a "talking point" but verifiable fact. All one need do is compare the transcripts of Gonzales' press conference, Tony Snow's press briefings, and Kyle Sampson's attorney's statements, as the above news organizations did. To state that the administration has changed its story several times is not editorializing; it's backed up with accepted reportorial sources. To state, as you have, that such reporting is the same as "Democratic talking points," is obfuscatory POV, and ridiculous. Eleemosynary 18:05, 17 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)

So, no examples then. By the way, Rove has been linked to the firings.[16] [17]Eleemosynary 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been rewritten a few times and it's getting better. Rove has been linked to discussions 2 years ago about firing all 93 lawyers. It's unclear whether that discussion is linked to the firing of the eight lawyers only two months ago. DNC talking points say that they are. RNC talking points say they aren't. --Tbeatty 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are dismissing reliable news sources to your own detriment. Eleemosynary 06:13, 17 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)

WADR, as you are the one that thinks the tag is deserved, I think the burden is on you to suggest specific wording changes to the opening paragraph. -- Sholom 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did but my changes were already reverted. I will rewrite and put here. In the meantime, I would appreciate someone putting the tag back as I believe it's valid. --Tbeatty 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the tag as a valid and you haven't provided proof to prove your case. At this point it is clearly a scandal. Several congressional members are citing 200 pages of emails[18] as showing that statements the Adminstration and Attorney General are false or misleading. C56C 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a scandal at this point. R. Baley 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack not relevant to discussion removed

Lead Paragraph

I have changed the summary paragraph (very quickly). It likely does not conform to Wiki standards, and there are some references that should be added, but right now I don't have time. I hope it is more neutral and a better summary than the previous one.

I should note that I kept the scandal terminology despite my problems with it. I feel that controversy is more appropriate, but I kept it as that's the article title. Dkatten 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Compared to Previous Administrations and Firings

It appears that close to zero prosecutors have been dismissed by the president that appointed them, except for a very few that had serious allegations of impropriety. The Congressional Research Service recently put out a report on it. It's available here -- Sholom 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of article

I've changed the title of the article. "Scandal" is plainly a very POV term, particularly when one side is still insisting that nothing out of the ordinary has happened. -- ChrisO 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed about. It is clearly a scandal now. As reported Thursday afternoon 200 pages of emails have shown the White House was involved. On Tuesday the White House said they weren't. C56C 00:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandal is a POV term. Controversy describe it accuratly and NPOV. Dman727 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dman727. Scandal imparts a clear abuse. But I think there's a reasonable argument re: the scope of executive power to remove USAs. However, I would note that many currently propounding the "they serve at the pleasure of the president!" defense were also all aflutter at the Travelgate "scandal" (that is, those on the right wing, not within wikipedia per se).

I believe it would be worth bumping to scandal if it became clear that persons involved lied about what they knew or when. If it turns out that Alberto Gonzalez was aware of White House pressure and took part in in, or that Karl Rove was involved from the get go, then I think it is a scandal because we'd have administration officials blatantly lying about their states of knowledge. That to me is a definite scandal regardless of the term's current POV nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dkatten (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Dkatten: As of tonight, ABC news is reporting new emails that show Rove was indeed "involved from the get go." I believe this now meets your criteria for "scandal."

I think the report is about emails that said Rove newof the plan to fire all U.S. Attorneys when Bush started his second term. I haven't seen anything that says he new about this plan to fire this specific 8. Plus the "scandal" would be about the misleading statements presented to Congress, not firing prosecutors and it doesn't appear that Rove has appeared befor Congress. I don't particularlyt care about the title but it is misleading at this stage of it. It's more of a controversy at this point. --Tbeatty 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read something (don't have the link) that that was the case. I'm on the "scandal" side of things. But I'm even more on the side of things that says "stop constantly changing the title of the article". I wrote a long addendum to the "Title of Article" section of this page, but apparently I wrote it on the wrong one. Or something. I wasn't happy. Dkatten 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Several independent news organizations are all reporting it as a scandal. That is why the title has once again been changed back. Enough is enough. Eleemosynary 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't trump our NPOV requirements. Note that we have a category called Category:George W. Bush administration controversies (not "scandals") and with only a handful of exceptions, the articles listed are not titled as scandals. "Scandal" is an extremely loaded term - one side insists that this affair is a scandal, the other one does not. Howveer, both sides can agree that it's a controversy - we must therefore use the neutral term, not a term that favours one side over the other. (I should add that I'm not an American - I don't have an axe to grind here.) -- ChrisO 09:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not being American does not necessarily mean you have no axe to grind here. I notice there's an article called the "Monica Lewinsky scandal," not the "Monica Lewinsky controversy." The U.S. Attorney General is days, if not hours, away from resignation. If Gonzales is forced from office over this, further protestations of "this is only a controversy" will ring even more hollow than they do now. Eleemosynary 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with consensus, but it is a scandal. The latests from CNN: " The White House on Friday backed away from its earlier version of whose idea it was to get rid some of the 93 U.S. attorneys, which has grown into a scandal that threatens Attorney General Anthony Gonzales' job."[19] This is all over the mainstream media. You have to ignore the mainstream media to avoid calling this a scandal. That would be POV. C56C 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is more akin to the Whitewater (controversy). Admittedly, this has a lot less wrongdoing here to date than Whitewater. I am not sure why everything has to compared to a Clinton scandal/controversy, though. My personal opinion is that "scandal" threshold happens with a finding by some body such as Congress or a court. It is nebulous though. --Tbeatty 02:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the facts back of none of what you're proclaiming. (And you've tipped your POV hand by proclaiming "wrongdoing" in Whitewater, as none was ever found.) It's fine if you want to ignore the facts, legitimate news reports, et al. Rest assured your fellows editors won't. Your "personal opinion" as to what constitutes a scandal has little relevance here. Eleemosynary 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And I was being [facetious] by talking about Whitewater "wrongdoing". I was facetiously pointing out how little "wrongdoing" there is in this controversy. --Tbeatty 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Albeit ham-handedly. Eleemosynary 06:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ignord anything. You tried to obfuscate the issue by making a non-sequitir comparison to a "clinton scandal" so I made one to a "clinton controversy. that's all. I hope it ends your compare/contrast style of criticism and we can focus on this article. I'm sorry that you have such a need to push a POV here. When given a choice between inflammatory language or neutral language, Wikipedia should choose neutral language. Every time. Inflammatory language sells papers but fortunately, we're not in that business. Please use news reports for sourcing facts, but leave the inflammatory language for the politicians and news headline writers. --Tbeatty 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. Not one indictment has been handed down in the Mark Foley Scandal. Will you be heading over to that page to change it to "controversy"? As far as accusations of POV go, you are stubbornly characterizing hard news reporting as Democratic "talking points." That sort of nonsense may work on Free Republic; it won't wash here. Eleemosynary 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the facts indicate that this is a scandal, at least not yet. I do realize that some press reports are editorializing this as a scandal, but that is not encyclopedic. This issue is certainly a controversy, but I think it falls short of the pejoritive "scandal". If we find that laws are broken and indictments handed down I would change my mind. So far it appears to have been a controversial, ill advised, and even unpopular, but nonethless still legal staff change. I support the title as "controversy". Dman727 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your contention that hard news reporting is "editorializing" when it calls this a scandal. On what do you base this opinion? Eleemosynary 06:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Because scandal is a point of view and a pejoritive in its own right. When the term is used in situation where no laws appear to be broken, the activity in question is 100% legal albeit unprecented, its an editorilization. Even the "HARD" news is capable of bias. There is no need to inject POV and bias on wiki through emotion laden terms. Dman727 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Mark Foley scandal for an example of an incident where "no laws appear to be broken, the activity is question is 100% legal albeit unprecedented." Your contention that hard news reporting is editorialization is just that: your contention. You have a right to this opinion, but it doesn't mean the article needs to ignore reliable sources. Eleemosynary 16:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion and your contentions as as well. But that doesnt mean that we inject bias and POV here just because it appears elsewhere. Dman727 01:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your insistence that hard news is "bias and POV" does not make it true. The news sources I've referenced are acceptable for Wikipedia articles, by the standards of Wikipedia. Eleemosynary 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only insisting that the term scandal is POV and emotion laden and ultimately contrary to wiki neutrality, regardless of who uses it. I've insisted nothing about the """HARD NEWS""". You seem to want to get into a full blown discussion about the """HARD NEWS""", but that does not interest me. The facts in this case speak for themselves quite well enough and we don't need to inject bias to further the case. Dman727 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When will you be changing Mark Foley scandal to "Mark Foley controversy"? Eleemosynary 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Doubtful. I have no interest, nor expertise in that issue. There are a great number of articles on wiki that require fixing....some more than others. I only edit the ones I find interesting, have interest in, and only then if mood strikes me. Dman727 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see your entire argument is a selective one, based upon your "interest" at any particular moment. Enough is enough. Calling something a "scandal," when it has been overwhelmingly reported as such is not injecting "bias." Eleemosynary 13:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not selective at all. I'm just not taking your bait...especially on an article that I could care less about (the foley one). Why should I start taking orders from you and editing articles that I don't care about? Look we disagree on the term "scandal". You know my feeling on it so I won't restate it again. I also know your feeling, so restating it YET again is not likely to produce a change. We disagree. Why is it so important that I validate your belief? I suggest that you expend your energy elsewhere. Dman727 13:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody gave you an order. The entire reason for this back-and-forth is your above POV assertion that "some press reports are editorializing this as a scandal." That is your opinion. Wikipedia accepts the referenced press sources as reliable sources. I am not suggesting we use the word "scandal" because of my opinion; I'm suggesting it because that is accepted Wikipedia policy. Eleemosynary 16:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not require POV and emotion laden terms to be used just because they are used elsewhere in the media. I'm asking for neutrality because that is accepted Wikipedia policy.Dman727 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy does not forbid the word "scandal" if an overwhelming amount of non-editorial news reporting uses it. "Neutrality" doesn't mean "whitewash." Eleemosynary 22:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If this entire affair could be "whitewashed" by the replacment of POV word, then either the article is either poorly sourced agenda piece or the affair is not noteable. I don't believe that either is the case. Using neutral terms and covering all the relevant facts is the correct way to write an encylopedia.Dman727 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when so-called "neutral" terms err on the side of inaccuracy. Eleemosynary 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" is HARDLY inaccurate. Dman727 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And "scandal" is more accurate. See the "Lewinsky scandal" and "Mark Foley scandal" for other examples. One cannot pick and choose what's a scandal and what is not. Eleemosynary 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited, nor expressed an opinion the articles you keep bringing up, therefore your "pickin and'a choosin" is specious. I have expressed an opinion and edited THIS article. Scandal is POV, pejoritive, emotional laden, unnecessary, and unsupported by consensus on this article. Dman727 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bluster aside, you do not get to disregard Wikipedia precedent and policy in articles in order to pursue an agenda. Eleemosynary 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Asking for neutrality is now an agenda? Wikipedia precedent and policy requires neutrality and evenhandness. Scandal is POV, pejoritive, emotional laden, unnecessary, and unsupported by consensus on this article. Dman727 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your agenda is in disregarding reliable news sources as "editorializing." You did this earlier in the thread, and have tried to build your case on this supposition. "Controversy" is tepid, and a bit of a whitewash. "Scandal" is accurate, backed up by reliable sources, emotional only for those who read emotion into it, necessary, and clearly supported by as many editors on this page who support "controversy." Eleemosynary 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. Like neutrality, WP:AGF is required. Insisting that neutrality is an agenda is specious. Scandal is POV, pejoritive, emotional laden, unnecessary, and unsupported by consensus on this article.Dman727 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read above: Your agenda is not one of "neutrality." Indeed, I wish it was. Your agenda is in disregarding reliable news sources as "editorializing." "Scandal" is accurate, backed up by reliable sources, emotional only for those who read emotion into it, necessary, and clearly supported by as many editors on this page who support "controversy." Eleemosynary 01:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandal is POV, pejoritive, emotional laden, unnecessary, and unsupported by consensus on this article. Neutrality is not an agenda. Neutrality is NOT POV. Your unrelenting insistance that I agree with you is far more indicative of an agenda than my belief that term scandal is an unnecessary editorilization. WE DON'T AGREE. THATS OK. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO AGREE. I kindly suggest that you give up this crusade of getting me to agree with you. Once again, I suggest that you expend your energy elsewhere and on someone else. Dman727 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scandal" is NPOV, accurate, backed up by reliable sources, emotional only for those who read emotion into it, necessary, and clearly supported by as many editors on this page who support "controversy." I've never accused you of having a "neutrality agenda." Far from it. I've also never insisted you agree with me; I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I couldn't care less if you agreed with me. But, for the purposes of this article, your insistence that it be labelled a "controversy" instead of a "scandal," stemming from a POV supposition that Wiki-approved reliable sources are editorializing, is what I'm debating. Your suggestion that I expend my "energy elsewhere and on someone else" has the air of a frustrated pedant, and will be ignored. Eleemosynary 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We disgagree. You think that "SCANDAL" is NPOV. I don't. You think that "Controversy" is POV/Agenda, I don't. WE DON'T AGREE. THATS OK. YOU AND I ARE NOT REQUIRED TO AGREE. Let me explain something that may help you. Your task is NOT to convince me. In fact your assertions of (what appears to me) up =down and left=right are so far different than my reality there is no chance that we will see eye to eye. **Your task is to form a consensus that scandal should be in the title. That means influencing OTHER editors to agree with you**. I kindly suggest that you cease wasting your energy on me, as I don't believe in your POV. If you gather a consensus of people who believe that "Controversy" is POV and that "Scandal" is NPOV than I will respect that consensus. But as for you and I, I don't think we are going to make further progress.Dman727 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly. I just agreed to suspend, and now I read some more full-throated pedantry, as well as a misstatement of my position, from you. You seem to be taking this rather personally; that's unfortunate. As far as what "my task" is, I'll decide that, thanks very much. I have no interest in convincing you of anything. But, for the other editors/readers looking in, it's important that your charges be rebutted. That's should be influential all by itself. :) Eleemosynary 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not see your agreement to suspend until shortly after I posted the above. Oh and don't worry, this is hardly personal in fact Im getting rather bored with responding to the same statements over and over. I do apologize for offering you what I thought was useful advice. Naturally you are free to disregard it. I sense that you are desperately trying to get in this last word on this discussion and as a thankyou for offering to suspend earlier, I'll give you the last word on this particular issue. Dman727 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I think the facts do support the 'scandal' terminology. People keep saying "but laws haven't been broken!", but that's not the only qualification for a scandal. I argue than an event (or bungling, in this case) that someone loses their job over (as is exceedingly likely with Gonzalez, and is already the case for Kyle Sampson) is a scandal. Perhaps Dman727 has decent points regarding it's pejorative nature, but that's not our fault. Whether any indictments come down or not is irrelevant; people are resigning because of it and that makes it a scandal. dkatten 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that there should be consensus on the subject I have some observations:

1. Some politicians contacted attorneys, at least suggesting some irregularity on their part.
2. Newsreports describe this affair as a scandal.
3. People have lost their job as result of this "controversy."

Based on the above I see no reasonable objection to the word scandal, eventhough it does introduce a slight POV. POV words supported by facts IMO should not be disallowed purely out of a "rules are rules" principle. Hence the fact that some articles do use the term. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, isn't lying to congress, er, criminal? At least arguably Gonzales and other justice department officials have been lying to Congress. john k 15:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed that court verdict. Controversy is a perfectly acceptable word. Why would it need to be changed? Everyone agree's it's a controversy. Not everyone agrees it's a scandal. I don't see why controversy wouldn't be the preferred term. --Tbeatty 15:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that the earth is round. "Everyone agreeing" is not how NPOV works. john k 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The choices are between a pejorative word that it is objected to by a significant number of editors vs. a non-pejorative word that is agreed to by a significat majority. That is NPOV and that is exactly how it works. --Tbeatty 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you are attempting to frame this debate by employing a fallacious supposition, and a false choice. "Pejorative" is in the eye of the reader. And where on this page have a "significant majority" of editors preferred "controversy" to "scandal"? I count it as about even. Eleemosynary 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote and restate your question based on what I wrote. I did not say a significant majority preferred anything. I said controversy is an acceptable word to a significant majority. Scandal is not an acceptable word to a significant number of editors. Controversy is NPOV and scandal is not. --Tbeatty 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If its about even then there is no consensus. If there no consensus then there is no valid reason to use a pejoritive, pov, emotion laden term. "Controversy" is neutral, and accurately describes the situation. There IS a consensus that the issue is at minimum a "controversy". Furthermore all the facts as we know them are laid out in the article. With the facts laid out, its up to the reader to decide and characterize the issue as they see fit and I'm quite sure that most readers will be able to characterize the issue without wiki shoving POV at them with terms like "scandal". Dman727 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough hair-splitting. Tbeatty stated that a "significant number" find scandal "pejorative." An equally "significant number" do not. One can state that "controversy is NPOV and scandal is not" till steam comes out of one's ears, but Wikipedia has used "scandal" on several occasions [20] [21] when the press has characterized it as such. Attorneygate is officially a scandal. Links have been provided from non-editorial news sources saying as much. Eleemosynary 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN. I am not interested in Mark Foley or Lewinsky. Those articles may or may not require attention but that is not the issue at hand. "Scandal" is a pejoritive, pov, emotion laden term that has no place in the title of this article. (if you want me to repeat it again, let me know) Dman727 00:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

--

And once again, Eleemosynary is misquoting both my words and position. I would like to call WP:CIVIL to your attention and ask that you stop misquoting me and misrepresenting my position in this discussion. We should drop both controversy and scandal. --Tbeatty 00:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected my misquote (your striking it was superfluous), but I have not at any time misstated your position. I am well aware of WP:CIVIL; your aspersions that I have somehow violated in this colloquy are themselves uncivil. Perhaps you'd like to check the page yourself. And your attempt to crowbar dropping "both controversy and scandal" into this is an argument for which there is absolutely no consensus. Eleemosynary 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scream all you want. "Scandal" is accurate, backed up by sources, and has clear precedent in titles of Wikipedia articles. Your refusal to accept these things is leading you to POV editing. It's unacceptable. Eleemosynary 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality is not POV. I'm pretty sure of that. Dman727 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above re: agenda-pushing. Eleemosynary 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interpeting WP:NPOV to be agenda-pushing is a very curious spin. Dman727 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear: I am not accusing you of having a NPOV agenda. I'm stating that your supposition (above) that Wiki-approved reliable news sources are nothing more than editorials is a POV agenda. Sorry about any confusion. Eleemosynary 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but lets be clear. I have never characterized reliable news sources as "nothing more than editorials". However I do believe that when certain pov-laden terms are used, they do represent unnecessary editorlization, even when used within an otherwise solid piece. Lets agree to disagree on this point as well. I think we have both made our positions crystal clear there is no need to start another subthread on this same point. Dman727 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like there has been a lot of spilled ink all over the semantics of how to define the word scandal and whether this incident fits that definition. For my two cents, I feel that scandal is pejorative and would be viewed by some readers as NPOV and unnecessarily turn them off of the article. I think the term controversy does not have this problem. I also feel that this really shouldn't be a big issue because once the reader gets to the article they will have all the facts they need to make up their own mind. But I don't really care that much either way. I just don't want this article's name getting moved around until a consensus has been reached on this talk page. Remember 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Should Gonzales resign over this, "controversy" will be far too inaccurate a term. Speaking of which... [22] Eleemosynary 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If rabbits had wheels, they would be wagons. I cannot predict the future and even if I could, its contrary to wiki policy. Nonetheless, I am quite willing to change my mind if events in the future dictate such. Dman727 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I'll suspend the argument until such time as Gonzales resigns. The news reports are reporting McNulty will most probably resign, too. But, if this thing forces the first Attorney General out since Watergate, it's going to be hard to argue that the threshold for scandal hasn't been reached, if not surpassed. Eleemosynary 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we stop the argument and just say "2006 dismissal of U.S. Attornies" and removed "controversy" and/or "scandal" altogether. --Tbeatty 22:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That would even be less descriptive than what's there now. Eleemosynary 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

While I support "Controversy", as a matter of compromise I would support removing either/both adjectives from the title.Dman727 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, two editors are clearly on board for as vague a title as possible. I'm gonna dissent. Eleemosynary 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I think that I have been quite clear that I support "Controversy". The passage above is simply to acknowledge my willing to accept the proposed compromise. Dman727 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself

These contradict each other.

• President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993,
• President George W. Bush received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.

• Since 1978, until 2006, at least four US Attorneys have been "forced out" in the middle of a President's term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowpedia (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

No contradiction. Asking for a resignation is different than forcing someone out. You force someone out who won't resign. Every new adminstration starts with a clean slate by asking for resignations. C56C 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Word, C56C. I was going to say/do the same thing, but I got edit blocked (you were too fast!) Dkatten 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and not. The answer is not slicing the difference between asking for a resignation and forcing out -- they are indeed the same thing. The distinction is in the middle of a President's term. Clinton (1993) and Bush (2001) dumped USA's from a prior administration. What makes this unprecedented is Bush firing USA's that he himself appointed, i.e., in the middle of a Presidential term. -- Sholom 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is backed up by a Congressional Research Service[23] report that " confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways — three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months." See previous[24]Arbustoo 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Politics today are so polarized every time a political party looks bad, the cronies on both sides come out, pull off the gloves and start throwing out buzz words like "Liberal" "Conservative" and a couple other ones I don't think need mentioning. While I don't really think this article is biased, it really does contradict itself like the above statement indicates. I guess it's also worth mentioning this article has a really difficult time separating fact and opinion.

I agree the thrown around labels like "conservative" and "liberal" should be avoided. C56C 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

If you are going to add the NPOV tag please state in this discussion (1) your reasons for adding the tag, (2) your suggestions on how to revise the article and (3) when you added the tag so that we can address each issue separately. I have removed the tag because I don't know for what reasons it is currently on the article. I removed the tage on March 16 at 10:20 eastern standard time. Remember 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to near the top, the section: Presidential authority to hire and fire US Attorneys

I think the section Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Presidential_authority_to_hire_and_fire_US_Attorneys should be near the top of this article, as it gives some background and basis for understanding the speculated upon thinking and actions of the administration. At the bottom, this is a footnote to the controversy. -- Yellowdesk 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. --Tbeatty 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Source for list of carryover Attorneys during changing administrations

Is there a known source to the US Attorneys that carried over from one administration to the next, despite providing resignations to the incoming president?

• Carter to Reagan
• Reagan to G.H.W. Bush
• G.H.W. Bush to Clinton,
• Clinton to G.W.Bush?

-- Yellowdesk 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Podcast

Harvard Law School recently had a discussion all about the firing of the 8 attorneys and Bud cummins (one of the attorneys) was there. A link to the discussion can be found here [25]. If anybody wants to take the time to listen to it all I think there may be some relevant information that could be added to this page. Remember 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Change names to "Attorneygate"?

Lately the press has been reporting this as Attorneygate[26][27][28][29] Should we mention this? C56C 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Those all appear to be editorials. --Tbeatty 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all them are editorials. And this [30], from Time Magazine, is certainly not an editorial. Attorneygate it is. Eleemosynary 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Iglesias firing

New York times has a comprehensive article on the firing of Iglesias if anyone wants to add this info. New York times article. Remember 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New Title part Deux - Request for Comment

To stop the argument of controversy vs. scandal, I propose changing the title to 2006 U.S. Attorney Dismissal. This allows the article to explore all aspects of the actual dismissal of the attornies rather than being boxed in with a title and wasting time over the particular nuances and word choice. This is a NPOV description of the action that has recently been in the news and is the subject of COngresisonal hearing. Please comment below. --Tbeatty 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the change to 2006 U.S. Attorney Dismissal

Support as its originator. This will eliminate arguments over whether the editorial comments are accurate or descriptive enough. Scandals,controversies, support for the action, and other POV can be covered in the article. --Tbeatty 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the change to 2006 U.S. Attorney Dismissal

Strong oppose. This scandal is about to force the resignation of the U.S. Attorney General. To continually suggest that this is neither "scandal" nor "controversy," and that any such "POV can be covered in the article," is ridiculous. Additionally, the scandal is the reason there's an article at all. The proposed anodyne title seems to suggest there should be an article for every single year US Attorneys are fired. Eleemosynary 05:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As of right now (March 20), a google search shows that Attorneygate gets ~50000, dismissal of US Attorneys gets 1.5 million, US Attorneys scandal gets 3.5 million, and US Attorneys controversy gets 1.6 million. The web clearly thinks this is a scandal. And changing it to 'dismissal' misses the entire point of the article. Considering that "scandal" outnumbers controversy by more than 2:1 (let alone Attorneygate, which is orders of magnitude lower), it seems clear what the title should be.

And spare me the lecture of google checking. It can be a useful heuristic for gauging language use. And here, the differences are quite significant dkatten 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don;t really care about the heuristic concerns. Rather, how does Google results correlate to Wikipedia policy on NPOV? --Tbeatty 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In two ways: first, it lets us compare how various terms get used. By surveying a vast swath of usage, we can see if there is any preference in the general population for one term or another. Highly POV terms are likely to only be used by people with that POV, whereas NPOV terms will be preferred by more neutral (and more numerous) sites. In other words, we might expect that highly POV terms will essentially "wash out" with other highly POV alternatives. Also, we cannot deny that scandal is

Second, it relates to NPOV policy regarding state facts, not opinions. The numbers I cited are verifiable token counts that tell us how people in general conceptualize this state of affairs. While it's obiviously worthwhile to make specific citations of so-and-so says it's a scandal and so-and-so says it's not, the NPOV page makes it clear that not all perspectives have to be accounted for with equal weight. The zero-modifier title you propose ("Dismissal of US Attorneys") has a particular POV associated with it - namely that everyone who says it's a scandal is wrong. Well, there's 3.5 million webpages that disagree and only 1.5 who concur. I'd say by seeking to avoid POV, this just injects it by omission. dkatten 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be based on the premise that popular = NPOV, which it may or may not. But an interesting argument nonetheless. Remember 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that in classifying political events, it is useful to monitor how a bulk of observers use terms. That said, I readily concede there is a slippery slope in doing a straight "majority rules" in labeling events such as this. I just think, again, it's a useful heuristic (in determining global POV).dkatten 20:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there isn't any significant argument -- right, left, or center -- that this isn't a scandal. One of the blogosphere's most ardent Bush administration defenders, Patterico, just threw in the towel: [31] Eleemosynary 19:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose -- mostly for the following reason: the entire controversy/scandal/whatever is too current to have a steady name. We've already changed the name a number of times. Let's, please, just leave it alone for a short while, while the political shake-out is more resolved, and, please let's re-direct the energy expended in "what is the name" into making the article better. -- Sholom 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose and I totally agree with Sholom statement above. Remember 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose —What Sholom said.--HughGRex 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'd support the propose name change as a compromise, but after reading through the comments it doesnt look like such a compromise would be successful and would proably just restir the pot. At this point in time I think that "controversy" is more accurate and NPOV anyway. With that in mind and with Sholoms comments above I have to agree to just leave it alone for awhile. I suspect that eventually the correct name would be Attorneygate or something-gate anyway, but its still a developing story and I think things will be clearer in a few weeks. Dman727 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Clearly a scandal, and should described as such in the title. 8 unprecedented firings, 1 resignation already, and probably more to follow. "2006 U.S. Attorney Dismissal" is too generic, and at this point (indeed, even a week ago) "controversy" is too mild. R. Baley 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy doesn't reflect POV to any significant extent. By now, it may even be appropriate to begin to think about changing it to scandal, eventually criminal may preceed the title. It's a hot issue, and if Bush has to let Gonzales go, they're good buds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhist (talk • contribs) March 20, 2007 (UTC)

Oppose That the Senate has voted to rescind the USA PATRIOT Act amendment by 94 to 2 says something significant has happened. There's no harm in letting a name change wait for a few weeks. -- Yellowdesk 05:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Oppose Title is fine, I agree with Sholom. --KarlFrei 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed wikiproject

I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies. The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia. Anybody that is interested can sign up at [32]. Remember 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Some reorganization needed

I think that there needs to be a section called something like "Congressional Investigations", which pulls out a lot of what's already there, along with the new events that are taking place (viz., "House Judiciary Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee (CAL) voted to authorize the full committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) to issue subpoenas for current and former White House and Justice Department officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, Scott Jennings and Kyle Sampson, as well as documents that the Committee has not yet received."[33]). Obviously, this is going to be a big battle, with subpoenas, court cases, and so forth. Thoughts? Anyone want to take a crack at it? -- Sholom 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And 3,000 pages of documents released so far. Hmm.

Plus looking for a fight -- Yellowdesk 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking a better section title

I'd like to have new ordinal-number level section title inserted to describe for the eight subsections, after "2. Reactions and Congressional Investigation"

something like "3. Details of the seven dismissed attorneys" (but that title fails to be eloquent). Got something better? -- Yellowdesk 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(Sections as of 23:45 (UTC) Thursday)

1 Events
1.1 Planning
1.2 Dismissals
2 Reactions and congressional investigation
2.1 Threats for coming forward
2.2 Bud Cummins firing
2.3 Carol Lam firing
2.4 David Iglesias firing
2.5 John McKay firing
2.6 Daniel Bogden firing
2.7 Paul Charlton firing
2.8 Kevin Ryan firing
3 Other controversial demotions, vacancies, and firings of U.S. Attorneys under Bush presidency
3.1 DiBiagio firing
3.2 Black demotion
3.3 Yang resignation
4 Presidential authority to hire and fire US Attorneys
4.1 USA PATRIOT Act revisions
5 Terminations under previous White House administrations
6 See also
7 References

8 External links

Some comments:

1. The background of the authority to fire U.S. attornies should be second after the events. It is the basis for the actions and comes before the reactions.
2. There should a section as part of this on the rationale of the firings by the administration.
3. 4.1 is completely unnecesary as the PAtriot Act did not change the firing process or authority at all. The only thing it did was change who selects the second interim attorney after the 120 day term of the first interim attorney has expired. But nothing about firing attornies.
4. There needs to be a section on historical firings (i.e. the firing of all U.S. attornies when a new administration is selected and the writings of the founders that consider the ability to fire government prosecutors one of the fundamental powers of the executive branch.).
5. there shouldn;t be a separate, nebuloust threats section especially if each individual attorney has a separate section. Roll the threats into the attorney that is alleging them. --Tbeatty 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Response

• Agreed: background to authority ought to be earlier
• Patriot Act is, I think, relevant, because it's quite possible that some of the firings and/or replacements wouldn't have been attemped had that new authority not been there (so it seems with the Cummins/Griffin case)
• Agreed, there shouldn't be a separate threats section
• There still needs to be a "Congressional Reaction and/or Investigation" Section -- this is where all the stuff regarding possible false testimony in Jan and Feb would go, the Patriot Act change being rescinded, the 3000 page document dump, the subpoenas, the White House resistance, and etc --Sholom 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Transitions between administrations

• It is desirable to have a genuinely comprehensive (and synoptic) survey of the transitions from Carter through GW Bush. How each administration has done the transition has been different. The claimed "tradition" of dismissing all attorneys at once appears (from todays's vantage) to be merely two administrations old, with variable transition process (slower) in prior past administrations. The potential seed of a big article United States presidential transitions.
• And keep the description of the amendments caused by the USA Patriot Reauthorizaton act, (possibly significantly edited). The statute made the controversy possible.

-- Yellowdesk 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ref problem

There are refs listed twice (i.e. the feature to list refs multiple times was not used). Could someone fix this so that each ref is only listed once, and other ones just use the <ref name="NAME" /> tag. Thanks. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  21:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One problem with the named references in a rapidly changing article, is if some editor deletes the first use, and the brief form is used for all of the subsequent notes of the same name (with no text for the footnote), then all of the remaining footnotes show no citation/source text in the footnote, which can be worse than the original problem.

• I recommend using the full version used for the first use of the citation for all of the subsequent same-name instances so that if the leading named-reference is deleted, the second one with the same name steps in performing the role of lead footnote, yet with all of the citation/source info.

-- Yellowdesk 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, which I didn't think of. Maybe after this whole ordeal settles down, it can be changed to the normal way with one instance. Thanks for pointing that out. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the current list of repeated references. However, since the "name" tag may be different depending on the author who adds it, there may still be repeated instances of the same reference with different name tags. But, as per Jared, this can be cleaned up once it settles down. — ERcheck (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And as long as the topic of footnotes is open...who might be interested in gettng publications or authors listed on all of the references, and publication dates and retrieval dates as well, and other maintenance? Sigh. -- Yellowdesk 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a first pass at that yesterday — except retrieval dates. The loc links are not working at this point. — ERcheck (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have recently revived a couple of brief versions of <ref>s (footnotes) for which the parent was probably given a new name tag, and at the moment there are several more awaiting attention. If there's an energetic editor to go over all of the references, and make the second and third and greater footnotes using the same "name" tag "full" versions, this might make future maintenance easier. It is a bit of a challenge to track down the original reference when it has been renamed. -- Yellowdesk 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Legalese text

Is the legalese in section 3 " Presidential authority to hire and fire US Attorneys" really necessary? It seems unnecessarily complicated for what is a relatively simple issue. In my opinion, the exact legal text doesn't belong if this can be explained in prose. Others' thoughts?-- Chaser - T 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to like the exact wording of the statute (even though it may be dense) in an article that specifically discusses a statute's language. Remember 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Showing the statute also makes it exactly clear what the fuss is about. At the start of the Bush administration, this controversy would have been impossible to have because that statute was different. Showing the statute also helps enable a bit more nuetrality, as it (in 28 U.S.C. § 541, a section not displayed in the article), uses terms like "removal" rather than "fire," appoint" rather than "hire," and for those in office longer than four years, "continue to perform the duties of his office" rather than "carryover." I doubt even one media article allows the reder to understand for herself the guidance that the law provides for the appointment process, and thus there's always an intermediary of other writer's summation and interpretations in other media. -- Yellowdesk 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both points. However, another solution might be to simply describe it, and then put the exact text into part of the Patriot Act article (with a "see also", or "see text at"). Thoughts? Short of that, might we want to make any additions to the Patriot Act article to reflect what's going on here? -- Sholom 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I favor adding to the USA PATRIOT Act article, and letting the statute language be visible here...at least for a "while." That the section is at the bottom of the article makes it footnote-like, for what it's worth. The section could use a bit of formatting for better readability. I think understanding the statute is key to the whole controversy, and think a concise section near the top of the article is desirable, a view which is friendly to Chaser 's proposal. (See this section, above, that has elicited little response.)

Future speculated upon news:

• bill rescinding of the amendments to section 546 passes;
• dispute about who will testify or provide documents;
• potential veto of rescind-bill...

lots of reason to let the statute language stay in over here. -- Yellowdesk 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the full text of the statute is at the top of the article (something I did not advocate), I think it's time to have a quicker introduction. Where can the detailed statutory text live so that the prose of the article's beggining is more welcoming? -- Yellowdesk 04:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right -- the intro is just too long and we need to put the actual text somewhere else -- and just have a few-sentences summary of the changes with a link to the actual text. The two ideas that immediately come to my mind are: (a) in a "reference" section at the end of the article; or (b) in a section in the Patriot Act article. Any other ideas? -- Sholom 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Preparatory to making sections at USA Patriot Act and USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy we could try out a section here that looks like a reference with the stutory text in detail. Perhaps just before footnotes. "Enabling statute" or "Details on U.S. Attorney appointment statutes" or some such. Having it here would anable it to get attention toward improving it before shipping it off, to another article, if that's what seems best. (And, ah, keep the concise narrative at top of the article). -- Yellowdesk 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: Statutes now at bottom, in a section named, initially, Reference: United States Code, Title 28, Section 546, and recent amendments. Lead in text at Background at top, tightened up. -- Yellowdesk 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction, key issue

As noted elsewhere, this article needs reorganizing. One problem I see is in the introduction. It basically claims that there are two issues here:

• the political nature of the appointments
• the actual reasons for the dismissals

However, it appears to me that there is basically one key issue, and that is

• whether or not the administration lied about the reason for the dismissals.

The first point, about the Patriot Act, was relatively less important and has in any case been resolved by now by the new law. I would submit that the central point here is the rationale given for the dismissals. (This is especially remarkable since the administration was not under an obligation to give any reason at all -- going back to the "pleasure of the president" issue. They could have just limited their reaction to "No comment"!) What do you think? --KarlFrei 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that, in the end, if there are any resignations, etc., it will be because, as you noted, the administartion lied. As the old Washington aphorism goes, "it's not the deed, it's the cover up." That said, however, this scandal does potentially involve other, deeper, issues. For example:

• members of US Congress calling a USA during an ongoing investigation (which Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici did, violates many ethics rules, and skates close to the line on "obstruction of justice."
• More obviously, if a USA was fired because s/he was investigating the politically powerful (note that Kyle Sampson complained of a problem with Carol Lam within 24 hours of (a) Lam notifying DOJ that she's be serving subpoenas on the former #3 CIA official Dusty Foggo and; (b) the LA Times breaking the story that she was expanding her Duke Cunningham investigation to Congressman Jerry Lewis) -- this would be a clear violation of obstruction of justice, and the entire country would be calling for somebody's head (further, it calls into question previous firings, such as the USA from Guam who was investigating Jack Abramoff, and, after he was fired, the investigation closed up shop)
• We're not sure how the changing of the Patriot Act fit into this plot. We do know, however, that (a) from emails that Sampson was relying on it to keep Tom Griffin in his new position (indeed, Griffin is still in his new position as interim USA); (b) the provision was snuck in; and (c) this relates to potential lies that were told regarding whether this provision would be used

I'm not claiming that all the allegations of reasons and conspiracies are true -- but many of the above facts are, and they may, indeed be "coincidence". Nevertheless, and in summary, my view is that until this shakes out, there are multiple issues, some of them not explosive now, but with the potential to be. -- Sholom 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that if it is costly to appoint a U.S. Attorney (hearings, Senate confirmation, deference to a state's Senators) then an adminisration will be more reluctant to remove one from office. If it is cost-less (no hearings or scrutiny of the departed staff, with indefinite interim appointment term when aided by president declining to send a noination to the Senate) then there would be more willingness on any administration's part to turn-over their staff. This is why the USA PATRIOT Act is important in this whole deal; it's the fundamental enabling authority for all of the activity complained about. It's a foundational item, and related to the other multiple "key issues." The relevant amended statutes sections have not yet been rescinded, and in any case, as history the law during the dismissals and interim appointments remains important to understanding the stituation.

-- Yellowdesk 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Past presidential firings of attorneys

LA Times has a new article about the history of previous firings and the administration's development of the talking point to point out that Clinton also fired his attorneys. It can be found here [34]. Some interesting excerpts:

• "In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?" That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said. A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo. "On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

• Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years....The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

• Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania's attorney general, knows the story firsthand. "I am the one who took the message," he said in an interview Wednesday. In 1993, he was the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and the liaison between the outgoing George H.W. Bush administration and the incoming Clinton administration. "We had been asking them for months: 'When do you want our resignations?' " he said. The answer came in a meeting with Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general, in mid-March. "He said, 'I have good news and bad news. The good news is the attorney general wants you to stay until your successor is confirmed. The bad news is she wants your resignations by the end of the week,' " Corbett said. He said the demand for resignations by the week's end was surprising. "We knew this was coming, but it broke with tradition to do it this way," he said. "It didn't make for a smooth transition. By the end of that week, they had backed off a bit. Over the course of the next few months, they made the changes. It was how the message was delivered more than what actually occurred."

• Despite Reno's request for all of their resignations, some U.S. attorneys stayed on the job for several more months. In Los Angeles, for example, Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992, and he served through 1993, Clinton's first year in office. Nora Manella, Clinton's choice for the post, took over in 1994. In Pittsburgh, Corbett says he stayed in office until August, when a new Clinton appointee won confirmation. In New Jersey, Michael Chertoff, a 1990 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, continued into the Clinton administration before leaving in 1994. He is now the Homeland Security secretary. In western Michigan, John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, served until the beginning of 1994. "I knew I would be resigning, but I wasn't sure of the timing. I ended up serving for one year of the Clinton administration," he said. His predecessor, James S. Brady, served as U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., during the Carter administration.

• "Tom Heffelfinger, a former U.S. attorney from Minnesota who served under Bush — as well as in the elder Bush's administration — said a White House move to fire a large number of U.S. attorneys was quite different from replacing the appointees of a previous administration. "In my opinion, it is not comparable," said Heffelfinger, a Republican who resigned voluntarily from his Justice Department post last year. When you have a transition between presidents — especially presidents of different parties — a U.S. attorney anticipates that you will be replaced in due course. But the unwritten, No. 1 rule at [the Justice Department] is that once you become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door," he said."

Remember 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some more interesting things to read. Previous administrations, odd e-mails, executive privilege and subpoenas.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Update on this... wait for it... SCANDAL

Turns out Gonzales was lying all along. [46] Eleemosynary 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete.

This is non-notable. Of what significance does this have, even in the United States (let alone, the world)? Absolutely nothing. It's a media frenzy for two weeks, and then it dies. It is not notable for an article. --75.21.241.167 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL -- Eleemosynary 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, as Gozales said, it's just "an overblown personnel matter". (And Watergate was just a "third-rate burglary.") -- Sholom 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Gonzales :) Azathoth68 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

I just created Template:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, and added it in here. Thoughts? -- Sholom 16:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Remember 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a useful summary. I would like it to say, for clarity, and to not presume U.S. centric readership:

• "G.W.Bush presidential administration"
  

Is there any chance this could be used on more than one page? -- Yellowdesk 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can use it on more than one page, I just wanted to make sure that it was somewhat "approved" by the readers here. We can put it in the usual places (articles on Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales, etc.). As for adding GWBush to is, I think that since the Template is already called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy", we probably don't need that.

There are also other thoughts I had on the Template itself:

• I'd like some places to be bold, but I couldn't figure out how to do that
• I was thinking about two columns, but worried it'd get too wide
• I was also thinking about putting resignation dates by those who resigned

More thoughts, anyone, on any of the above? -- Sholom 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Off topic, but I'd like "fire dates" and "last" and "first" dates in office for the USAttorney table. Perhaps even nomination dates, but not so important.
• For the template, sure, put in resign dates for admin officials, and we'll see if that's too much or not. One Column is good. You could float versions with radical changes on subdirectories of the template itself, if you'd like. -- Yellowdesk 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

News on Goodling pleading the fifth

From Dan Eggen Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify, Washington Post, March 26, 2007

"The senior counselor to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will refuse to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the unfolding U.S. attorneys scandal, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, her attorneys said today. Monica M. Goodling -- who is on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales's office -- also alleges in a sworn declaration that a "senior Department of Justice official" has admitted he was "not entirely candid" in his Senate testimony and has blamed Goodling and others for not fully briefing him...In the declaration presented to the Senate committee and released by her attorneys today, Goodling, 33, says Schumer and other lawmakers, including Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), have already "drawn conclusions" about the U.S. attorney firings. As a result, Goodling says, she has decided to "invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and decline to answer any and all questions from the committee or its staff...I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right, because the above-described circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify."

Remember 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll

USA Today:

Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege.[47] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Category desirable

To link all of the various individual articles together asociated with this event, Its looking like a category to tag articles and biograpies with is desriable. Looking for a good name. Proposals invited. -- Yellowdesk 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Category Proposals (add yours):
G.W. Bush dismissal of United States Attorneys controversey, 2006
Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversey, 2006

I vote for this, but I would leave off the 2006. Remember 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Attorneys controversy, 2006-2007
United States Attorneys controversy

Why is Whitewater being brought up?

The information regarding Jay Stephens in the Terminations Under Other Administrations section is not germane to the current controversy. Rather, it is political spin designed to dredge up the Rostenkowski/Whitewater controversies and create an incorrect "Clinton did it too" impression in the reader. Jay Stephens was not "forced out" by the administration that appointed him. He was dismissed along with every other U.S. Attorney when the Clinton Administration first took office, a practice that has been established as routine. Going on to talk about Stephen's subsequent involvement with the RTC just makes this section even more political. Can we please keep the talking points out of the article? Azathoth68 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Karl Rove is spin as well. The reality is that U.S. attornies can be dismissed for political reasons (such as a change in administration) and whether you believe this rises to the level of scandal or not is the product of politics and spin. In other words, the article wouldn't exist without politics and spin and calls to remove a particular spin is POV. --Tbeatty 07:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Spare us this nonsense. Whitewater has zero relevance. Rove is completely relevant. If Tbeatty would like to add talking points to the article, he is welcome to post another "vote" for them. My guess is he'll get a result similar to his last one (see above). Eleemosynary 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem argument. Please feel free to weigh in with comments on the content of the article. --Tbeatty 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Already done (see many instances above). Your refusal to respond to anyone's comments with anything other than out-of-hand dismissals and the-whole-thing-is-just-RNC-talking-points-vs-DNC-talking-points bluster (as you did several times above) is neither helpful to writing the article, nor the problem of your fellow editors. You insist on proceeding from the assertion that this "article wouldn't exist without politics and spin and calls to remove a particular spin is POV." That's obfuscatory, bad-faith equivocation, and a waste of time. Eleemosynary 08:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've chosen again not to respond to content. Argumentum ad hominem --Tbeatty 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are, once again, mistaken. Eleemosynary 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that it's standard practice to replace US Attorneys when new administrations come into power, and I suppose that does qualify as "political". While it's specious to equate that with this particular atrocity, it's also fine to mention it. However, there's no reason to mention it specifically with regard to Clinton (who did nothing of this sort), it should merely be appointed out that it has long been customary (probably since Jackson) for US Attorneys to be fresh appointees at the start of each new administration. Derex 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Azathoth68 and Derex. I've removed the Whitewater talking points. Eleemosynary 07:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what was mentioned in the article is the calls made by presidentical aides to have an RTC investigating attorney fired because of his political ties. That's very relevant especially if a Karl Rove memo about firing all the attornies is relevant. --Tbeatty 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It's a puerile "Clinton did it too" fallacy, and current consensus is for its removal. Eleemosynary 08:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not entirely true, Tbeatty. U.S. attorneys are not routinely removed for "political" reasons per se. They are removed as part of the tradition in Washington of allowing a new President to have a clean slate -- that is, he gets to appoint his own people. This means cabinet officials, department heads (not as common), U.S. Attorneys, etc. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, a new President will sometimes forgo immediately firing a particular U.S. Attorney if they are in the middle of a high-profile politically-charged investigation (something Clinton neglected to do), but he will almost always replace them eventually. Once U.S. attorneys and others have been appointed, the White House has a certain ethical responsibility to allow them to do their jobs. The allegation here is that the Bush Administration targeted its own appointees for specific political reasons. Either they were not investigating enough Democrats, or they were investigating Republicans. At best, this is an unethical use of Executive power, which justifies a Congressional investigation. If, however, it can be proven that the White House specifically fired U.S. Attorneys in retaliation for their investigations into the President's political allies, then that would go beyond unethical behavior into potential obstruction of justice, a very serious offense (just ask Scooter Libby). Either way, the role of the White House (including Karl Rove) in these firings is extremely pertinent to the matter. Azathoth68 12:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Replacing U.S. Attornies is part of U.S. law and goes back to the founding fathers. The "tradition" of firing attornies at the change of administration is both routine and regular. It's a political position. Contrast it with Director of the FBI and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The allegations that you speak of is Democrat talking points which is what is being discussed. Rove's role is that he authored a memo two years ago about firing all the attornies which obviously didn't happen. Rove is as relevant as Stephens. --Tbeatty 14:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source to cite for the proposition that firing attorneys after re-election is routine? Because that would be of some use to the article. Remember 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said re-election. --Tbeatty 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Replacing U.S. Attornies is part of U.S. law and goes back to the founding fathers." This is not about replacing U.S. Attornies. It is replacing U.S. Attornies and then replacing their replacements. That is not a common thing to do. Especially when confronted with apparent obstruction of justice: i.e. why was Lam's investigation terminated? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any references to the new USA's acting improperly. Do you have a source for that? --Tbeatty 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, replacing US Attorneys without Senate approval is US law going all the way back to the George W Bush administration. Derex 04:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)