NEW YORK, May 17, 2007
Were More Prosecutors On Chopping Block?
The Skinny: Washington Post Reports Justice Dept. Mulled Firing 1 In 4 U.S. Attorneys
-
Alberto Gonzales (AFP/Getty Images)
-
Who's Who Firings Firestorm Justice Department at center of controversy over firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
The Justice Department considered firing at least 26 federal prosecutors, significantly more than Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have previously acknowledged, according to a report in Thursday's Washington Post.
Gonzales told Congress last week that the department's effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys dismissed since last June; other Bush administration officials have said just a few other prosecutors were suggested for removal.
But the Post, citing "sources familiar with documents withheld from the public," said that between February 2005 and December 2006, more than two dozen prosecutors – more than one quarter of the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys – were mentioned as candidates for firing on lists compiled by Gonzales' former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson.
The lists include nine prosecutors who were fired in 2006, others who resigned and 13 who remain in their posts today. Some of those still on the job, apparently, were unaware they'd been targeted for dismissal. "Really? I wasn't aware of that," said U.S. Attorney Paula Silsby of Maine, when a reporter told her.
A Justice Department official would not confirm the names on the lists, but said they "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process.''
Democrats charge the firings were politically motivated, while the administration insists they were based on performance or policy disputes.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports on another controversy involving Gonzales, following testimony this week that in his previous job as White House counsel, he pressured former Attorney General John Ashcroft – who was hospitalized at the time – to certify the legality of President Bush's warrant-less domestic eavesdropping program.
Following that revelation, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joined the ranks of Republicans calling for Gonzales to resign.
Is McCain Physically Fit For The White House?
Is John McCain physically fit to serve as president of the United States? That's the question the Los Angeles Times asks in a front-page story Thursday suggesting that the 70-year-old Republican senator's health – and age – could become a campaign issue.
McCain has "a body and mind with some heavy wear and tear," the Times says, "including a couple of bouts of cancer and the effects of years of torture," as a POW in Vietnam. He would also be oldest person ever elected to enter the White House – and if he served two terms, would leave office at the age of 80.
Of course, McCain isnt the only presidential contender with health concerns. Sen. Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms in 1988, Rudy Giuliani had prostate cancer in 2000, and still-undeclared candidate Fred Thompson had lymphoma. But, the Times says, all are all younger and "haven't experienced McCain's physical and mental agonies."
Still, the McCain campaign insists voters need not worry. Much younger staffers say they have a hard time keeping up with the energetic septuagenarian, and the campaign says it plans to release the results of a recent health exam which McCain passed with flying colors.
$30 Million Men
It's certainly no surprise that the men and women seeking the White House are wealthy – indeed, it's probably the only thing most of them have in common.
But just how rich some of them are may be a surprise. The New York Times reports Thursday on the personal fortunes of two of those contenders, Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat John Edwards, whose financial disclosure forms show they are worth a cool $30 million each.
And they're far from the richest candidates in the field. That title, the Times says, belongs to Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, who is expected to report as much as $350 million in assets.
A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is now available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From CBS Evening News: The Skinny
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
You criticize others for factual inaccuracy, but don't do very well either.
(Fact)Judges are the people who wear the robes and preside over trials. (Fact)No president ever fired a federal judge, because they are appointed for life. (Fact)The only way they leave the bench is by retiring, dying or being impeached.
(Fact)US Attorneys are prosecutors who appear before the judges. (Fact)Clinton fired all the USA's when he tool office. (Fact)Bush fired all the USA's when he took office. No president before Bush has ever tried to operate the DOJ as his party hit squad. That's been only in more authoritarian societies, and he seems to like that idea, too.
Your following the party line, but you're months late, you're behind the curve in the reich talking points. If the "blame Clinton" excuse is the best you can do, you need to pick up some recent facts. Spell checking isn't a bad idea, either.
Remember, Ken Starr spent years and $80 million to pin something on Clinton. The best he could find is lying about a BJ. You're not likely to run across something he missed.
A fundamental truth, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth ans remove all doubt."
Because it's the President's priviledge to fire Federal Judges at any time. That's why Clinton wasn't investigated for it.
This is such a non-story, except to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats for making an issue of a presidential priviledge
These administration a*sholes think everybody is stupid. How do you give approval ratings then turn around and say they aren't doing a good job?
If there is any under performance it belongs to the whole administration even the top two.What a bunch of morons!
In 1980, Reagan capitalized upon discontent with a pres. seen as weak, however their strong Executive branch was diminished by the Boland Act, making military aid to the Contras illegal (in their fight against the Sandinistas--who nationalized the Banks, ect.).
In other words, if the second rate actor was to successfully charge forth with his rapicious doctrine, he would need JUSTICE at his side...
One by one the doomed division heads, deputy and assistant att. gens. fell to Att. Gen. Meese's terrible, swift sword...
The DOJ, which had begun the decade turning a blind eye to criminal acts (the Church Committee found that the FBI, " ... harassed and disrupted ... vicious tactics have been employed ..."), was now a full-fledged partner.
Following the '92 election extensive document shredding commenced; "It started immediately after the election and is more extensive than anything in anyone's memory. Here you have twelve years--Inslaw, BCCI, BNL, ect., and the stonewalling of Meese and Thornburgh and Barr."
Now Congress has its panties all in a bunch because they're scared of a politicized DOJ--this after Congress itself pretty much entirely negated the Senate Confirmation process...
This entire issue is about the magician waving his magic wand--diverting attention away from his other hand (Global Warming), so the Govt. is "forced" to pay industry's way?
You'd think Rudy could afford a decent haircut.
After Al Gore won the popular vote, I thought here in America we would count all the votes. Instead, the GOP decided to go to the SC to stop the vote count.
After a Navy hero won the Democratic nomination, I thought here in America we would all salute him. Instead, the GOP decided to slime him.
Now we have an Attorney General who, as White House Counsel, sought to assist the White House in breaking the law. And the GOP has decided to defend him.
I hope this nightmare is over soon.
Posted by FARTKNOCKER2 at 12:48 PM : May 17, 2007
FARTKNOCKER2
Stop pretending that you're that ignorant!!!
The difference here is that Alberto Gonzales replaced these prosecutors with interim appointments which do not have to go through confirmation in the U.S. Senate. This is due to a hidden provision in the USA PATRIOT Act. But the reason U.S. Attorneys have Senate confirmation in the first place is that it is an expression of confidence in their character and to insure that they would be free from PARTISAN service.
The guy is a creep and it is past time to get rid of the incompetent jerk. Resign or be fired.
***
If you have to lie to make your point then you don't have one.
- by tucano2 May 17, 2007 3:42 PM EDT
- Just FIRE the sob NOW!
- Reply to this comment
See all 18 Comments