Mary Gets Quite Contrary

Mary Beth Buchanan, who makes a strong case for the title of worst U.S. attorney in the country, says she won’t abide by the customary practice of all U.S. attorneys submitting their resignations with the swearing in of a new administration.

“It doesn’t serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time,” she said yesterday.

U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of the president and may be hired and fired at will, although their appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. When a new president is elected, U.S. attorneys of both parties generally tender their resignations.

Instead, the Republican said she plans to continue her work in the Western District of Pennsylvania. More than that, she said she would consider working in the Obama administration. She would not discuss what her future might hold beyond the U.S. attorney’s office.

“I am open to considering further service to the United States,” Ms. Buchanan said.

It was Buchanan, you might remember, who prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling glass-blown bongs over the Internet.  Soon after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that fighting porn would be a priority during his tenure, Buchanan brought the first federal obscenity case in 20 years, against porn producer Extreme Associates.  She also prosecuted Karen Fletcher, believed to be the first person convicted on federal obscenity charges for distributing written material. Despite an embarassing defeat in court, Buchanan is also still pursuing charges against Pennsylvania medical examiner Dr. Cyril Wecht, a case so reeking in political opportunism that former Bush 41 Attorney General Dick Thornburgh agreed to represent Wecht, and has since publicly accused Buchanan of using her office for baseless, partisan prosecutions of Democrats.

I’ve written pretty extensively of what I think is one of Buchanan’s most outrageous cases.  It’s her prosecution of Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer, a Pennsylvania physician Buchanan put in prison for allegedly writing Oxy prescriptions in exchange for sex.  Since Rottschaeffer’s conviction, Buchanan’s case has fallen to pieces, as each of the five witnesses who testified to getting illegal prescriptions from Rottschaeffer have since been shown to have lied.  Buchanan refuses to reopen the case.  She also refuses to pursue perjury charges against her star witness, Jennifer Riggle, who explicitly conceded in letters to her boyfriend that she lied on the witness stand.

Buchanan has made no secret of her ambition for elected office.  During her tenure as a federal prosecutor she has actively sought out high-profile, often dubious cases to win favor with her superiors in the Bush administration.  It’s mostly worked.  She’s been promoted twice.  But it also makes it extremely unlikely she’d have a place in an Obama administration.

Buchanan isn’t delusional.  She’s calculating.  My guess is that this is a stunt to force Obama to fire her, at which point she’ll make a public stink, play the martyr, then attempt to parlay the resulting controversy into a run for the Senate, or perhaps for governor of Pennsylvania.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck Buchanan.

  • ||

    Mary Beth Buchanan, who makes a strong case for the title of worst U.S. attorney in the country, says she won't abide by the customary practice of all U.S. attorneys submitting their resignations with the swearing in of a new administration.

    As a compromise, how about if we just apply the dunking test to her instead?

    If she floats, she can stay, but if she sinks, we get to burn her as a witch. Or is the other way around? I can never keep that straight.

  • Lefiti||

    What a pity such talent has been wasted. Buchanan could have gone so much farther in the private sector.

  • ||

    There's still time for Bush to appoint her to the Supreme Court, if they can just get somebody to push Ruth Bader Ginsberg down a flight of stairs.

  • Ska||

    Is it wrong to say I hope she eats some undercooked pork and has to deal with a severe bout of trichinosis (no, I'm not looking up the spelling, and no, I'm not a chef or seller of ffod products, nor do I conduct any activity in PA).


    (Have to cover my bases with this crazy broad)

  • Ska||

    JW - if she sinks we were wrong, and she's not a witch. But then we don't get to burn her.

  • ||

    It's not even 9:00am and I'm already drinking

  • ||

    Is it wrong to say I hope she eats some undercooked pork and has to deal with a severe bout of trichinosis (no, I'm not looking up the spelling, and no, I'm not a chef or seller of ffod products, nor do I conduct any activity in PA).



    Is it wrong to hope she gets injured in such a way as would not kill her or cause her disability, but cause her serious pain, and every doctor refused to give her painkillers for fear they would be arrested?

  • ||

    This is it, this is how the Republican party can get back in the game. Harass opponents, lock up dopers and porn purveyors, ignore mistakes and blatently kiss ass for better posts.

  • phalkor||

    and she dies as a noble martyr, right?

    that seems to be what she's going for, the new administration would be idiotic to be pussy-whipped into keeping this wicked witch.

  • JMR||

    Another hysterical Republican candidate in the mold of Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. I'm sure this will be another "winner." Sigh.

  • ||

    Didn't Bush get harrassed by the media when he fired a bunch of US attorneys? Weren't they supposed to have quit anyway? Think BHO will get the same treatment when he fires her?

  • libertarian democrat||

    Andrew: No, it's right.

  • ||

    So fire her. If I recall correctly, martyrs only have value after they are long gone.

  • ||

    Didn't Bush get harrassed by the media when he fired a bunch of US attorneys?

    Funny you should mention that - it appears that Alberto Gonzales is getting subpoenaed by a federal grand jury for his actions in US Attorneygate.

    Weren't they supposed to have quit anyway? No, they were fired mid-term, and by the admission of the people who fired them, for illegal partisan purposes.

    Think BHO will get the same treatment when he fires her? You mean the same treatment he got when he had the US Attorneys all resign at the beginning of his term? The same treatment Clinton got when he did the same thing? The same treatment Bush 41 got when he did the same thing? Yes, he'll probably get the same treatment - which is to say, very little attention at all, because replacing the US Attorneys at the beginning of a new administration is standard practice, and perfectly legal.

    Then again, it's also entirely possible that the flailing Republicans will try to make the same false equivalency you've done here, and pretend that replacing them at the beginning of a term to bring in your own team in the same thing as firing them for not prosecuting bogus cases in an effort to influence elections. Which is what happened under Bush and Gonzo, and why a Special Prosecutor was appointed and a grand jury convened.

  • ||

    Radley,

    You forgot to mention the Brian Wells case, the Erie Pizza Man Bomber bank robbery. Wells' family contends that their love one was a victim forced to rob the bank, and partially due to law enforcement not calling the bomb squad for over 40 minutes, Wells is dead.

    The family probably had a pretty good case against the law enforcement officers for their actions that led to this man's death.

    Well, in walk Buchanan. Instead of charging the individuals who put the collar bomb on Wells with Wells' murder, Buchanan indicted Wells as a co-conspirator in the robbery. When pressed in a press conference, Buchanan stated Wells is guilty because he robbed the bank.

    That is right everyone. If someone puts a bomb to your head and says rob a bank, you best not otherwise Mary Beth Buchanan will send you to jail for being a bank robbery.

    Wells family is not impressed and very agitated by Buchanan's continued slander of their loved one. They called Buchanan a liar at the first press conference (and Buchanan ran out of the room).

  • ||

    Oh, in relation to the Wecht case, out of the original 80+ charges, all were dropped voluntarily by the prosecution except for 14.

    The remaining fourteen do not involve the state or federal government in anyway. The charges relate to alleged misbillings by Dr. Wecht to his private clients over expense reimbursements. To date, none of these private clients raised any complaint over the billings. The dollar amount of the billings is less than $200 in total....they may be closer to the amount of money you have in your wallet.

    Since Wecht was also the County Coroner and the billings were sent using a county fax machine, Buchanan is arguing that Wecht misused public resources to make fraudulent billings.

    Millions spent to go after someone for $200 in misbillings associated with his $7+ million dollar annual business. Yeah, another great use of taxpayer money.

  • phalkor||

    joe, but don't you think it's in Obama's best interest to keep her around. She's stopping dangerous drug dealing doctors and interstate bong commerce. Won't the Obama administration benefit from her shrewd judgment?

  • ||

    Can Obama transfer her to Guam?

  • economist||

    There needs to be a troll war between the LoneWacko and the concerned observer.

  • economist||

    LoneWacko vs. CO

    It will be a classic, I'm telling you. Jus like "Cripple Fight".

  • ||

    Didn't Bush get harrassed by the media when he fired a bunch of US attorneys? Weren't they supposed to have quit anyway?

    Wow, the puppets are already out on this one so soon. A U.S. Attorney is an appointed position by the President of the United States.

    When the Presidency changes control, it is not only customary, but assumed that all appointed individuals will turn in their resignations since technically they were not approved by the current individual in office. If the new president chooses, he can re-appoint the individual.

    Additionally, an individual can be removed from an appointed position by the president for many reasons. One reason that is illegal is to remove an individual for refusing to misuse their office to push one's political agenda and target the political opposition. Additionally, it is even worse to fire someone for this rationale and attempt to lie and say the individual was fired for performance issues. That is why their is a scandal.

    If Bush had simply stated give me your resignation or you are fired, there would be no issue. Instead he attempted to backdoor the firings through allegedly falsely claiming the individuals were not competent and then utilizing a portion of the patriot act to appoint interim appointees into the posts without senate confirmation.

  • economist||

    Troll war! Troll war! Troll war!

  • robc||

    I have paid almost no attention to the whole attorney-firing stuff because it is the kind of partisan BS I care nothing about, but if the attorneys serve at the discretion of the Prez, how can their firings be illegal?

  • ||

    *Warning! threadjack alert*

    This is too good to ignore.

    According to a union spokesman, the NFLPA intends to file a grievance that will claim the Giants somehow violated the league's collective bargaining agreement on Tuesday when they suspended Burress for four games without pay, fined him an undisclosed amount and ended his season by placing him on the non-football injury list.

    Poor Plaxico- he, through his own monumental stupidity, renders himself unable to play for the remainder of the season. The union thinks it's unfair for the Giants to not want to pay him.

  • robc||

    James answered my question, but it proves my point. If you cant fire them for any reason at all (including bad ones), they dont serve at your discretion.

  • ||

    phalkor | December 5, 2008, 10:15am | #

    joe, but don't you think it's in Obama's best interest to keep her around. She's stopping dangerous drug dealing doctors and interstate bong commerce. Won't the Obama administration benefit from her shrewd judgment?


    So, you're thinking about sort of a comic relief thing?

    "OK, nobody let on. I'm going to bring in Mary Beth and ask what she thinks. Everyone keep a straight face."

    I can see that. Presidentin' is stressful!

  • robc||

    Oh, and just to add on, if I was a US attorney and the President asked me to misuse my office, I wouldnt have to be fired.

  • ||

    phalkor please read up on the Rottschaefer case before making such blatantly false and derogatory statements. Dr. Rottschaefer is not a drug dealer at all. He prescribed low dose Xanax and Oxycontin to individuals with chronic pain and panic disorder. Ms. Buchanan's crack team in turn paid former patients that were in jail for their own crimes to provide false testimony against the Dr. in which they alleged they had no need for the medication.

    At the time of trial and since the trial, Dr. Rottschaefer has continued to claim he is innocent. Due to HIPPIA restrictions, the patient's medical records since being referred out of Dr. Rottschaefer's medical practice by Dr. Rottschaefer to pain clinics were unavailable.

    After trial, the patients attempted to sue via malpractice and the records were open. Not known to Dr. Rottschaefer or his attorneys, all five patients who testified were continuing to received the same medical treatment, Oxycontin and Xanax, although in stronger dosages for the same medical ailments. How the U.S. Attorney failed to uncover this information that their witnesses lied is still a mystery.

    Instead of seeking a new trial, Buchanan has been staunch in fighting against it. The courts have also been unwilling to correct the error.

    So in the end, Dr. Rottschaefer is in jail for prescribing legal medications to individuals with medical ailments that necessitated the treatments and who are still receiving the same medical therapies (in stronger dosages) to this date form other physicians.

  • ktc2||

    She needs to do an equal time in prison as those she's sentenced unjustly. She's the worst kind of political opportunist who doesn't care how many innocent lives she destroys to gain political advantage. The death penalty would be too kind for her.

    I'm reminded of: "Hangin's too good for him, burnin's too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!"

  • ||

    Considering how blatantly she has perverted the law for her own personal gain, this stunt isn't all that surprising. And considering how she's not only gotten away with it, but actually been rewarded for her malfeasance I'm sure she thinks it'll work. Obama would be insane to keep her around. She is the epitome of everything that is wrong with our justice system.

    If Buchanan runs for anything in PA I will find a way to vote against her twice.

  • robc||

    So, you're thinking about sort of a comic relief thing?

    If I was prez I would appoint a Democratic Union organizer type as Sec of Commerce and a Republican union busting CEO type as Sec of Labor.

    I would also change the defense dept back to Department Of War and pull all the troops home.

  • ||

    robc,

    but if the attorneys serve at the discretion of the Prez, how can their firings be illegal?

    Because the reason was specifically deemed illegal in federal civil service legislation.

    Look at it this way: a beat cop can decided, at his own discretion, which alleys to walk down and in what order, but if he uses that discretion to make sure nobody interrupts a gang assassination, that's a crime.

  • phalkor||

    I agree joe, it would make for a good circus. Quality clownery is underrated.

  • ||

    Oh, in case you are wondering, the malpractice lawsuits were all tossed and in addition to the malpracitce lawsuits, the other prosecution witnesses, a patient's mother and an office manager that had outside connections to these five patients, also attempted to profit post trial via civil lawsuits. Both withdrew their complaints when they realized they would have to go to court and testify under oath.

  • robc||

    Because the reason was specifically deemed illegal in federal civil service legislation.

    Thats fine, but they dont really then serve completely at the President's discretion, do they?

  • Steve||

    Wow, what a cunt.

    Can I say "cunt" on the internet?

  • phalkor||

    sorry Bill, my intentionally stupid comments must have misled you. I know Dr. Rottschaefer is no criminal and was tragically victimized in a case of drug law related bullying. I simply prefer stupid to intelligent discourse as a general rule.

  • ||

    Not like, say, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, no. They're not his staff. There are civil service laws that mediate his discretion over them.

  • robc||

    Steve,

    Can I say "cunt" on the internet?

    Nope. But you can type it all you want.

  • Mad Max||

    A politically-ambitious US Attorney with a history of filing dubious prosecutions? What could go wrong?

    In fairness, I think we need to look at the root causes of the problem here - the fact that there is an independent prosecutor's office with a power-base separate from the police. This is bogus. Police and prosecutors are part of the executive branch - one should be subordinate to the other.

    Specifically, prosecutors should be subordinate to the police - even better, the police can get private lawyers to prosecute their cases. A lawyer representing a police department (or the FBI, DEA, etc) should have the same ethical obligations as a lawyer representing a private party - comply with discovery obligations, don't tell the court or jury things which you know to be false, etc.

    If prosecutions are in the name of the police ("FBI v. Bob Smith"), maybe we could drop the Anglophiliac practice of having prosecutions brought in the name of the sovereign - "The United States of America v. Bob Smith." It's the judge and jury (especially the latter) who represent the sovereign in a criminal prosecution - describing the sovereign public as the plaintiff in a criminal case gives the prosecution an undeserved moral boost.

    Autonomous prosecutors aren't a check on police abuses, but are an *independent source* of abuses. If you've gotten on the wrong side of some prosecutor, or if you are a convenient stepping-stone for their political ambition, then watch out!

    Look at the kind of prosecutors who use their posititions to get into higher office - Rudy Ghouliani; Eliot Swallows, I mean Spitzer; and the entire wretched crew.

    Let the various police departments (federal, state and local) be responsible for deciding whom to charge with crimes, give the cops and the defendant good lawyers, and leave it at that. I would also support reinstating the old practice of private criminal prosecutions, so that it's not up to the executive to decide which crimes deserve to get prosecuted and which crimes should be ignored.

  • ||

    What if Obama fires all the current U.S. attorneys and doesn't replace them with anyone? What purpose do they serve that can't be replaced by the states?

  • ||

    "Because the reason was specifically deemed illegal in federal civil service legislation."

    So I guess you were really outraged when Clinton fired them all upon taking office. Oh I know I forgot, that wasn't politcs. Clinton had nothing to hide and worries of a federal investigation in office.

    As an aside. Buchanan is the worst public servant in America not currently serving time in prison and she is worse than a few of those. Other than people like Forger Governor of Illinois Ryan who sold commercial drivers' licenses for brides, the recipients of which later killed innocent people, I am not sure you can find anyone worse than Buchanan. If there is a hell, that woman is going there.

  • robc||

    joe,

    There are civil service laws that mediate his discretion over them.

    Them we are in agreement. He doesnt have discretion over them.

    KY claims to be an "at will" state, that I can fire my employees for any reason, but I cant fire them for being black or a woman, for example, so it isnt really an "at will" state.

  • ||

    robc,

    You should read up on the topic more because the answers are really there. The issue is not the firing itself, it is the rationale for the firing and how the firings were carried out.

    For example, your employer can fire you as an at-will employee at anytime. However, if he fires you and claims that you were incompetent when you were not or fires you for not doing an unethical or illegal act he instructed you to do, that is an issue.

  • ||

    Can I say "cunt" on the internet?

    Yes, but you have a 2 "cunt" limit per day. You've eaten up your daily allotment and forced me to cut halfway into mine.

  • ||

    "What if Obama fires all the current U.S. attorneys and doesn't replace them with anyone? What purpose do they serve that can't be replaced by the states?"

    They have large staffs. Live would go on without them. The quality of the DOJ lawyers is very uneven. Some are brilliant. Just as many or more others are incompetant hacks who got their jobs because of who they know. Frankly if Obama fired all the USAs and all of the AUSAs and rebuilt DOJ from scratch, he couldn't do any worse than what we have now. DOJ has been broke badly for years. Both parties put in their hacks who then wage war on each other. The Democratic outrage over poltical hirings and firings at DOJ is about as pathetic as it gets. I don't think there has been a non-political hiring or firing at DOJ in 40 years.

  • ||

    phalkor

    No need to appologize. I realize that you were probably just joking around; however I can't let comments such as your stand. To many people read them and don't realize they are just jokes.

    In the case of Dr. Rottschaefer, Buchanan utilized the specter of sex allegations prior and during the trial to push through the conviction against Dr. Rottschaefer. When the Dr. provided evidence in the form of the patients' private correspondences stating the sex allegations were lies told to get deals with investigators, Buchanan argued that sex was not an element of the crime and only prescribing for no reason was a crime.

    When the Dr. brought forth the full medical records showing that the patients had the ailments and were still being treated with the same medications, Buchanan went back to the sex allegations.

    No one in the local media or the press is bringing Buchanan to task for playing this shell game with justice and destroying this innocent man. No one except well Radley of course.

  • ||

    If Bush had simply stated give me your resignation or you are fired, there would be no issue.

    Well, no. If, during the middle of his second term in office, Bush had told the attorneys who ended up getting fired, "Give me your resignations," and had refused to give explanation for why he was asking for those resignations, do you think the media would have shrugged and said, "ho-hum, no story here"? Would that have been OK with you? If any of those attorneys had refused to hand in their resignations, would you have been OK with Bush firing them, again without giving any explanation?

    If you wouldn't have been OK with that, perhaps you can explain why you are OK with Obama demanding the resignation of every one of these attorneys for purely political reasons -- that is, because the currently serving attorneys probably have some major philosophical differences with Obama about governance.

    Now, that doesn't mean that I'm defending how Bush ran the Attorney General's office for explicitly partisan political ends, nor am I defending the unlibertarian attorney featured in this article. Rather, I'm saying that either the president has the power to fire attorneys serving at his or her pleasure at any time without any explanation, or the president doesn't. If you feel the president doesn't, then why is it OK to fire all the ones currently serving en masse when Obama takes office?

  • Fist Shaking Villager||

    JW - if she sinks we were wrong, and she's not a witch. But then we don't get to burn her.

    Burn her anyway!!!!!

  • .||

    Burn her anyway!!!!!

    Would have to dry her pretty well first. Probably waterlogged.

  • ||

    prolefeed

    Trust me, Buchanan is not the U.S. Attorney that the Republicans want to use as a test case on firings.

    Go to the Wiki site on her and read up. All the material is sourced. I don't know what is more absurd. Going after the grandfather at the VA with federal criminal charges for fibbing about his rank in the Korean war or deporting an Amish man that lived in the U.S. for years because he refused to have his photo taken and could be a terrorist.

    This is the test case example...

  • ||

    James,

    The fact that Buchanan was not fired by the Republicans is embarassing enough. What is even more disturbing than Buchanan herself is the fact that she has any friends anywhere. Really, how do people whose jobs don't depend on her whims stand to be in the same room as this monster?

  • Fist Shaking Villager||

    Would have to dry her pretty well first. Probably waterlogged.

    Right. Dry her first (but not with the good towels we got from your Aunt. Use the old ones at the back of the closet). THEN we burn her!

  • Sputnik 1||

    She should spend her time on more pressing matters, such as prosecuting Melville posthumously for his homo-erotic, at-sea books.

  • ||

    "While both men have military experience, neither achieved the rank they portrayed, said U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, who declined to provide details about their military service.

    Buchanan would not say whether either man received financial or other benefits from posing as officers and also declined to say who turned them in. Similar charges have been brought against others for impersonating law enforcement officers, but Buchanan said she believes this is the first time her office has charged someone with impersonating a military officer.

    And that is a serious no-no, she said Tuesday.

    "To have individuals simply impersonate officers is an offense we have to address to preserve the integrity of the military service," Buchanan said, adding that military officers attained their ranks and positions through hard work and service. To masquerade as an officer dishonors that achievement, she said."

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_392545.html

    Basically those guys were old guys out looking for attention at a rally. They didn't make any money off of it or do anything to dishonor the uniform. Yeah, it makes sense to apply a law meant to stop people from making money by falsly claiming to CMOH winners or idiots going on 60 minutes talking about made up war crimes to them. What a bitch. Sadly when Obama, hopefully, fires her, she will go on to some lucatrive career at some law firm. There is no justice in this world.

  • ||

    So I guess you were really outraged when Clinton fired them all upon taking office.

    Nope Nor when Dubya did it in in 2001. Replacing the US Attorneys - actually, not reappointing them - at the beginning of a new presidential term is how it's supposed to work. It's firing them in the middle of their appointments for a purpose explicitly deemed illegal under federal law, on the other hand, is why there is a special prosecutor and a grand jury, and why Alberto Gonzales and much of his staff had to resign.

    The Democratic outrage over poltical hirings and firings at DOJ is about as pathetic as it gets. I don't think there has been a non-political hiring or firing at DOJ in 40 years.

    The fudge-factor here is in the use of the word "political" to refer to two different things. Appointing an attorney because he will do a good job of concentrating on the types of cases you want to receive a lot of attention - that is, because he's in line with your policy - is "political." Firing an attorney because he refused to prosecute a bogus voter fraud case against the opposition party, that you were hoping to see in the news right before an election, is also "political." Obviously, those aren't the same thing - one is a policy, one is about partisanship and is explicitly forbidden by law - but by calling them both "political," you can rhetorically blur the difference.

  • David Ross||

    She's going to get fired, and make a stink. Pennsylvanian voters will laugh in her face. Murtha voters are certainly dumb enough to vote for an idiot, but not for a REPUBLICAN idiot. There is no bloody way she is going to get into the Senate from PA.

    She needs to invest in running shoes. They help keep pace with ambulances.

  • ||

    Not like, say, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, no. They're not his staff. There are civil service laws that mediate his discretion over them.

    Typical Joe. FAIL!

    United States Code, Title 28, Part II, Chapter 35, Section 541:

    (a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.

    (b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

    (c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

  • ||

    If, during the middle of his second term in office, Bush had told the attorneys who ended up getting fired, "Give me your resignations," and had refused to give explanation for why he was asking for those resignations, do you think the media would have shrugged and said, "ho-hum, no story here"? Would that have been OK with you? If any of those attorneys had refused to hand in their resignations, would you have been OK with Bush firing them, again without giving any explanation?

    The press, and most observers, would probably have suspected that there was some shady purpose behind such firings, and would have probably looked for one. That's actually pretty close to how US Attorney-gate broke. It's not like they held a press conference to announce "We fired David Yglesias because he didn't use his office to help us win elections."

    Rather, I'm saying that either the president has the power to fire attorneys serving at his or her pleasure at any time without any explanation, or the president doesn't. The president doesn't have the lawful power to fire United States Attorneys for reasons that violate federal law.

    If you feel the president doesn't, then why is it OK to fire all the ones currently serving en masse when Obama takes office? Because firing US Attorneys in order to replace them with people who will do a better job advancing your, as opposed to your predecessor's policies isn't against federal law, but is in fact how the system is supposed to work.

  • Kolohe||

    I've read last month that the US attorney for the district of Hawaii has also expressed a desire to stick around for the Obama administration, but I remember him talking about it in a much less douchebaggingly way. Can't find a link. I wonder how many other of the US attorney's are working to keep their jobs?

  • ||

    Tonio,

    If that were the only relevant law, you would have gotten me. Sadly, it's not. There are also federal civil service laws that limit executive officers', including the president's, discretion.

    If that were the only law that applied to hirings and firings, the president would be able to fire a United States Attorney because she wouldn't give him a blowjob.

    FAIL back atcha.

    I'm right, you're wrong. The Attorney General and much of his staff have already been forced to resign, in many cases having acknowledged that their acts were illegal. The indictments shortly to come out the grand jury impanelled by the special prosecutor are going to be awesome.

  • ||

    THis woman is not an isolaed example. THe best solution is to abolish the Department of Justice-forever. The constittuion does not expressly paermit the feds to establish a department of justice. Nuff said.

  • ||

    Wow, what a cunt.

    Can I say "cunt" on the internet?


    No. That would be sexist. You also can't call her hysterical or a bitch. Somebody here once explained it all to me.

  • ||

    I have gone off and informed myself about the US attorney thing. I now concede there is a difference. I was unaware that Bush had fired his own political hacks. I suppose I should have done this before shooting my mouth off and misdirecting the thread. I didn't mean to troll - honest I didn't.

    FWIW, I think it should be fine to fire them for any reason - including not being big enough hacks - though under current law it clearly isn't that easy.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    For your reading pleasure:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/24/ST2008062401003.html

  • ||

    "The fudge-factor here is in the use of the word "political" to refer to two different things. Appointing an attorney because he will do a good job of concentrating on the types of cases you want to receive a lot of attention - that is, because he's in line with your policy - is "political." Firing an attorney because he refused to prosecute a bogus voter fraud case against the opposition party, that you were hoping to see in the news right before an election, is also "political.""


    Joe you think they are bogus because they involved Democrats. It is well established that you are incapable of seeing any flaw in any Democrat period. No doubt if Buchanan were a Democrat, you would be on here defending her. Since no voter fraud case involving Democrats no matter how egrigous would be anything but bogus in your eyes, you have no credibility whatsoever in claiming they were bogus. Of course you think they are bogus, you are physically incapable of admitting that Democrats are anything but perfect.

    Basically Joe, get on here and criticize a Democrat sometime and show some intellectual honesty, like I am now in savaging Buchanan even though she is a Republican and a Bush appointee. Until then, stop pretending your position on such matters is anything but entirely predictable and tiresome.

  • ||

    "Senior Justice Department officials broke civil service laws by rejecting scores of young applicants who had links to Democrats or liberal organizations, according to a biting report issued yesterday."

    So I guess Joe, you will be on here having a fit when the Dems do the same thing and won't hire people because they were in the Federalist Society? That is how government service works sadly. Both sides hire their own people. You don't think Conservatives were SOL under Clinton? Actually you probably do. So nevermind.

  • ||

    "It doesn't serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time," she said yesterday.

    I love this quote - I imagine BHO saying to himself, "hmm - suits me just fine..."

    She should go - her boy lost, fair is fair.

  • ||

    John-

    Has Joe ever criticezed Ronald Reagan? If he has, he can claim that he has criticized a Democrat. The same reasoning would apply to Phil Graham.

  • ||

    DOJ is totally politicized and has been for years. 90% of the people who work there are dyed and the wool liberals. That is not by accident. That happened because for years the Dems did exactly what Joe and WAPO is saying the Republicans did. OMG, a Conservative was hired during a Republican Administration. Somebody must go to jail for this. Isn't it illegal for those people to get jobs?

  • ||

    Hey so Question:

    Theoretically if we ever got a president with libertarian leanings, he could fire any attorney that prosecuted anyone for drug crimes.

    And he could fire any presecutor that presecuted income tax violators?

    So even if congress didn't change the law, the president could effectively make end the war on drugs, and the involuntary income tax?

  • ||

    joe is on very solid ground above. The firing of U.S. attys by the Bush administration for not ussing partisan reasoning in their prosecutorial discretion decisions is ill-fucking-legal.

    Bitching about Clinton (and everybody else) replacing U.S. attys upon assuming office is just a Rush Limabaugh like smokescreen that those with IQs in the 80s and above recognize and see right through..

  • ||

    "John-

    Has Joe ever criticezed Ronald Reagan? If he has, he can claim that he has criticized a Democrat. The same reasoning would apply to Phil Graham."


    True. Current Democrat. He won't do it. He won't even criticize John Murtha. He absolutely will not say anything bad about a current serving Democrat. Can't do it, won't do it. It is like they extracted some kind of loyalty oath or did some kind of Manchurian Candidate programing or something. I often wonder what would happen if Joe ever played Solitare. Would he hit the magic card and freeze and wait for his DNC handlers?

  • ||

    "joe is on very solid ground above. The firing of U.S. attys by the Bush administration for not ussing partisan reasoning in their prosecutorial discretion decisions is ill-fucking-legal."

    I think the President ought to be able to set his law enforcement agenda. If Obama decides that crime X is his big deal and some political appointed Attorney says screw you, I hope he fires him. I really do. If it turns out that he fired him to keep him from investigating Tony Rezko, then that is different. Where is the evidence that Bush fired people to cover his ass as opposed to investigate things he felt were important? You and Joe assume that the vote fraud cases were bogus because you hate Bush and can think no other way. But suppose they were not? Should the President not be able to fire people for refusing to investigate crime? Who is to be the judge about what crimes are worth investigating? I don't think a US Attorney serving at the pleasure of the President should be the final arbiter of that. The President should be.

  • ||

    J Sub D,

    If they made you President and you told the US Attorneys to lay off drug cases and one of them said fuck off I am locking up Tommy Chong, would it be wrong of you to fire him? Wouldn't that be being political just like Bush?

  • ||

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07079/770820-109.stm

    An op-ed from one of Buchanan's former co-workers. This is the example that is being up as a martyr???

  • ||

    Joe,

    Nope, you're still wrong.

    The WaPO article you linked references staff positions at USDOJ. Those positions are indeed civil service hires, and do not carry the job title of United States Attorney.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    Don't confuse Joe. Conservatives were hired. That is illegal in his mind. Nothing will change it.

  • ||

    James,

    The writer of that aricle actually says efforts to stop fraud are just efforts to suppress minority votes. That person is pretty obviously way left. I hate Buchanan's guts, but I wouldn't put much stock in that person either.

  • Calcium!||

    joe, are you a libertarian?

  • ||

    So it seems that the administration leaned on these people to investigate political opponents rights before elections - and they were fired for refusing. I'd say that's a bit different than selectively firing USA's that prosecuted drug cases - one is trying to influence elections by prosecuting political opponents, while the other is just setting simple law enforcement objectives. I don't have much of a problem with either, to be honest, but I can see how there is a big distinction.

  • ||

    "So it seems that the administration leaned on these people to investigate political opponents rights before elections - and they were fired for refusing."

    That assumes that there is nothing to voter fraud at all and the only reason to investigate it is to pick on Dems. I think that is bunk. I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect DOJ to investigate organizations like ACORN. That is law enforcement priority. To think otherwise, you have to be like Joe and assume there is no such thing as Democratic malfeasance.

  • ||

    If this didn't anger up the blood enough, watch a/k/a Tommy Chong. Down right infuriating. I watched it with wifey who has no love for the greenery. Upon finishing she states: I'm a huge pot fan now. Well done Buchanbitch, you managed to change someone's mind from hating weed to loving it (although she doesn't smoke it) by being a shrill, coniving, oportunisitic, ruthless parody of a bad prosecuter that couldn't have been believable even in a Cheech and Chong movie.

    Lastly, robc owes me a new computer screen since mine is showered in coffee for the "type it all you want" comment. And Andrew, yes it is right and it is called "Just Desserts."

  • ||

    John-

    I don't think that the president should be able to set his law enforcement agenda. His only agenda should be to keep the government within the constraints established by the constitution. Thus, any pornography prosecutions should be stopped and the assistant us attorneys who initiated the prosecutions along with the president who permitted the same to be conducted should face the gallows for betraying our founding principles.

  • ||

    Calcium: Joe is not a libertarian, nor does he appear to have any significant libertarian leanings. He's a contrarian who likes to hang out here. He also has a long history of making assertions, and of failing to reply to challenges to document those assertions. When he does reply, he often misses the mark, badly, as above when he assumes that any attorney hired by USDOJ is a US Attorney (which is a specific, appointed position).

    John wrote: Don't confuse Joe. Conservatives were hired. That is illegal in his mind. Nothing will change it.

    Joe is already confused, or willfully ignorant of the facts. As are you.

  • ||

    John and others,

    Read this posting and then ask is this the type of person you think would be best to provide the unlimited resources of the government to as a U.S. Attorney?

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/122263.html

  • ||

    Oh, and absolutely: BURN HER ANYWAY!!!

  • ||

    Joe you think they are bogus because they involved Democrats.

    Actually, John, I, and the Department of Justice's Inspector General, and the Special Prosecutor, and the grand jury, and Monica Goodling herself, think they're bogus, and illegal, because they violate federal civil service laws.

    But you just keep yammering about Democrats and Republicans and how terrible I am, just like you did during the Scooter Libby case.

    Hack.

  • ||

    What an idiot, this old wind bag deserves a kick in the rear right out the side door!

    JEss
    http://www.privacy.es.tc

  • ||

    So I guess Joe, you will be on here having a fit when the Dems do the same thing and won't hire people because they were in the Federalist Society?

    That depends on whether they're being hired for political jobs, or for civil service jobs. Do you think it's within the realm of possibility that you could educate yourself on the facts of an issue, other than the political parties of the people involved, before you spout off about them?

    Clearly not. Hack.

  • ||

    That assumes that there is nothing to voter fraud at all and the only reason to investigate it is to pick on Dems. I think that is bunk. I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect DOJ to investigate organizations like ACORN. That is law enforcement priority. To think otherwise, you have to be like Joe and assume there is no such thing as Democratic malfeasance.

    Your position seems to assume the opposite - that there is something to the ACORN story, and that there was no political motivations to their investigation. Why is your unfounded, baseless assumption better than any other?

  • ||

    Where is the evidence that Bush fired people to cover his ass as opposed to investigate things he felt were important? Do you even know who David Yglesias is, John? He's a REPUBLICAN former United States Attorney who was fired after refusing to prosecute a bogus voter fraud case against the Democrats. After Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici leaned on him just before the 2006 elections, and he stilled refused to prosecute the case, they called over to the Justice Department, and his name was put on the list. You could, you know, actually try looking up the facts of these cases instead of just assuming that they just gotta follow your preconceived partisan script.

    You and Joe assume that the vote fraud cases were bogus because you hate Bush and can think no other way. Actually, the federal judge who told the US Attorney in Minnesota that she couldn't even understand what her theory of the crime was supposed to be a voter fraud case that she threw out had a lot to do with it too.

  • Nietzsche||

    When I stared into the Abyss, Mary Beth Buchanan's shining fangs and glowing eyes are what I saw staring back at me.

  • ||

    James,

    I am in no way defending Buchanan. She is awful, a national embarrassment. The President should have fired her. Of course, even at her worse, she was doing nothing but enforcing the law as written. Tommy Chong's conviction was never overturned. But it was a complete waste of time and injustice.

    The problem is what do you do about that? How do you fire a dingbat like her? If you listen to J Sub D, it would seem that a President can't fire a US Attorney for their choices in prosecution. I think that is a really bad idea. Suppose that Bush had had an epiphany and realized how horrible Buchanan was in pursuing the cases mentioned on this thread. Under J Sub D's logic, I think the drug warriors could have come back and accused Bush of firing her for political reasons. She used her discretion to enforce the drug laws as written and Bush canned her. If he was wrong to fire them for not enforcing the letter of the voter fraud law, why wouldn't he be equally wrong for firing Buchanan for enforcing the drug laws even though her actions were ridiculous and unjust?

    The problem is that Joe is an idiot and J Sub D can't get past his hatred of Bush. Don't think about it in terms of party. Think about it in terms of "what if a President wanted to fire a US Attorney for refusing to enforce or overly enforcing the law in a way the President disagreed with?". I think the answer to that question needs to be yes.

  • ||

    Can I say "cunt" on the internet?

    Nope. But you can type it all you want.



    Voice Over IP...

  • ||

    That assumes that there is nothing to voter fraud at all and the only reason to investigate it is to pick on Dems. I think that is bunk. I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect DOJ to investigate organizations like ACORN. That is law enforcement priority. To think otherwise, you have to be like Joe and assume there is no such thing as Democratic malfeasance.

    You mean like REPUBLICAN former United States Attorney David Yglesias?

    One of us is making assumptions about the legitimacy of cases involving voter fraud based on partisan considerations, John, and it ain't me, babe. These are cases that REPUBLICANS, appointed by BUSH, investigated and refused to prosecute.

  • ||

    Joe,

    You are an idiot who would never criticize the Dems no matter what they did. Shut up and let James and J Sub D make reasonable points.

  • ||

    Rather, I'm saying that either the president has the power to fire attorneys serving at his or her pleasure at any time without any explanation, or the president doesn't.

    The president doesn't have the lawful power to fire United States Attorneys for reasons that violate federal law.

    If you feel the president doesn't, then why is it OK to fire all the ones currently serving en masse when Obama takes office?

    Because firing US Attorneys in order to replace them with people who will do a better job advancing your, as opposed to your predecessor's policies isn't against federal law, but is in fact how the system is supposed to work.

    So Bush, via his subordinates, was too upfront about why he was firing those attorneys? If he demanded their resignations, and adamantly refused to say anything at all about why they were being fired, how could it be determined what were the reasons for doing so?

    If Obama does that -- fires some attorneys during the middle of his term in office, and gives no explanation whatsoever about why, will the press look into that? Or will he get a free press because of his political affiliation?

    If you give a reason for firing someone, and that reason is against the law, then obviously that is legally actionable. But if you fire someone without giving any reason whatsoever, how can you say their reason is in violation of federal law? How can you legally determine intent?

  • ||

    Joe,

    You are assuming that just because they gave the answer you like that there wasn't two sides to it. Certainly if they had decided to prosecute, you would be on here talking about how all the evil Republican USAs were picking on Dems. We know which side you take. We got. The Dems are never guilty of anything and any investigation involving one is just a fraud. We got it and understand. Point taken. Meanwhile, let the rest of us talk about this.

  • ||

    "But if you fire someone without giving any reason whatsoever, how can you say their reason is in violation of federal law? How can you legally determine intent?"


    You can't. But you have to understand that to some people all actions on the part of a Republican are evil as a matter of physical law. Thus, it is not surprising where Joe stands on this. If and when Obama does the same thing, he will be on here telling us how it is different this time. Sadly, I will be on here saying that Obama had every right to do what he did and have to agree with Joe which will make me want to vomit.

  • ||

    If you listen to J Sub D, it would seem that a President can't fire a US Attorney for their choices in prosecution.

    That is not what J sub D has written. Rather, he's written that a President can't fire a US Attorney for partisan political purposes. He's written nothing about poor performance or policy differences being inappropriate reasons for firings.

    Like I said, you are playing a game where you conflate policy differences and priorities - legitimate reasons for firings - with partisan activity - illegal reasons for firings.

    Except now, instead of using the vague "political" to elide those differences, you're using "choice of prosecutions."

    In San Diego, Carol Lamm was fired, and the initial reason given was that she didn't prosecute immigration cases with enough vigor - a perfectly legitimate reason. The problem was, that was just a pretext for an underlying, possibly illegal motivation.

  • ||

    Joe,

    You are an idiot who would never criticize the Dems no matter what they did. Shut up and let James and J Sub D make reasonable points.K


    Everyone can read what I've written on the thread, John, and can see the points themselves. That you feel badly at how it's going with me and throw a tantrum like this doesn't change that. No matter how many times you respond to my points with the words "idiot" and "Democrat," they're still there, refuting your argument. All you little tantrums do is call attention to the fact that you can't answer them.

  • ||

    J Sub D,

    If they made you President and you told the US Attorneys to lay off drug cases and one of them said fuck off I am locking up Tommy Chong, would it be wrong of you to fire him? Wouldn't that be being political just like Bush?


    I hope nobody ever makes me POTUS. But if I said yopur priorities are X and they the attys spend their limited resources on Y, yeah, I'd fire them and be on solid ground.

    If I said go after the opposition in order to influence elections, I'd be acting a bit like Vlad Putin, wouldn't I?

    You know I'm no donkey sycophant, I just recognize corrupt and inane policies from both sides of our unfortumate two party system.

  • Warty||

    "Cunt" isn't harsh enough to describe this cunt. What a fucking cunt.

  • ||

    prolefeed,

    If he demanded their resignations, and adamantly refused to say anything at all about why they were being fired, how could it be determined what were the reasons for doing so? They'd look for the paper trail, as they did in the 2006 firings. Bush and Gonzo weren't the least bit "up front" about their motivations - they lied like a rug. Fortunately, Congress subpoenaed records and minutes from the Justice Department, which led to several resignations, a special prosecutor, and now a grand jury.

    If Obama does that -- fires some attorneys during the middle of his term in office, and gives no explanation whatsoever about why, will the press look into that? Or will he get a free press because of his political affiliation? I imagine the press would be all over him for something like that, just like they were all over Clinton for funny business, real and imagined, during his term of office.

  • ||

    You are assuming that just because they gave the answer you like that there wasn't two sides to it. Actually, I find Yglesias credible in his determination that a voter fraud case intended to harm the Democrats was bogus specifically because it is a statement against his partisan interest. If a Democrat said a case against the Democrats is bogus, that's easy to dismiss, but this was a Bush-appointed Republican US Attorney.

    Certainly if they had decided to prosecute, you would be on here talking about how all the evil Republican USAs were picking on Dems. You certainly are good at hypotheticals. I guess it's all you have, with the facts so plainly against you.

  • ||

    "If I said go after the opposition in order to influence elections, I'd be acting a bit like Vlad Putin, wouldn't I?"


    Is that really what happened? Was there really nothing to those cases and Bush just wanted to pick on the Dems? I am sorry but I am not buying that. I find it hard to beleive that there isn't something to nearly every claim of fraud Republican or Democrat. I think those USAs just didn't like being told what to do and investigating voter fraud cases is hard and tends to make you a lot of enemies so they didn't want to do it.

    I really don't think Bush was like Putin and out to use government power to destroy his advasaries. If was that, I don't think his advasaries would have won the last election. I think this was a matter of opinion and these people got into a pissing match with the President and lost.

    No I don't think you are a donkey sycophant. That is why I told Joe to shut up and wanted to hear what you had to say. Basically we agreee about this. We just don't agree about whether the vote fraud cases have any merit. But wouldn't you agree, if they do, then Bush was not wrong for canning these people just like you wouldn't be wrong for canning someone who ignored your direction as President on drug policy?

  • ||

    John,

    I did not post a link to the Chong case, I posted a link to the Rottschaefer case. It is true that Dr. Rottschaefer was found guilty, but after trial it was uncovered that all prosecution witnesses lied, the U.S. Attorney's office concealed deals with the prosecution witnesses (and pretty much pushed the witnesses to commit perjury), and evidence proving all the complaining witnesses who testified in court that they did not have the ailments in question necessary for the medications was oddly not released to the defense team.

    Right now, the small town doctor, Bernard Rottschaefer, is living the last years of his life in a federal jail because U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office put on perjured testimony and failed to uncover evidence that proved he is innocent.

    As for the prosecution witnesses, they are still receiving the same medications (although in stronger dosages) for the same ailments that Dr. Rottschaefer prescribed for.

    Dr. Rottschaefer prescribed a legal medication to treat medical ailments. In response, he was railroaded into jail and slandered by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan who decided to spread sex allegations charges in her media statements that she apparently knew were false.

    So go ahead, tell me "She was just doing her job."

    If this individual, Buchanan, cared at all about justice, she would have long ago pushed for a new trial for Dr. Rottschaefer, revoked the deals she made with her drug dealing prosecution witnesses, tried or at least investigated the prosecution witnesses for perjury, etc.

    Instead, Buchanan has stonewalled and changed her argument of the case repeatedly in order to maintain the conviction and not look like an ass.

    So once again, I say simply, this person is not a good example to tout out there as "why was she fired?".

  • ||

    In the case of the bogus fraud case in Minnesota, I conclude that it's bogus because the judge literally laughed it out of court before the trial even began, telling the prosecutor that she couldn't even understand what her theory of the crime was supposed to be.

    But, you know: Democrats, joe, Obama, so just ignore these easily-researched facts.

  • ||

    The problem is what do you do about that? How do you fire a dingbat like her? If you listen to J Sub D, it would seem that a President can't fire a US Attorney for their choices in prosecution.

    The President can fire any US Attorney at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Again, see United States Code, Title 28, Part II, Chapter 35, Section 541, which clearly states that "[e]ach United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."

    Buchanan, as an actual United States Attorney (appointee), is way different from a USDOJ staff attorney (civil service position). Joe's misreading of the WaPo article notwithstanding.

  • ||

    Is that really what happened? Was there really nothing to those cases and Bush just wanted to pick on the Dems? I am sorry but I am not buying that.

    Of course not. Believing in widespread voter fraud is too important to a partisan hack like yourself.

    You clearly know much more about these cases than the US Attorneys, all of whom were Republicans, who got fired for not pursuing them.

  • Warty||

    lied like a rug

    joe, what has English ever done to you to deserve such treatment? If you were on my pirate ship, you'd get the cat 'o nine tails for that.

  • ||

    "So once again, I say simply, this person is not a good example to tout out there as "why was she fired?"."

    James. Buchanan is horrible. My point is that all of the whining that is going on about the other USAs being fired would go on from the drug warriors if Bush had fired Buchanan. Idiots like Buchanan are the reason why the President should be able to fire any USA for any reason at any time. You just do not want people like her in positions where they are not held accountable. If you say the President can't fire USAs when he chooses to, you are in many ways making them unaccountable.

  • ||

    If you were on my pirate ship, you'd get the cat 'o nine tails for that.

    Hey man, joe's just keepin' it real.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    Sorry, I gave you the wrong link. I meant to link to the story about the Justice Departments's Inspector General, and his report in which he deemed the firings of US Attorneys illegal.

    Here's a taste:

    "A president can fire a U.S. attorney for any reason or no reason ... but not for an illegal reason,"

    So, you know what? I'm going to go with the Inspector General of the Justice Department over your opinion.

  • ||

    Here's the link, Tonio.

    I think it includes a link to the original report from the IG at Justice. 92 page pdf.

    http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1008/100308cdpm1.htm

  • ||

    My point is that all of the whining that is going on about the other USAs being fired would go on from the drug warriors if Bush had fired Buchanan.

    Policy.

    Partisan activity.

    Just keep ignoring this difference. Don't worry - the law doesn't.

  • ||

    "I'm going to go with the Inspector General of the Justice Department over your opinion."

    There is nothing legally binding about that opinion. Further, if there was any evidence you would have believed it if it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, you might have a point. Since you only believe what you want to regardless, you don't have a point Joe. The day Obama fires a USA for an unknown or murkey reason, you will on here making the same arguments I am. I promise I will be on here defending him if and when he does. In the meantime spare us. We knew what you were going to say before you said it.

  • bubiyuqn||

    John,
    Your argument that the US Attorneys become unaccountable if the prez. can not fire them for any reason seems to ignore the fact that there's actually, y'know, an investigation and everything into whether or not the motives are just. I'm pretty sure Obama can fire Buchanan, and even if she bitches about this political firing blah blah blah, if there's investigation, they will probably find that Obama's reasoning wasn't illegal. The fact that there actually is an element of oversight here is something that simply can't be ignored.

  • ||

    Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't. Voter fraud is a problem and telling your prosecutors to go after that is no different than telling them to go after guns or drugs or any other federal law.

  • ||

    John,

    I agree with you that Buchanan should go because she is not competent. I think the argument that Buchanan's firing is somehow similar to the U.S. Attorney firing scandal is absurd.

    Please if you want to discuss the U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal, go ahead; however realize that this thread is not the right place for such discussion.

    This thread is about one individual who has taken it on herself to dictate to the president and congress on how the country should run. Simply put, she has way over stepped her bounds her and truly insulted the people of the nation, the voters, the congress, and the incoming president.

  • ||

    "A president can fire a U.S. attorney for any reason or no reason ... but not for an illegal reason,"



    Man, I hate to enter the fray, but I have to squeeze this nit. "Illegal reason" falls in the set of "any reason", hence this statement is self contradictory and is thus non-sense. Now, I will grant that the larger point might be correct, i.e. you can't fire for "illegal reasons", but you also can't make non-sense statements and expect everyone to "just know what you mean".

  • ||

    There is nothing legally binding about that opinion.

    It's a statement of the law, the law governing the hiring and firing behavior in the Justice Department, from the Justice Department Inspector General.

    As a consequences of his report, a Special Prosecutor was appointed, who has now impaneled a grand jury. Oh, and the Attorney General and a bunch of his staff had to resign.

    Icing on the cake? The guy's a Republican.

    So, in sum, only a Democrat could believe that he was accurately describing the law, and that his conclusions were well-grounded.

    Er, um, Obama, joe, partisan, idiot, believe.

  • ||

    "Your argument that the US Attorneys become unaccountable if the prez. can not fire them for any reason seems to ignore the fact that there's actually, y'know, an investigation and everything into whether or not the motives are just. I'm pretty sure Obama can fire Buchanan, and even if she bitches about this political firing blah blah blah, if there's investigation, they will probably find that Obama's reasoning wasn't illegal. The fact that there actually is an element of oversight here is something that simply can't be ignored."

    What is political and what is policy? I thin voter fraud is a real problem. Joe doesn't. That strikes me as a policy difference. But you can just as easily say that it or anything else is a political difference. Once you say that it is illegal to fire someone for "political reasons" you are really saying you can't fire someone for any reason short of misconduct because any difference of policy can be spun as "political reasons".

  • ||

    I also believe that technically political appointees' terms end when there is an administration change. After all, a political appointee serves at the will of the president and by the confirmation of the senate.

    Since GW is no longer the president and Obama did not re-appoint this individual, she technically is not serving at the will of the president. But hey, it would not be the first time Buchanan got the law wrong.

  • ||

    "As a consequences of his report, a Special Prosecutor was appointed, who has now impaneled a grand jury. Oh, and the Attorney General and a bunch of his staff had to resign."


    yes Joe any time there is a a grand jury epaneled, the issue is settled and everyone involved is guilty even before anyone is indicted much less convicted. I will remember those rules the fist time Obama is investigated. I am sure you will follow them assudiously.

  • ||

    Joe,

    Do you honestly think that because there is a grand jury investigating everyone is guilty? Do you realize how unreasonable that is. You really are a dangerous person at heart. I really think you would throw your political opponents in prison for disagreeing with you. Thank God for your soul you live now and not during the French Revolution or sometime when your zelotry could have done real damage.

  • ||

    Joe,

    Have not yet followed the link to your article, but since you accept the reality that the USC allows a President to fire a USA for no reason at all, it doesn't matter.

    Sure, I suppose a really stupid POTUS could attempt to fire a USA for an illegal reason, but there would be no reason to do this since the POTUS could simply fire the attorney because the prez has a "better" candidate (in the subjective but still valid judgement of the prez) in mind.

  • ||

    Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't.

    Actually, there is well-developed case law and legislation that differentiates the two. You can keep writing that this is all about me, but I am neither the Special Prosecutor, nor the IG of the Justice Department, both of whom don't seem to have any difficulty recognizing that there is a difference between policy and partisan loyalty.

    It's pretty much just you who refuses to acknowledge that such a difference exists. But that's ok - you're not on the grand jury.

    Voter fraud is a problem Well, how much of a problem seems to be highly open to debate. and telling your prosecutors to go after that is no different than telling them to go after guns or drugs or any other federal law.

    No, it's not any different. And if David Yglesias had decided to ignore the AG's instructions to concentrate on voter fraud, and was fired as a result, that would be perfectly legal. But that's not what happened - he did investigate voter fraud, he spent time money and resources looking into the charges, and determined that, in this particular case, they were bogus, and chose not to prosecute that particular case.

    So he was fired - not for refusing to concentrate on voter fraud, but for refusing to prosecute people that he didn't think were guilty, because failing to prosecute those people despite his conclusion harmed the partisan interests of the Republican Party just before an elections.

    Which is blatantly illegal.

  • ||

    wayne,

    You admit yourself that know exactly what the IG means; ergo, the statement's meaning is perfectly clear. Nobody misunderstands what he is saying - you're just picking a pointless nit about his phrasing.

  • ||

    Joe,

    True. When you are witness to verbal battering and bloodshed though, it is sometimes helpful to just sort of shuffle and kick a rock aimlessly and try to stay out of the line of fire.

  • ||

    yes Joe any time there is a a grand jury epaneled, the issue is settled and everyone involved is guilty even before anyone is indicted much less convicted.

    What an absurd statement! Good thing nobody made it.

    How about taking a crack at what I actually wrote - the the IG saying the acts were illegal, the special prosecutor saying the acts were illegal, and the creation of a grand jury to investigate and indict people for illegal acts refutes your argument that the acts in question are plainly not illegal?

    Whether anyone was fired for illegal reasons has not been officially adjudicated, and will depend on the facts that come out in the indictments and trial. Whether firing US Attorneys for partisan political purposes is illegal, on the other hand, is not open for debate.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    Have not yet followed the link to your article, but since you accept the reality that the USC allows a President to fire a USA for no reason at all, it doesn't matter. It matters a great deal, because the law carves out a certain set of reasons - such as partisan political activity - which are illegal to use as the basis for a firing.

    Sure, I suppose a really stupid POTUS could attempt to fire a USA for an illegal reason, but there would be no reason to do this since the POTUS could simply fire the attorney because the prez has a "better" candidate (in the subjective but still valid judgement of the prez) in mind. Unless there was a paper trail and other evidence demonstrating that illegal considerations entered intot he decision. It is on the prosecution to prove this, as in all criminal cases, but there's a pretty good block of evidence here - enough to convince the Republican Inspector General of the Justice Department to call the firings illegal and recommend a Special Prosecutor, and enough for the Special Prosecutor to call a grand jury.

  • bubiyuqn ||

    From John: "What is political and what is policy? I thin voter fraud is a real problem. Joe doesn't. That strikes me as a policy difference. But you can just as easily say that it or anything else is a political difference. Once you say that it is illegal to fire someone for "political reasons" you are really saying you can't fire someone for any reason short of misconduct because any difference of policy can be spun as "political reasons"."

    Well, then, you could probably appoint some nonpartisan or bipartisan committee to try to decide what is policy and what is illegal partisan bullshit, which, is, well, what they do.

    I realize this is an extreme argument, but I mean, if the president can fire an attorney for ANY reason, should he be able to fire them because they're black, etc? This is as equally as hard, or harder to prove, but in my opinion, should be illegal. The point here being, no, you can't always know what someone's motive is, but that shouldn't necessarily be a reason to prevent you from trying to stop firings based on illegal motive.

  • ||

    So, US Attorneys don't really serve at the pleasure of the president. If they did, the prez would be able to sack them for any reason, at any time.

    Not defending GWB, just trying to clarify the discussion.

  • Steel City Libertarian||

    My guess is that this is a stunt to force Obama to fire her, at which point she'll make a public stink, play the martyr, then attempt to parlay the resulting controversy into a run for the Senate, or perhaps for governor of Pennsylvania.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

    Do you guys realize how hard it was to get rid of Santorum?! And now we have to deal with this wench?

  • ||

    wayne,

    So, US Attorneys don't really serve at the pleasure of the president. If they did, the prez would be able to sack them for any reason, at any time.

    Not for an illegal reason. If George W. Bush fired Karen Hughes because she wouldn't score him some skag, that would be illegal.

    People don't generally append "...unless it breaks some other law" on the end of every statement they make.

  • the innominate one||

    Joe John you think they are bogus valid because they involved Democrats.

  • Steel City Libertarian||

    It's not even a matter of federal civil service law, as joe argues. If the administration was forcing prosecutors to resign in an attempt to influence specific investigations, which appears to have been the case in several of the firings, that's plain old obstruction of justice.

  • bubiyuqn||

    For those who are arguing then "well they aren't really at his discretion now are they" line, please note that he actually CAN fire them whenever he wants, even illegally. Then they have to seek redress through the court. So technically, yes, they still *serve* at his discretion. But this is still well beside the point, that as joe pointed out, when specifying things of this sort, you usually assume that the person will be acting in accordance with all other laws. I don't know if everyone here is just so desperate to win a point that they want to pointlessly argue strict meanings of words out of the context in which they're used, but this is kind of irrelevant, to..well...anything.

  • libertarian democrat||

    As much as Joe can get on my nerves sometimes (eg, police and crowd control), it's amazing how perfectly rational he often seems when compared with John. And more self-aware, too.

  • ||

    Prediction: Buchanan will be the first U.S. Attorney told she is going to be fired by Obama.

  • ||

    Nah, she'll get the same letter on the same day as all of the others.

    He'll have the most fun signing that one, though.

  • ||

    Am generally seeing joe's side of the story.

    But John makes a good point here
    John | December 5, 2008, 12:45pm | #

    Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't. Voter fraud is a problem and telling your prosecutors to go after that is no different than telling them to go after guns or drugs or any other federal law.


    And yes, I tend to be biased against the dems

  • tarran||

    joe,

    I understand what you are asserting, but disagree with it philosophically. I am also being normative and not descriptive.

    Let's say bush approached Buchanan and demanded that she frame and prosecute Obama. She refuses, and he fires her. Now, to me, the firing should not be a crime, but his demand is just the sort of misdemeanor referred to as grounds for impeachment.

    The question of "why" someone was fired when they serve at the "pleasure of the president" should be irrelevant. To me, serving at someone's pleasure means that they can fire me for any reason at all, including the fact that they say three yellow cars on the street today.

    In focusing on the firing, people are neglecting the true offenses; the politically motivated persecutions.

  • the innominate one||

    The exact same claim can be turned around and accurately said of you and John, kwais.

  • ||

    Thank God for your soul you live now and not during the French Revolution or sometime when your zelotry could have done real damage.


    Are we talking time or space here?
    Because if it is time, then during the time of the French Revolution, Joe would still be in Massachusets, and back then his particular zelotry might not have done any damage at all.

    If we are talking space, then today you could probably put him somewhere that his zelotry could cause harm, Saudi Arabia for instance.

  • ||

    libertarian democrat | December 5, 2008, 1:20pm | #

    As much as Joe can get on my nerves sometimes (eg, police and crowd control), it's amazing how perfectly rational he often seems when compared with John. And more self-aware, too.


    You think? How about when he gets called on something and starts insulting people? People who are not hacks.

    How about when he stops to wonder if really all the democrat talking points are Gods truth?

    Might self awareness and honesty be mutually exclusive at that point?

    Again, I am biased, so my take may not be the best.

  • ||

    tarran,

    In focusing on the firing, people are neglecting the true offenses; the politically motivated persecutions.

    That's keep our priorities straight here. The worst fear is that the government will use its prosecutorial power for partisan purposes - to go after its enemies.

    Reducing the President's discretion to lean on prosecutors over partisan considerations IS an effort to keep a lid on politically-motivated prosecutions.

    I would be much less upset about a US Attorney being fired because the President saw three yellow cars, than because he didn't prosecute a politically-motivated case intended to sway an election.

  • ||

    the innominate one | December 5, 2008, 1:44pm | #

    The exact same claim can be turned around and accurately said of you and John, kwais.


    What same thing?

  • Fluffy||

    Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't. Voter fraud is a problem and telling your prosecutors to go after that is no different than telling them to go after guns or drugs or any other federal law.

    John, this crosses over from policy to partisanship when the President says, "I think the Democrats in the area you covered committed voter fraud, prosecute them!" and the US attorney responds, "We investigated and didn't find any voter fraud we could prosecute," and the President comes back with, "You should have prosecuted anyway so you're fired, asshole!"

  • ||

    Anyways, so no one answered my question:

    could a libertarian leaning president actually make the drugs legal, and the income tax voluntrary, but getting rid of prosecutors?

  • Fluffy||

    Oh wait you answered a bit more:

    Where is the evidence that Bush fired people to cover his ass as opposed to investigate things he felt were important? You and Joe assume that the vote fraud cases were bogus because you hate Bush and can think no other way. But suppose they were not? Should the President not be able to fire people for refusing to investigate crime?

    I am entitled to take the repeated false testimony of DoJ staff before the Congress as evidence that Bush did not sincerely reach the conclusion you are postulating here.

    Want me to believe the firings were on the up and up? Don't present false testimony to the Congress. Once you do that, don't expect me to believe you when you switch to explanation #2.

  • Fluffy||

    could a libertarian leaning president actually make the drugs legal, and the income tax voluntrary, but getting rid of prosecutors?

    I think appointing US attorneys who would conspire with you to execute the laws would violate a President's oath of office.

    It would be better for the libertarian President simply to pardon everyone convicted of the above crimes. Let the machinery of prosecution function unmolested and without interference, and then use the President's unchecked and unlimited power to pardon to fix the damage done by unjust law [to the extent that you can].

  • Fluffy||

    Whoops, that should say, "...who would conspire with you to NOT execute the laws..." Sorry.

  • the innominate one||

    John wrote, and kwais agreed:

    "Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't." [sic]

    that same claim

  • bubiyuqn||

    Fluffy,
    andrew jackson made it patently clear that the president could do whatever the hell he wanted in regards to the enforcement of laws. not saying it's right, or constitutional, or anything, but there's certainly precedent.

  • ||

    "the innominate one | December 5, 2008, 2:25pm | #

    John wrote, and kwais agreed:

    "Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't." [sic]

    that same claim

    and that is wrong?

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    See I was thinking the pardon thing too, if by some magic I was president.

    But the firing of prosecutors seems somewhat more efficient.

    I mean if you as a citizen have to go to court, to a certain extent, you have already lost.

    And if you pardoned everyone convicted of a drug, tax, or non-violent gun crime, wouldn't that equate to "not upholding the law as you swore"?

  • the innominate one||

    it's not much of a criticism that you level at joe, if it is also true of you and John, the ones levelling that criticism

  • Fluffy||

    And if you pardoned everyone convicted of a drug, tax, or non-violent gun crime, wouldn't that equate to "not upholding the law as you swore"?

    I don't think so. The same Constitution that gives the legislature the right to pass laws gives the President the right to issue pardons. It's all of a piece. The pardon power is just as legitimate as the lawmaking power.

    Simply ignoring the laws and refusing to enforce them, however, seems to me to be a dereliction of the office.

    Personally, I think Andrew Jackson should have been impeached.

  • ||

    Right, but say, if it is true of John, Joe, or me. Nothing wrong with that.

    The problem comes when it becomes ok to prosecute someone claiming there is a difference.

    Something like that.

    So, that if a president can fire anyone for anyreason, and he fires someone for policy reasons, and then is prosecuted for firing someone for partisan hackery reasons. When the only difference is which side is identifying it.

    I don't know for sure. I mean Joe brought up some good points, but that counter that John made seemed pretty poignant to me. But I don't know the details of the law and of the specific case.

    On the face of it, I like the idea that the president can fire any prosecutor for any reasons. The president is the one generally blamed for their actions, so he should have that power. Both Obama and Bush.

    However I admit that there may be more to it than that.

  • ||

    Simply ignoring the laws and refusing to enforce them, however, seems to me to be a dereliction of the office

    Fluffy,
    Good point.

    Actually a part of me thinks that there should be MORE Buchanans prosecuting.

    After all, she is not making up the laws she is prosecuting. Maybe what is called for is the ugliest prosecutors prosecuting the ugliest laws. If those laws are not right, they should be repealed.

    One of the things I have noted in 3rd world shitholes, is that they have lots of laws and that they prosecute people they don't like, or that don't bribe where called for.

    Unjust laws should be taken off the books, not just ignored.

  • ||

    "Joe in your world policy is anything you agree with and partisian activity is anything you don't."

    I'd just like to point out that I brought up Carol's Lam's alleged failure to prosecute immigration cases as a legitimate policy reason to fire a United States Attorney, and I most certainly do not agree with that firing.

  • ||

    Er, I mean, I most certainly do not agree with firing someone for that reason.

  • ||

    kwais

    She most certainly is taking an extremely liberal view of the law and in some cases such as Dr. Rottschaefer's, she appears to have broken the law.

    Let's go through a few cases:
    Dr. Cyril Wecht - Charged with misusing public resources for personal gain. So you are thinking bribes, kickbacks, or he is outright stealing cash. Nope, Cyril Wecht currently stands accused of $200 in misbilling to his private clients in which he utilized a county fax. Wecht and the Prosecution spearheaded by Buchanan have spent millions arguing over $200 on over $7 million annually of Wecht's billings. Buchanan actually wants Wecht in jail, so word to everyone balance your checkbook.

    There is Daniel Zehr. Charged with violating the Patriot Act. Ok, you are thinking this guy is bad...real bad. May be a terrorist or something. Nope, he is an Amish man who has lived in the US with his American wide and children who crossed back over to Canada to attend his father's funeral. When Zehr traveled back into the U.S., he was held for not having a photo passport. Zehr's religious sect does not permit them to have pictures taken. What does Buchanan do? Grant this guy an exception/pass which she could do...nope she has him deported for being a national security threat.

    Then there are the two vets that lied about their ranks at the VA. This is a situation where your grandfather lies and says he won WWII singlehandedly. Buchanan utilizes a law meant to prevent people from impersonating law enforcement and military personal to steal money to prosecute these two guys criminally.

    There is Sheriff DeFazio. Another great example. After Buchanan utilized the power of the prosecutor's office to threaten the sheriff that he could lose his pension, he plead guilty. You think he did something terrible. Well, it appears he asked his staff to buy charity raffle tickets. Buchanan felt he utilized undue pressure. So if your boss asks you to give to charity, call Buchanan.

    She is a wackjob. Plain and simple.

    Additionally, please read the article Radley links to about Rottschaefer.

  • ||

    joe,

    I think you are kinda wrong on only one point, you wrote:

    tarran,

    **In focusing on the firing, people are neglecting the true offenses; the politically motivated persecutions.**

    That's keep our priorities straight here. The worst fear is that the government will use its prosecutorial power for partisan purposes - to go after its enemies.

    Reducing the President's discretion to lean on prosecutors over partisan considerations IS an effort to keep a lid on politically-motivated prosecutions.

    I would be much less upset about a US Attorney being fired because the President saw three yellow cars, than because he didn't prosecute a politically-motivated case intended to sway an election.


    In my opinion, there is no sound way to say a person who can be fired for any or no reason was fired for an illegal reason. Even if there was evidence that the Pres was pissed at the USA for not engaging in enough hackery and it went into the decision to fire - unless you can prove it was the only reason it doesn't matter. And since any other reason would suffice - say the pres saw three yellow cars. It doesn't make it nice, or right, but ought to make it legal.

    Which isn't to say that I don't have a problem with what happened - on the contrary, I agree with tarran that the real offense is that they were leaned on at all. I guess I agree with your view of what the worst fear is, but disagree with your preferred approach of dealing with it.

  • ||

    So, to summarize, we agreed to burn the witch, correct?

  • ||

    I don't know about the laws permitting/prohibiting the firing of US Attorneys. But here's how employment law in general works:

    In most situations, employees are employed "at-will," meaning that they can be fired for any reason (bad or good), or no reason at all. They can't be fired, however, in breach of a contract or in violation of certain statutes (such as, for example, anti-discrimination statutes).

    The practical effect of the "at-will" status of the employee is to shift the burden of proof from the employer (which would have to establish "just cause" if the employment weren't at-will) to the employee.

    For example, an employer can fire an "at-will" employee without explanation. If the employee is black and challenges the discharge in court, the employer probably needs to give a rational explanation, such as poor performance, which is a legitimate reason for the decision.

    Still, even if that's a legitimate reason, the discharge can be illegal if it can be proven that the employee's race was a "motivating factor" in the decision. One way to prove that would be to show that white employees with similar or worse performace records were not fired.

    In that circumstance, the employer would have had a legitimate reason to fire an at-will employee, but still would have been guilty of violating the law against racial discrimination in employment.

    I'm guessing that's how it works here with the US Attorneys. The President can generally do what he wants with respect to them, but if it can be proven that he acted for unlawful reasons (whatever they might be), then he can be held to account.

  • Fluffy||

    In my opinion, there is no sound way to say a person who can be fired for any or no reason was fired for an illegal reason.

    The problem is that in addition to being an at-will employee, the US attorney is also a magistrate.

    That means that even if you're the President and can fire them at will, if your specific reason for firing them is because they refused to engage in a corrupt quid pro quo you've violated the law. Essentially you've extorted them.

    If the President had called these guys on the phone and said, "Hey, I want you to kick back 10% of your salaries to me every month," and then fired them when they said no, the firings would be illegal regardless of the President's broad power to fire them for any reason.

  • ||

    My guess is that this is a stunt to force Obama to fire her, at which point she'll make a public stink, play the martyr, then attempt to parlay the resulting controversy into a run for the Senate, or perhaps for governor of Pennsylvania.

    Or, if none of that pans out, get a gig as a syndicated talk show host. God help us all...

  • ||

    joe | December 5, 2008, 12:23pm | #
    If you listen to J Sub D, it would seem that a President can't fire a US Attorney for their choices in prosecution.

    That is not what J sub D has written. Rather, he's written that a President can't fire a US Attorney for partisan political purposes.


    Every president fires US Attorneys for partisan political purposes, and does so en masse, at the beginning of their term in office. The question is how that is any different from firing them for partisan political purposes mid-term, when some of the people you initially hired appear to be not implementing the president's agenda with sufficient vigor. (P.S. Not defending Bush's agenda, just pointing out the logic of the situation, regardless of the party in power.)

    You really can't have it both ways. Either the president has the power to fire sitting US Attorneys for purely political reasons, or you have civil service protections that prevent their firing when a new administration takes over. What the Democrats seem to be arguing for is this: a president can fire all US Attorneys for partisan political purposes when he first takes offices, but after that de facto civil service protections kick in for the rest of the term -- UNLESS the new president is of the same party as the party that controls Congress, and that party is the Democratic party.

    OK, that last clause will become more apparent in a couple of years.

  • James||

    Now she has gotten Obermiller blowing his top:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/vp/28077372#28077372

  • ||

    Every president fires US Attorneys for partisan political purposes, and does so en masse, at the beginning of their term in office. The question is how that is any different from firing them for partisan political purposes mid-term, when some of the people you initially hired appear to be not implementing the president's agenda with sufficient vigor.

    I really don't feel like explaining the difference between policy and partisan politics again. Sorry, you'll just have to either go back through the thread, or even better, read up on the cases.

    You really can't have it both ways. I'm afraid that the Inspector General of the Justice Department, the Special Prosecutor, and even the Bush administration employees who resigned over the scandal and admitted to wrongdoing disagree with you.

    As a side note, the inability to tell the difference between policy and partisan politics is pretty much a defining characteristic of the modern conservative movement, and explains an awful lot of what's happened over the past few years.

  • ||

    What the Democrats seem to be arguing for is this...

    Actually, the Justice Department Inspector General who deemed the firings illegal and recommended a special prosecutor is a Republican.

    Like I said, can't see the difference between policy/legality and partisanship.

  • ||

    Every president fires US Attorneys for partisan political purposes, and does so en masse, at the beginning of their term in office.

    See, look at this: no recognition whatsoever of any distinction between "Will he help me crack down on porn and illegal immigration?" vs. "Will he help me prosecute and embarrass my political opponents?"

    The question is how that is any different from firing them for partisan political purposes mid-term, when some of the people you initially hired appear to be not implementing the president's agenda with sufficient vigor. Once again, no differentiation between an "agenda" of concentrating on this or that sort of crime vs. an "agenda" of prosecuting cases regardless of merit in order to help influence elections.

    It's not just that prolefeed is arguing that the Bush administration's actions in firing people and leaning on people were proper, and did not cross the line into illegal partisan activity; he's arguing that there is no such thing as illegal partisan activity, distinct from the ordinary and legitimate operations of government.

    Fortunately, we live in a non-totalitarian country, where our laws recognize the difference between the party and the state.

  • ||

    So what fire her anyway. She sure is full of herself isn't she. She will find that it isn't that great to be attached to the Bush Administration. She might find that people not only don't think she is as smart as she thinks she is but the taint of Bush will ruin her chances to run for any office, even local dog catcher. So fire away. She certainly deserves it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement