Posted on 03/21/2007 10:40:48 AM PDT by Sam Hill
Sounds like you were unable to name one, and, after much searching, he managed to come up with 7.
You should be thanking him for doing your research for you.
It wasn't my job to name any. That was a troll trying to muddy the water. Why should I help him?
Oh, and welcome to FR!
Or would you like to play semantics, and say that interim/acting USA's don't count, in which case all the numbers change.
> It wasn't my job to name any.
You asked for:
"What is clear is that nobody has come forward with a clear and concise reckoning of the numbers of US attorneys who ere replaced during the various recent administrations.
And it's very probably that the media doesn't want that to come out..."
He gave you a list of those who weren't replaced. The obverse of that list is everybody who was replaced. If there are 93 US attorneys, and 7 weren't replaced, then 86 were. Elsewhere, I've provided urls listing most of the President's appointees for US Attorney in 2001. Without cleaning up duplication and overlap, it's over 100 names.
BTW, I find it utterly fascinating that you put the blame for the confusion on the media rather than on the assorted ballot lice who actually make and confirm the nominations for the job, and on whose payroll the US Attorneys work.
In answer to your other point, though, what Clinton did was still unprecedented because it was disorderly, immediate, and the replacements weren't selected yet (leaving aside the likelihood that he did it to cover his friends' and his own butts).
My own opinion is this is more about the change in the law to allow interim appointees to bypass Senate approval and the desire to stir fecal matter than the timing of the dismissals (even though it was unusual).
"He gave you a list of those who weren't replaced."
That wasn't what I was asking for in the article.
And my earlier post about it "not being my job" was addressing his claim that I had not provided those US attorneys who had not been fired at the start of the Bush term.
But thanks for trying to confuse the issue.
"My own opinion is this is more about the change in the law to allow interim appointees to bypass Senate approval and the desire to stir fecal matter than the timing of the dismissals (even though it was unusual)."
A law Congress passed.
And of course it isn't about that.
Quick, how many appointees did Bush slip in using the Patriot Act?
The AGs serve 4-year terms, meant to coincide with the president's terms, expiring usually just after he takes office (for obvious reasons).
Clinton fired his AGs immediately, without waiting for the end of their 4-year terms. The 4-year terms were supposed to give them some job security, and also help them plan their case loads knowing when they would leave. It was unprecedented to fire AGs who would end their terms in the next month or two.
Bush didn't fire any AGs. As their terms ended, they were replaced. He did replace them all, he just didn't fire them.
And to be accurate, he didn't fire the last 8 either. Their first terms ended, and he picked new people to replace them rather than leaving them in place. Only it took so long for this White House to get through the process that some of them were on for a year or two.
According to one news story, one of the dismissed AGs had their 4-year term expire last December, which means they must have been a replacement for someone in mid-term.
Generally the AGs end up back on about the same 4-year cycle, since often a president, even a two-term president, won't remove their people for other people. And Bush only did so in 8 cases, hardly a large number.
Give up?
The answer is one.
"On September 22, 2006, Alberto Gonzales appointed Jeffrey A. Taylor as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia under these Patriot Act provisions. He was sworn in without Senate confirmation seven days later."
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#USA_PATRIOT_Act_revisions
And it's actually hard to see how this differs all that much from the "temporary" or "acting" or "interim" US attorneys who have been appointed (but I don't believe ever confirmed) in the past.
Let's go back to your initial article, then.
> Why is these details so hard to find?
Short answer: because the Executive Office for United States Attorneys doesn't want to make them clear.
Who do they report to?
> And of course it isn't about that.
If you say so.
> Quick, how many appointees did Bush slip in using the Patriot Act?
Since the law was only changed a year ago, probably damn few, if any.
The DoJ just gave the House 3,000 pages of information on the subject and have opened themselves up to questioning before Congress.
Yeah, it sounds like a real cover-up to me.
(Sheesh.)
"Since the law was only changed a year ago, probably damn few, if any."
Two years ago.
Sorry, my mistake. It has only been law for one years, since it was signed into law on March 9, 2006.
The name threw me:
"The USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"
"The information you whiningly claim to be "hidden" is clearly in the hands of people whose butts you're covering, but you want to sling the blame for "confusion" everywhere but there."
Yes, I'm a troll.
And you who have been here for little more than a month and whose posting history is what it is -- you are not.
Right.
> Two years ago.
"In 2006, as part of the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, the method for
filling vacancies was again altered, allowing the Attorney General to fill a vacancy
indefinitely, not for just 120 days."
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf
What year is it, again?
ONE year.
Thanks.
> Right.
Hey, at least we can agree on something.
Got any theories involving media coverups on WHY the Executive Office for United States Attorneys hasn't provided the Congressional Research Service with EXACTLY the same data you're asking for despite being asked more than 2 months ago?
"Got any theories involving media coverups on WHY the Executive Office for United States Attorneys hasn't provided the Congressional Research Service with EXACTLY the same data you're asking for despite being asked more than 2 months ago?"
When you show me some substantiation that the CRS asked for such information two months ago and that they have been refused, I will then entertain your question.
(Your assertions haven't always proved out, I've noticed.)
Meanwhile, go troll someone else.
> When you show me some substantiation that the CRS asked
> for such information two months ago and that they have
> been refused...
It's right there on page 4 of the CRS report you're so quick to damn:
"In order to determine how many U.S. attorneys had served less than four years
with tenure uninterrupted by a change in presidential administration, CRS began by
contacting the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which serves
as the liaison between U.S. attorneys and the Department of Justice. CRS first
contacted the EOUSA January 24, 2007, to seek records on the appointment and
termination dates for U.S. attorneys. As of February 20, 2007, EOUSA had not
provided the requested data. CRS also contacted the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), which maintains the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). CRS
spoke with a representative in OPM’s Congressional Liaison Office and was told that
the database could not produce the information needed. The OPM representative
referred CRS to the Department of Justice."
http://www.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33889_20070222.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.