We'll probably have to agree to disagree. Poster over at CCK forgets the genesis of the US Atty mess
I see that Dawne over at the CCK blog sees the whole US Attorney mess as a big Republican right- wing plot to act above the law, (insert your other favorite liberal anti-republican buzz words in), etcetera, and so on.
Unfortunately, as much as Dawne would care to ignore, this all started when a Democratically appointed Judge tried to step in and insert his own appointee. In other words - if he hadn't tried to usurp the authority of the executive branch, there would have been no need to change the law for "the mess in South Dakota."
On February 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the independence of U.S. Attorneys and focused on a change to the PATRIOT Act caused by the actions of a judge in South Dakota. Senator Arlen Specter said the change to the PATRIOT Act “had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota, where the court made a replacement which was not in accordance with the statute.
In fact, Judge Piersol appointed someone who hadn't been a prior federal employee and did not qualify.” This came after the Department of Justice had asked for an extension of the current interim appointee at the time, but instead, the judge inserted his own judgment.
Why was that a bad move? When the Department of Justice says that "We couldn't even communicate with that individual on classified information until a background check would have been done," it certainly leads one to ask if the action of Judge Piersol was such a wise thing.
Even during the hearing, Democratic Senator Schumer similarly referred to it as “the specific problem that occurred in South Dakota.” The Deputy Attorney General said during the hearing that “we had a very serious situation arise in South Dakota, and that situation illustrates what can happen when you have two authorities seeking to appoint a U.S. attorney.
What was that serious situation? In that case, here in South Dakota, the public defender's office challenged an indictment brought by the interim U.S. attorney, claiming that he didn't have the authority to indict someone because the judge there had appointed someone else to be the U.S. attorney at about the same time.
When we look at what the principals had to say about it in Dave Kranz's Argus Leader column this week - even the title of the article acknowledges the fact "U.S. attorney firings link to S.D. mess"
Yes, it was a mess. And it continues to be a mess. But before Dawne over at CCK lays blame on someone else's doorstep, their own stoop should be swept first.
Unfortunately, as much as Dawne would care to ignore, this all started when a Democratically appointed Judge tried to step in and insert his own appointee. In other words - if he hadn't tried to usurp the authority of the executive branch, there would have been no need to change the law for "the mess in South Dakota."
On February 6, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the independence of U.S. Attorneys and focused on a change to the PATRIOT Act caused by the actions of a judge in South Dakota. Senator Arlen Specter said the change to the PATRIOT Act “had been requested by the Department of Justice because there had been difficulty with the replacement of a U.S. attorney in South Dakota, where the court made a replacement which was not in accordance with the statute.
In fact, Judge Piersol appointed someone who hadn't been a prior federal employee and did not qualify.” This came after the Department of Justice had asked for an extension of the current interim appointee at the time, but instead, the judge inserted his own judgment.
Why was that a bad move? When the Department of Justice says that "We couldn't even communicate with that individual on classified information until a background check would have been done," it certainly leads one to ask if the action of Judge Piersol was such a wise thing.
Even during the hearing, Democratic Senator Schumer similarly referred to it as “the specific problem that occurred in South Dakota.” The Deputy Attorney General said during the hearing that “we had a very serious situation arise in South Dakota, and that situation illustrates what can happen when you have two authorities seeking to appoint a U.S. attorney.
What was that serious situation? In that case, here in South Dakota, the public defender's office challenged an indictment brought by the interim U.S. attorney, claiming that he didn't have the authority to indict someone because the judge there had appointed someone else to be the U.S. attorney at about the same time.
When we look at what the principals had to say about it in Dave Kranz's Argus Leader column this week - even the title of the article acknowledges the fact "U.S. attorney firings link to S.D. mess"
Yes, it was a mess. And it continues to be a mess. But before Dawne over at CCK lays blame on someone else's doorstep, their own stoop should be swept first.
Comments
This claim that PP keeps making that Judge Piersol did not follow the law is a non-starter. It is simply false! Please quit with the blatantly false claims, PP.
And the Justice Department's claim that they would not have been able to communicate with Mark Meierhenry until his background check was completed is also bunk. Let's not forget that Scott Abdallah was on the job as acting US Attorney right here in SD before his background check was completed.
And to claim that Meierhenry was not qualified! We're talking about an 8-year attorney general of South Dakota who has argued before the US Supreme Court and is widely recognized as one of the best lawyers in the state.
There is nobody else to blame for failure to timely get a US Attorney in place than the Bush administration and our own Senator Thune.
By the way, the US Senate just today passed a bill restoring the right of Judges to appoint US Attorneys when the administration won't get off of its ass.
And Mark Meierhenry is a former attorney general and distinguished member of the bar - he's obviously highly qualified for the position. I notice PP refrains from mentioning him by name - maybe because people will see that he was a good choice (and a Republican choice, btw).
This mess goes right to the current administration's never-ending quest to systematically dismantle our constitution and to remove congress from any oversight of what they are doing.
just kidding....or am i?
Now that the cat is out of the bag and this administration cannot possibly justify the firings of these prosecutors, heads are going to roll and butts are going to get fired.
But just because it was Mark, didn't make it the thing to do. As noted, because of Piersol's selection of Meierhenry, the Justice Dept could not communicate information with him, because he hadn't had a background check - AND it caused problems in the criminal prosecution of a federal offender - not the kind of thing you want problems with.
But just because it was Mark, didn't make it the thing to do. As noted, because of Piersol's selection of Meierhenry, the Justice Dept could not communicate information with him, because he hadn't had a background check - AND it caused problems in the criminal prosecution of a federal offender - not the kind of thing you want problems with."
Seems to me you got some 'splainin to do with the above.
It appears you are trying to re-write history by repeating the same previously discredited story again and again. You can find better issues.
Bush administration incompetence and deceit have been hidden by Republican majorities in congress and a President willing to look you in the eyes and lie about everything...never mind sex with the "lump in bed".
The "Piersol issue" is all smoke and mirrors but it is not going to hide the Bush administration failures.
I am no supporter of Mark Mierhenry for anything. However, he may have been one of the few Republicans available with some ability and experience at the time. Apparently the Bush administration was unable to find a single South Dakota Republican attorney who could fill the position.
Maybe that offshore betting website should take bets on whether Gonzales is out today, or tomorrow, or just in time for the weekend news cycle on Friday.