Oh, my, another US attorney scandal

[deminks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aziz-huq/attorney-firings-what-th_b_43401.html

Attorney Firings: What the White House Wanted to do, But Didn't

In the coming days, commentators will be scrambling for their thesauruses to find new ways to describe the mounting criticism of Attorney General Gonzales (try "calumny" or "obloquy" for starters). But it's worth lingering on one perhaps the most illuminating aspect of today's news: What the White House wanted to, but didn't, do.


According to internal White House emails, White House Counsel Harriet Miers suggested in early 2005 that all 93 U.S. Attorneys be removed and replaced. We need to know a lot more about the scope and detail of this plan, and critically, its relation to the provision in the March 2006 Patriot Act that allowed the White House to circumvent both legislative and local controls on prosecutorial appointments.

Let me explain why. Back in early 2005 , as President Bush began his second term of office, most U.S. Attorneys were already his appointees. As one email chain disclosed yesterday reveals , the White House knew that precisely 77 were Bush II appointees). To be sure, these appointees had been subject to nomination and confirmation by the Senate, as required by Article II of the Constitution. But it had been President Bush who had selected them (just as he selected Carol Lam, David C. Iglesias, Paul K. Charlton, Daniel K. Bogden, and the other recently terminated prosecutors). So why even risk the political contention and fallout of a nationwide purge?

(snip)

It was then-Chairman of the Senate Judicary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter who technically added the provision expanding executive power. According to Senator Specter, however, the change was requested by a Justice Department official named Brent Tollman. The push for legislative change, that is, came from within the executive branch. And Spector's chief counsel, Michael O'Neill, inserted the provision that Tollman sought into the legislation without the Senator's knowledge. (Tollman, incidentally, is presently the US Attorney for Utah. At 36, he is, I am told, one of the youngest U.S. Attorneys ever. And Joe Conason has asked pointed questions about O'Neill's background).

(end snips)

(emphasis mine)

[Donnachaidh]

1. So Spector is throwing his guy under the bus?

Typical.

Spector should get caught up in this mess. He was one of the leaders in charge of the RUBBERSTAMP.

[EVDebs]

2. Another magic bullet fired into the heart of democracy. Thanks, Arlen nt

[Old and In the Way]

3. Seems to me, altering federal legislation without consent of Congress

would be a real federal crime. I know the republics are well known for sneaking stuff into the legislation, but how come Tollman isn't being charged with federal fraud?

[enough]

4. Yes, I would like to know a lot more about this.

Specter's explanations have hardly been satisfactory. If his high-level staffer did this without his knowledge, that in itself should be invesitigated. I don't understand why Specter's role here isn't getting more attention.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Specter's not going to have a leg to stand on if he uses Gonzo's excuse

It almost sounds like the dog-ate-my-homework excuse for the Cons is, "It was my trusted Chief of Staff. I had no idea!" Cheney did it, Gonzo's doing it, and now Specter's going to try it.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Looks like it's "Brett" Tollman

Had trouble finding some info...
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Tolman_Brett_85664504.aspx

He was Chief Counsel for the Senate Crime and Terrorism Unit prior to his appointment.