Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/Archive 1

message: I noticed down in the body of the article there is a quotation that isn't footnoted, and at least to my eyes, you can't tell who said it.  Since editing this page is apparently such a touchy subject, I haven't tried to flag it or anything (pretty new to wikipedia), but can't someone give the attribution for this quote:
"A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules."
: A search for parts of the quote reveals as potential source the Washington Post article titled Domenici Says He Contacted Prosecutor from March 5, although the exact text seems to have changed slightly since the quoted version. Terjen 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Footnote

message: The terminology used in the process of changing US Attorneys is mixed language.  "Fire", "terminate", "dismiss", "resign", "force out", as well as other terms all relate to the same act of changing a US Attorney.  However, the usage, along with the context, is an indication of the frame the author is constructing.
For example, a newly elected White House would "seek the tender of resignation" of the existing US Attorneys.  Is this "firing" them?  Is it "terminating" them?  Is it exercising the powers of "enforcing the United States Constitution"?  All can be viewed as truthful. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think fire, terminate, dismiss, force out are pretty much synonyms that imply a decision made from the employer to get rid of the employee whereas resign implies a decision by the employee to leave the organization on his own decision. In this case we are obviously talking about a firing/dismissing/terminating/forcing out of US attorneys and any of those terms seems appropriate to me. Other opinons? Remember 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Could someone please add gonzales opinions that he stated in his op-ed regarding this matter to this article.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Politicized justice for an editorial on the op-ed. Terjen 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzales op-ed 

message: Washington Post article on genesis of firing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: Just found this article Good start! 
I added this to the '1993 firings section' but it might be better somewhere else. Podestra's counterclaims might be germaine too.
Kyle Sampson noted in a January 09, 2006 email to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton <U>did not</U> seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision” (underlining original) link - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition 

message: Plan for Replacing Certain United States Attorneys. Attached to email from Kyle Sampson to William W. Mercer, December 5, 2006. Terjen 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Plan 

message: "Today, a new report concludes that Bush's actions were completely unprecedented. The study was conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) and released by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Linda Sánchez.
The CRS found that of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed in a president's initial term since 1981, 54 left voluntarily before completing a full four-year term. Of those, no more than three had been forced out under circumstances similar to the current situation." link with link to the PDF report too.  Lets discuss the removal of the Clinton/Reno '93 firings' section which is a red herring. It should be replaced with the firing of Kendall Coffey who was forced out for (among other things) biting a strippers arm.- FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 05:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not simply move the whole "other terminations" section over to United States Attorney#Appointment? That would seem to be a much better place for discussing these things in general compared to an article which is focused on just one specific set of terminations. Bryan Derksen 09:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because other past firings have often been used by those defending the Bush administration's practices, I think we should at least have a explanation of the information that we have found on how in general firing happen at the beginning of an administration and that the current move is unprecedented. Remember 13:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not accurate Remember.  The 1993 dismissals were brought up to provide context of the process by which US Attorneys are replaced.  In 1993 the dismissal of all 93 US Attorneys was a new precedent.  The process had never been demonstrated in the fashion by which AG Reno had done.  In effect, the context provides the comparitive link of the appearance of impropriety by the White House(I use White House, and not the subjective analysis of "Bush Administration" or "Clinton Administration") in interfering with ACTIVE investigations of key political figures.  In 1993 the key political figure was Representive Dan Rostenkowski.  In 2006 it can be viewed that the political figures were State governments in Washington, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, all connected to eachtother by lax investigations of voter fraud allegations.In closing, the public cannot overlook the fact that, while the US Attorneys are generally replaced when a new President is elected, there also exists the possibility that the replacements are politically intended to protect the White House or the interests of the White House in conducting its new agenda. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before bush, only THREE US Attorneys had been fired since 1981 

message: Should this page include any mention of this study ?  The tie-in would be that some people say that most US attorneys new what the game plan was and avoided retribution by the white house (like the current firing) by focusing on corruption issues of Democrats and not Republicans.  I think it is a pretty tenuous link but I have seen people start to mention this study in accord with the recent firings. Remember 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It is not yet published meaning any and all findings are "preliminary" and subject to change.  It's clear, the authors will not publish their study until 2008. -- Gabrielsutherland 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study 

message: As several news organizations are now calling it a "scandal," , , , I have renamed the article accordingly.  Eleemosynary 03:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scandal is a POV term that should be avoided especially before any hearing or findings.  Controversy is better and reflect the common usage at Wikipedia.   --Tbeatty 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeat: several reputable news organizations are calling it a scandal.  That is why the language has been replaced.  "Scandal" is not a POV term in and of itself. Eleemosynary 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that my all caps request to stop renaming the page until we had come up with a consensus has been ignored.  In the future please discuss these changes on the talk page for at least a couple of days before changing the name of the whole article. Remember 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see your request before renaming.  As for the term "scandal," I am following the lead of several acceptable news sources, three of which I linked to above. Eleemosynary 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose leaving terms like scandal, controversy etc out of the entry name. Terjen 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While others may refer to this as a scandal, I think the term is pejorative and implies guilt.  I think controversy is a more NPOV term.  In general I think the article name should state that this is related to 2006 to limit the scope of the controversy.  Until this overarching issue has a consensus recognized name by the news media (e.g. "attorneygate") I think the previous name of the article was the correct one.  Any other thoughts? Remember 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Laughable, Qhist.  You may not accept the hard news reporting of The New York Times, The Associated Press, or McClatchy.  But Wikipedia does.  You might want to head over to the Watergate article and remove all instances of "scandal," while you're at it.  Nixon never admitted guilt, either. Eleemosynary 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare me the addle-brained lectures. Eleemosynary 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandal 

message: I added it because not all DOJ attornies are political appointees.  I think it is confusing to talk about positive performance reviews and politically motivated firings when the politics of the position are not laid out.  These aren't career DOJ attorneys and that needs to be made clear.  --Tbeatty 03:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the Executive Branch.  To call these eight attorneys "politically appointed" in the opening paragraph muddies the water and confuses the issue. Eleemosynary 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absolutely necessary to distinguish political appointments from non-political career positions.  When the opening paragraph talks about performance reviews when performance is only relevant in the context of how the adminsitration sees it is disingenuous.   These aren't career DOJ attornies.  They are political appointees and the distinction needs to be clear in order to neutrally present all sides.  The intro includes criticism but no response from the administration.  This is fundamentally flawed.  Keep the criticism and add the position of the DOJ.  --Tbeatty 04:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't like judicial appointments or appointment of a fixed term like FBI director or Joint Chiefs of Staff.  These are more akin to cabinet positions and  advisor position. They are replaced by the adminsitration in power but they have absolutely no job security like the other appointed but permanent or fixed time positions.  --Tbeatty 04:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument does not hold water.  The FBI Director and Joint Chiefs can be fired at any time.  You are trying to make a distinction where there is none.  Stop trying to muddy the water. Eleemosynary 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they cannot.  That;s the fundamental difference. It's why FBI directors and JCS's keep their jobs past elections and US Attornies do not.  Please stop trying to muddy the waters.  --Tbeatty 05:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FBI Director and Joint Chiefs can be fired at any time.  U.S. Attorneys are often replaced at the beginning of a new administration, but that is not always the case. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Eleemosynary 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally, yes.  But the distinction is that they have terms (last time I checked, JCS is 2 years and FBI director is 6).  they are traditionally not political appointments and are traditionally not replaced at political whim.  U.S. attorney has no terms and is therefore purely at the political whim of the administration and it is certainly not the same as career attorney positions within the DOJ.  Making it sound like these are just regular prosecutors who lost their jobs is muddying the waters.  --Tbeatty 05:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, U.S. attorneys have a term of four years, so YES they do have terms.  But they are not always strictly adhered to, as Clinton allowed Chertkoff (now head of Homeland Security) to stay on when he took over the White House from Bush I, and Bush II kept a couple of holdovers as well.  And yes, U.S. attorneys are political appointments, just like the FBI director or CIA director, and must undergo Senate confirmation - just like any other cabinet positions.  As for your "purely at the political whim" comment, no.  Not until now have U.S. attorneys been fired at the political whim of an administration.  Try some research next time. --Jason (12.149.141.19 21:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically appointed 

message: Tbeatty: Your reductionist, simplistic assertion that United States Attornies serve "purely at the political whim of the administration," equating the gravity of the law enforcement position to that of the White House pastry chef, comes across as an attempt to exculpate the players in the scandal via a GOP talking point.  As far as drawing a distinction between USAs and "career attorney positions," the distinction is not relevant in terms of the scandal.  The essence of the scandal is that one or more of the attorneys may have been fired for prosecuting Republican lawmakers, or for failing to prosecute Democratic ones.  If the White House fired an attorney for the former reason, they obstructed justice, which is a crime.  As is lying to Congress, which it now appears is exactly what Attorney General Gonzalez did, which is why Republicans are now demanding his resignation. Eleemosynary 06:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  Check the link.  His Jan. 18 testimony is now being investigated as perjury. Did Limbaugh not mention that?  I'm so surprised. Eleemosynary 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that is talking points of the critics.  Both sides neeed representation in the article, not just the side that considers this a scandal.  there is a relevant substantialviewpoint that disagrees with your assertions and it is missing from the article and intro.  --Tbeatty 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not my assertions.  I am referencing reliable news sources.  The Bush Administration is not one of them.  Please check Wikipedia guidelines on what merits inclusion as a reliable source. Eleemosynary 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referencing quotes in the paper from one side and not the other, and it is bs.  Untinl it is demonstrated this is what they in fact did, or at least widely agreed, then it is not a scandal.Qhist 23:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I've been searching, and I can't find one reliable source that says the Bush Administration acted appropriately.  Next time you post here, try to do it with something besides the Limbaugh talking points.  Eleemosynary 09:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making a fool out of yourself.  There aren't any sources that says the Bush Administration acted inappropriately either.  Just a bunch of politicos and opinion pieces arguing both sides.  You don't even have basic facts right, accusing AG Gonzoles of perjury when he didn't even appear.  There's no hurry here, it will be a scandal soon enough.  Don't try to rush it and reveal yourself to be an agent of one side or the other and not an editor of an encyclopedia.Qhist 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a little more research next time.  There are over 50 news organizations referring to the situation as a "scandal."  This is hard news reporting, not "opinion pieces."  Gonzales is being accused of perjuring himself at his confirmation hearings, and at preliminary hearings in this matter on January 18.  As are a few of his deputies.  I guess they didn't cover that on Fox News.  As for being an "agent" of anything, yes, I'm an "agent" of using reliable sources in an encyclopedia article.  Eleemosynary 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this deliberate obtuseness?  Or just straw men arguments to be shot down for amusement?  The hard news is referring to it as a "scandal," not that it "was wrong."  The consensus on this page is strongly for "scandal," lady. Eleemosynary 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice you changed my edit to scandal and now it's worse than it was.  Look at your results.  You knew there was disagreement and it be changed, and it was.70.13.241.221 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reply was completely incoherent.  Try again. Eleemosynary 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to above

message: The article intro only supplies critical viewpoints.  I have ttried to add balance without success.  also the name has been changed to express a non-neutral point of view.  This is an NPOV issue.  --Tbeatty 06:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article intro (which, I admit, needs clarity work) need only lay out the premise of the scandal.  Stating the scandal in terms of the players is not, of itself, POV.  Your tag was not added in good faith.  It will not be permitted to stand merely because you don't care for the article.  Get consensus on the intro paragraph, or your tag will be removed. Eleemosynary 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all may be true.  However, there is an administration point of view and it is incumbent upon us to presenbt it.  Whether you agree with it is not relevant.  It is relevant and substantial and needs to be presented alongside the critics viewpoint.  Both the criticism (what you outlined above) and the administration position are talking points so please don't try to claim one viewpoint is corrent.  There is no high horse.  Just competing adversaries. Both need to be presented.  --Tbeatty 06:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then present both in the body of the article, under separate headings.  Your previous edit brings the article into the all-too-common Wikipedia phenomenon of "Clinton was a great president, except when he wasn't.  And he was a horrible president, except when he wasn't."  It is not incumbent upon us treat the Bush (or any) Administration as a reliable source.  As for your contention that everyone involved in the scandal is just reading from talking points, that's a fallacy. Eleemosynary 06:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving background on the position of U.S. attorney is not Administration talking points and the source was the Tampa Bay tribune.  Putting hte contention of crtics in the intro, without a rebuttal is POV.  It is incumbent on us to be neutral and this article is not.  --Tbeatty 14:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there an articulate administration point of view?  As far as I can tell, the administration's story is changing every few hours.  Furthermore, there is not a single administration story, but a bunch of different administration officials trying to pass the buck to somebody else.  To demand that this "POV" be presented in the introduction is just an invitation to complete incoherence. john k 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Eleemosynary 17:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an administration point of view.  The talking points of the Democrats is that it's constantly shifting.  I have no idea whether that is an objective assessment or not.  The administration says that their firings were "related to policy, priorities and management" and this falls under the broader category of job performance (i.e. these attornies were not performing their job with the policy directions and priorities of the administtration.).  This has been the position all along but has been obfuscated with sound bites about their performance reviews.   It is the administrations position that these were perfectly fine attornies and employees whose direction was not hte same as the administrations and they were forced out because of these differences.   --Tbeatty 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to characterize hard news reporting of The New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, McClatchy et al, as Democratic "talking points."  This is POV nonsense, and has no place in this article. Eleemosynary 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread what I said.  I didn't characterize any "hard news reporting".  I commented only on Democratic talking points.  What's nonsense and POV is your concurrence that there is no administration viewpoint. --Tbeatty 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read what you wrote: "The talking points of the Democrats is that it's constantly shifting."  No, that is the reporting of hard news sources, (The New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, McClatchy ), all of which Wikipedia accepts as reliable sources.  You are equating this reporting with "Democratic talking points."  I've never stated there's no administration viewpoint.  When several hard news sources report that the administration has changed its "viewpoint" several times in the last week, that's not a "talking point" but verifiable fact.  All one need do is compare the transcripts of Gonzales' press conference, Tony Snow's press briefings, and Kyle Sampson's attorney's statements, as the above news organizations did.  To state that the administration has changed its story several times is not editorializing; it's backed up with accepted reportorial sources.  To state, as you have, that such reporting is the same as "Democratic talking points," is obfuscatory POV, and ridiculous. Eleemosynary 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly.  I think the characterization as a scandal is premature and controversy is just fine.  I think the addition of the Rove picture is premature given that it's only very cirumstantial around only one of 8 prosecutors.  Rove has not been linked to the firings as Meiers and Gonzalez have.  I think the intro is very one sided and tries to obfuscate the political nature of the position and a simple background would help.  Either a neutral source background like I provided from a newspaper or something from the adminsitration to offset the critics.  Keep in mind the administration believes the firing were appropriate, just mishandled.  Critics contend they were entirely inappropriates.  Readers would only get one view from the intro and therefore it is not NPOV.  --Tbeatty 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no examples then.  By the way, Rove has been linked to the firings. Eleemosynary 09:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been rewritten a few times and it's getting better.  Rove has been linked to discussions 2 years ago about firing all 93 lawyers.  It's unclear whether that discussion is linked to the firing of the eight lawyers only two months ago.  DNC talking points say that they are.  RNC talking points say they aren't.  --Tbeatty 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are dismissing reliable news sources to your own detriment.  Eleemosynary 06:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Shouldn't we refer to reactions of more than one politician? In particular, Hillary Clinton has now started a petition for the resignation of Gonzales. I added a link to it but User:JzG removed the text because "we do not support online petitions". --KarlFrei 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prominent Politician reaction is certainly okay, preferably characterized by a reliable source (not the candidates web site if possible).  But link spamming to a petition is not okay.  --Tbeatty 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can list some reactions in general, or some notable ones (e.g., I think it's significant that Sen Sununu, being a Republican, called for Gonzales' resignation) but we certainly don't want to list every Dem who opposes or GOP who supports the AG.  (And, as a tangent, links to petitions in an article like this is political advocacy, not reporting) -- Sholom 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political reaction 

message: It has been removed twice, by different editors.  And has been reinserted by the same editor stubbornly clinging to the specious argument that the Bush Administration's arguments are not being represented.  A reading of the article shows just the opposite.  One editor's stubbornness does not justify the NPOV tag. Eleemosynary 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I outlined the concerns above.  The other editor came here jjust to revert me.  He's about to be banned.  My concerns are valid.  PLease figure out how to put balance in the opening paragraph.  --Tbeatty 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WADR, as you are the one that thinks the tag is deserved, I think the burden is on you to suggest specific wording changes to the opening paragraph. -- Sholom 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did but my changes were already reverted. I will rewrite and put here.  In the meantime, I would appreciate someone putting the tag back as I believe it's valid.  --Tbeatty 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the tag as a valid and you haven't provided proof to prove your case. At this point it is clearly a scandal. Several congressional members are citing 200 pages of emails as showing that statements the Adminstration and Attorney General are false or misleading. C56C 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly a scandal at this point.  R. Baley 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neutrality Tag needs to go 

message: I have changed the summary paragraph (very quickly). It likely does not conform to Wiki standards, and there are some references that should be added, but right now I don't have time. I hope it is more neutral and a better summary than the previous one. 
I should note that I kept the scandal terminology despite my problems with it. I feel that controversy is more appropriate, but I kept it as that's the article title. Dkatten 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: It appears that close to zero prosecutors have been dismissed by the president that appointed them, except for a very few that had serious allegations of impropriety.  The Congressional Research Service recently put out a report on it.  It's available here -- Sholom 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compared to Previous Administrations and Firings 

message: These contradict each other.
*President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993, 
*President George W. Bush received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.
*Since 1978, until 2006, at least four US Attorneys have been "forced out" in the middle of a President's term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowpedia (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and not.  The answer is not slicing the difference between asking for a resignation and forcing out -- they are indeed the same thing.  The distinction is in the middle of a President's term.  Clinton (1993) and Bush (2001) dumped USA's from a prior administration.  What makes this unprecedented is Bush firing USA's that he himself appointed, i.e., in the middle of a Presidential term. -- Sholom 03:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is backed up by a Congressional Research Service report that " confirmed how unprecedented these firings are. It found that of 486 U.S. attorneys confirmed since 1981, perhaps no more than three were forced out in similar ways — three in 25 years, compared with seven in recent months." See previousArbustoo 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: Politics today are so polarized every time a political party looks bad, the cronies on both sides come out, pull off the gloves and start throwing out buzz words like "Liberal" "Conservative" and a couple other ones I don't think need mentioning.  While I don't really think this article is biased, it really does contradict itself like the above statement indicates.  I guess it's also worth mentioning this article has a really difficult time separating fact and opinion.
:I agree the thrown around labels like "conservative" and "liberal" should be avoided. C56C 18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I think the section Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Presidential_authority_to_hire_and_fire_US_Attorneys should be near the top of this article, as it gives some background and basis for understanding the speculated upon thinking and actions of the administration. At the bottom, this is a footnote to the controversy. -- Yellowdesk 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  --Tbeatty 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to near the top, the section: Presidential authority to hire and fire US Attorneys  

message: Is there a known source to the US Attorneys that carried over from one administration to the next, despite providing resignations to the incoming president? 
* Carter to Reagan
* Reagan to G.H.W. Bush
*  G.H.W. Bush to Clinton,
* Clinton to G.W.Bush?
::-- Yellowdesk 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for list of carryover Attorneys during changing administrations 

message: Harvard Law School recently had a discussion all about the firing of the 8 attorneys and Bud cummins (one of the attorneys) was there.  A link to the discussion can be found here .  If anybody wants to take the time to listen to it all I think there may be some relevant information that could be added to this page. Remember 14:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podcast 

message: Lately the press has been reporting this as Attorneygate Should we mention this? C56C 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those all appear to be editorials.  --Tbeatty 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all them are editorials.  And this , from Time Magazine, is certainly not an editorial.  Attorneygate it is. Eleemosynary 22:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change names to "Attorneygate"? 

message: New York times has a comprehensive article on the firing of Iglesias if anyone wants to add this info. New York times article. Remember 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iglesias firing 

message: Support as its originator. This will eliminate arguments over whether the editorial comments are accurate or descriptive enough.  Scandals,controversies, support for the action, and other POV can be covered in the article.  --Tbeatty 04:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support the change to '''2006 U.S. Attorney Dismissal'''

message: I created a proposal for a new wikiproject to deal with political scandals and controversies.  The idea would be to try to get a group of people involved in making sure that current and past political scandals were accurately stated and sourced on wikipedia.  Anybody that is interested can sign up at . Remember 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wikiproject 

message: LA Times has a new article about the history of previous firings and the administration's development of the talking point to point out that Clinton also fired his attorneys.  It can be found here . Some interesting excerpts: 
* "In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?" That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said. A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo. "On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said. 
* Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years....The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.
* Tom Corbett, Pennsylvania's attorney general, knows the story firsthand. "I am the one who took the message," he said in an interview Wednesday. In 1993, he was the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh and the liaison between the outgoing George H.W. Bush administration and the incoming Clinton administration. "We had been asking them for months: 'When do you want our resignations?' " he said.  The answer came in a meeting with Webster Hubbell, the associate attorney general, in mid-March. "He said, 'I have good news and bad news. The good news is the attorney general wants you to stay until your successor is confirmed. The bad news is she wants your resignations by the end of the week,' " Corbett said. He said the demand for resignations by the week's end was surprising. "We knew this was coming, but it broke with tradition to do it this way," he said. "It didn't make for a smooth transition. By the end of that week, they had backed off a bit. Over the course of the next few months, they made the changes. It was how the message was delivered more than what actually occurred."
* Despite Reno's request for all of their resignations, some U.S. attorneys stayed on the job for several more months.  In Los Angeles, for example, Terree A. Bowers, a Republican, became the interim U.S. attorney in 1992, and he served through 1993, Clinton's first year in office. Nora Manella, Clinton's choice for the post, took over in 1994. In Pittsburgh, Corbett says he stayed in office until August, when a new Clinton appointee won confirmation.  In New Jersey, Michael Chertoff, a 1990 appointee of President George H.W. Bush, continued into the Clinton administration before leaving in 1994. He is now the Homeland Security secretary. In western Michigan, John Smietanka, a Reagan appointee, served until the beginning of 1994. "I knew I would be resigning, but I wasn't sure of the timing. I ended up serving for one year of the Clinton administration," he said.  His predecessor, James S. Brady, served as U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., during the Carter administration.
* "Tom Heffelfinger, a former U.S. attorney from Minnesota who served under Bush — as well as in the elder Bush's administration — said a White House move to fire a large number of U.S. attorneys was quite different from replacing the appointees of a previous administration.  "In my opinion, it is not comparable," said Heffelfinger, a Republican who resigned voluntarily from his Justice Department post last year. When you have a transition between presidents — especially presidents of different parties — a U.S. attorney anticipates that you will be replaced in due course. But the unwritten, No. 1 rule at [the Justice Department] is that once you become a U.S. attorney you have to leave politics at the door," he said."
Remember 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past presidential firings of attorneys 

message: Turns out Gonzales was lying all along.  Eleemosynary 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on this... wait for it... '''SCANDAL'''

message: This is non-notable.  Of what significance does this have, even in the United States (let alone, the world)?  Absolutely nothing.  It's a media frenzy for two weeks, and then it dies.  It is not notable for an article.  --75.21.241.167 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL -- Eleemosynary 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know, as Gozales said, it's just "an overblown personnel matter".  (And Watergate was just a "third-rate burglary.") -- Sholom 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Gonzales :) Azathoth68 06:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete. 

message: From Dan Eggen Gonzales's Senior Counselor Refuses to Testify, Washington Post, March 26, 2007 
"The senior counselor to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will refuse to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the unfolding U.S. attorneys scandal, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, her attorneys said today.  Monica M. Goodling -- who is on an indefinite leave of absence from Gonzales's office -- also alleges in a sworn declaration that a "senior Department of Justice official" has admitted he was "not entirely candid" in his Senate testimony and has blamed Goodling and others for not fully briefing him...In the declaration presented to the Senate committee and released by her attorneys today, Goodling, 33, says Schumer and other lawmakers, including Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), have already "drawn conclusions" about the U.S. attorney firings. As a result, Goodling says, she has decided to "invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and decline to answer any and all questions from the committee or its staff...I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right, because the above-described circumstances present a perilous environment in which to testify." 
Remember 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on Goodling pleading the fifth 

message: USA Today:
:Americans overwhelmingly support a congressional investigation into White House involvement in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, and they say President Bush and his aides should answer questions about it without invoking executive privilege.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: WaPo has another article about the controversy with some new facts not in the current article . Remember 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article 

message: While TPM Muckraker  is obviously a left-leaning organization, they have done a number of things to try to put together the various bits of information related to this scandal.  I would recommend taking any of their information with a grain of salt, but for anyone looking for further information on this issue, I thought that they might want to check it out.  They also have created an extensive timeline (Here ) regarding the controversy that editors may be able to use to help make this page better. Remember 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I would like to see added more info on this table. Below I just added date of Oath below. From the memorandum from the Department of Justice documents cites the Date of Oath.
* Last day in Office, and 
* Date of Notice of Dismissal are also relevent and useful. 
Can I interest anyone in tracking this down?
At the moment the source is Kyle Sampson's Memorandum of March 2, 2005 to Harriet Myers, one source is: (plus following pages)   but the NYTimes version, or the Senate Committee's version would be better to cite. 
* Also, were any of these people interim appointees themselves?
:: -- Yellowdesk 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attorney info table improvement 

message: From that section I deleted a sentence that was supported by two references: one ref is a generic Thomas search that could not support the sentence without further user input; the other was an editorial. While I have no opinion as to the truth of the sentence, it needs better sourcing. Here's the text in full: Since 1978, until 2006, at least four U.S. Attorneys have been "forced out" in the middle of a President's term and before the U.S. Attorney's four-year term had expired.  rewinn 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mid-administration dismissals

message: From The Morning News: Purgegate primer, "Acknowledgements I relied on a number of sources for this primer, but none as much as the U.S. Attorney Scandal Timeline at Talking Points Memo. TPM has been generally regarded as the go-to web site for this whole affair.  Thanks also to the many contributors to the “Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy” Wikipedia page and the fine columnists at Slate.com." Remember 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We got a thank you 

message: "Some White House staff wrote e-mail messages about official business on Republican Party accounts, and some may have been wrongly deleted, the administration said Wednesday in a disclosure tied to the inquiry into the firing of eight U.S. attorneys."Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere, Rose Mary Woods is smiling. Eleemosynary 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deja vu, somebody?

message: added the POV tag, but did not leave a reason on the talk. Should he fail to explain his reasons, it will be removed promptly.
Hughey also took it upon himself to remove an entire section without discussion on the talk. C56C 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching this, and restoring the section. Eleemosynary 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag? 

message: A couple of items on a growing topic. More sources/aticles invited. -- Yellowdesk 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email via non dot gov domains 

message: Articles reviewing the documents and attorney dismissal process. More invited. -- Yellowdesk 13:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles: Anaylsis of Documents, Email, Planning 

message: The statement in the third paragraph of the introduction: "Under U.S. law the President has discretion to dismiss these Attorneys for any reason" is a bit inaccurate.
The President has the discretion to dismiss the attorneys without cause, but there are many reasons for which the President cannot legally dismiss his appointees. For example, dismissing a U.S. attorney for being black would be a violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act, or dismissing a U.S. attorney for being too old would be a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
While the President does have discretion to dismiss the attorneys for no reason at all, he does not have the discretion to dismiss U.S. attorneys for specifically prohibited reasons.
Moreover, as hinted at in the article, dismissing or threatening to dismiss attorneys in an attempt to manipulate the justice system is likely a violation of federal anti-corruption legislation. 
71.194.87.176 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authority to fire for any reason

message: I can't figure out how to fix it...In the insert box entitled "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy", Tolman
is listed as a U.S. Senator, whereas he should be moved up into Administration officials.  Also Senator Schumer should be listed; he is Chair of the "Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts" for the Judicial Committee.  24.41.39.124 10:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Error in insert box

message: I have worked to consolidate/merge various parts of this entry.  I apologize to all for not giving an explanation for what I was up to; given the nature of this article I should have given this explanation sooner.  The two main changes were: (1) Merge the small section devoted to resignations into the March 2007 subsection where they seemed to fit better in chronological order, and (2) Merge the section on Goodling's non-testimony and resignation into the March 2007 subsection on her resignation.  The basic facts in these now-merged paragraphs were repeated in a few places, so I thought it best to consolidate them.  The small section on the resignations was rather orphaned just below the summaries for each of the attorneys.  I paid special attention to not deleting anything - so either the material got cut/pasted elsewhere, or got commented out (as in the case of Goodling's non-testimony section) should anyone like to put back that material.  If any significant information got deleted, it was inadvertent and I apologize for that. 
I am pretty much done for now with contributions I wanted to make to this page (famous last words...)  I still find the article to be a little inhomogeneous - I like the (D, California) format to identify the Senators, but that format is not used everywhere in the article; similarly whether the first names of Senators should be used.  The list of links to material at the bottom seems somewhat redundant with some of the references and not really a careful selection of useful summary articles. All of this most likely due to the rapidly evolving story and Wikipedians trying to keep up.
I still think the picture of Rove ought to be removed for now.  At least until (if and when) a stronger association of Rove to these events is established.  Rove's picture here now is a little too much like "Conspiracy Theory" for my taste.  I recently read the biography for Karl Rove, which was rather enlightening.  Bdushaw 08:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Rove Photo, There's a source citation that he initiated the idea. Doesn't that count?  Gonzales has certainly demonstrated he didn't know what was going on in the hearing. -- Yellowdesk 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll get no complaint from me on taking down the Rove photo, or moving it around. -- Yellowdesk 04:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes

message: I am trying to include proper references and do a bit of clean up in the Gonzales section.  To say it is a "whitewash" is rather odd indeed - the text is merely simplified with no facts lost.  I will revert to my most recent edit; please keep the references I have so carefully included and try to modify the text from there if you think it is a "whitewash".  I rather thought the sections highlighting all the memory lapses were rather overboard and not really deserving of sections all their own and to be repeated - the memory lapses are still discussed and referenced.  Thanks.  Bdushaw 06:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gonzales Testimony Section