Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/Archive 2

message: Calling this issue a "scandal" sounds very non-NPOV to me; one of our colleagues has added "scandal" as a redirect to the article, and is editing related pages to replace "controversy" with "scandal."  How do folks feel about that? DagnyB 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you or your colleague propose to change the title of this and/or related articles, I request you put forward a formal proposal, setting forth arguments both for and against, so that editors interested in the article can comment and discuss. Check on the discussion history here. There was a heated debate and hot fight about the issue that settled down on "controversy," more or less, in March. See: Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#New_Title_part_Deux_-_Request_for_Comment.  -- Yellowdesk 05:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this has been a debate on this page for quite some time. However, going back through the talk archives, I was having a hard time finding discussions in which there were not more supporters of a title that included the word scandal (e.g. U.S. Attorneys scandal of 2006-07). To me, the definition of a political scandal is an event concerning the actions of prominant political officials which produces sufficient outrage to cause long-lasting damage to the reputation of a politician and/or the resignation/firing of important officials involved. There is no standard of those officials having done something illegal - one can imagine any number of indisputable sex scandals which do not. This scandal has triggered the resignations or announced resignations of four top-level DOJ officials, and prompted over twenty Sentors, including many republicans, to call for the resignation of the Attorney General. If that's not a scandal, than what is? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   I didn't participate in the first big discussion on the topic, and had only two sentences to say on the second, which were to not change the name yet again.  I am not eager to revive the discussion. Checking over the move log files at the three file names I checked, it sure appears that the article was being renamed while the "Part Deux" discussion was actually going on--so it's not clear if everyone in the discussion was responding to the same "current name" during the discussion.   There's plenty of editing to be done without engaging in this discussion again. I invite you to consider that "controversy" is a superset of "scandal," and may permit more generality in the article.Without reviving the discussion, looking at it from the aspect of where we stand now, there are:- 45+ articles in the category, and - probably  75+ article-s"pace pages that link to the page - there are now three article-space sister articles, three templates, and a category keyed to "controversey" - searches on "scandal" will lead you to the present article, because of the past move-wars left behind redirects to the current titleIf you still desire to put the question before the editors of the article, I suggest you put forward a formal proposal, using Template:move here, put into Wikipedia:Requested_moves that it's a controversial move, so the too-helpful editors there don't attempt to close the conversation prematurely, and put a notice on each of the  "attorney controversy" talk pages and templates, and the category, (specifying the current name and the proposed name, so the future archive is clear) that the discussion is occurring so everyone can weigh in. And probably also on the bigger biography articles' talk pages too, like Gonzales, Goodling, Rove, and so on. Note, that it is not a "most votes wins" kind of thing.  Perhaps it will amuse you that the New York Times summary keying into their many articles on the topic manages to avoid both controversy and scandal. Hmm. Articles about United States Attorneys New York Times (updated daily).  -- Yellowdesk 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy or Scandal?

message: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides -- who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department."Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also check out this article on the White House response to the firing and Rove's involvement MSNBC article Remember 21:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delegating dismissals

message: Reading the first paragraph, it seems to me some changes are needed.  I hesitate to mess with that paragraph without first having a bit of discussion.  Mainly the word "attorneygate" - this label for this controversy is just not used that I can tell.  There is a reference for it, true, but the reference is old.  A google search for attorneygate turns up basically nil.  So I propose to drop the "attorneygate" label, at least until when and if it becomes commonly used in the press.  I propose the first sentence be changed to:
:The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute concerning the unusual dismissal of eight United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration in late 2006 and early 2007. 
where I also inserted "unusual", which I think better describes the situation.
There is also a copy edit problem - the sentence that starts with "A key issue...", but then lists two issues.
On another topic, someone editing the Chuck Schumer entry pointed out that most of the Gonzales questioning/testimony of the April 19 hearing is available on Youtube, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Iezc2kIcw for Schumer/Gonzales exchange.  What do you think of a small template that would assemble/organize the collection of youtube links to the Gonzales hearing?  I found the actual hearing to be most illuminating, bringing the issue to life (and rather making clear what is going on, i.e., deliberate obfuscation).
And might I also suggest that much of this "Discussion" page be archived?  Bdushaw 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with all above. Remember 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does C-SPAN, as a reliable source, have the testimony online? Much better than YouTube, and likely to be on the web a lot longer at reliable URLs. The "key issue" sentence is about one topic: Senate confirmation bypass. I'll see if I can improve that one.  OK with me to see "attorneygate"  go. Typical of Time magazine's editorial proscess. Basically agree with Bdushaw -- Yellowdesk 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For instance, Bdushaw above states, "And the dismissals were certainly not usual; this is not an ordinary, usual personnel matter as the administration is trying to suggest". So by saying "unusual" in the first sentence it most certainly skews it against the administration. It is basically disagreeing with the administration and telling the reader that the administration is wrong (and perhaps speading falsehoods). What is wrong with stating a perfectly factual sentence to start, and letting the reader decide if it was so "unusual"? --Ali'i 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect to the administration's statements, in the history of the United States no U.S. attorneys have ever been fired in this way.  On the one side are the administration's statements, true, but the vast body of evidence, including statements from the U.S. attorneys themselves, is on the other side, that the firings were unusual.  From another perspective, a naive, curious reader approaching the issue for the first time will wonder what the big deal is - people get hired and fired all the time, and so might think that the issue is all political hay.  But that impression is erroneous, and the word "unusual" cautions the reader against that.  The word "unusual" does not necessarily suggest the administration is wrong ("over-blown personnel matter"), but does suggest that they strayed outside of normal or traditional U.S. attorney policy - I think that is correct.  If you like, another compromise would be to remove "unusual", and make an explicit statement such as "the administration may have been within its rights to fire the attorneys, but such action strayed outside of normal, traditional policies regarding U.S. attorneys."  Having gone through this, perhaps the issue is that the word "unusual" is a little too vague and can be understood in too many different ways; IMHO "unusual" is a succinct and accurate word in this case, however. (I am stopping now before I get sucked in to the article again...)  Bdushaw 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bdushaw makes a good point (well said!).  This certainly is "unusual" (actually, "extraordinary" and/or "unprecedented" are probably more accurate adjectives), and an entire section at the bottom helps explain why.  I think Bdushaw's best point is that "unusual" is not a value-laden word, and does not imply any wrong-doing, only that this is not an ordinary situation.  Given all that has occurred, I can't understand how anyone would think this is not an unusual situation. -- Sholom 21:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to propose this metaphor for the argument motivating the conversation so far: Suppose we have a leading paragraph in an article "Mid-day Sky" that says "The sky has a color" because that has no "point of view," and later on in the article state, since we are finally examining the color of the sky during the mid-day "The sky is blue."  -- Yellowdesk 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it from "unprecedented" to "atypical". The firings were not something that happened everyday, but the word "unusual" had too many negative conotations. (To me, "unusual" emits all kinds of back-room, X-Files type of conspiracy theory stuff.) I'd submit that "atypical" more accurately and neutrally addresses the problem, although I won't be changing it back if others think I am way off-base. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, well, read this story and tell me it doesn't sound a little like the X-Files!  (I was thinking the same thing, actually)  The administration has not exactly been a font of truth, honesty, and understanding in the matter.  The truth is out there. (:)) (I've just been watching the 1st season of the X-files...)  I am modestly opposed to "atypical" - it doesn't sound quite right, rather awkward, IMO.  It also suggests that some firings of U.S. attorneys are typical, which I don't believe to be true, rather my understanding is that such events have been rare or uncommon.  My preference at the moment is "unprecedented", which seems neutral and accurate.  Bdushaw 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Or "X-File-like dismissal"  That works.  (I think I've been editing too much...)  Bdushaw 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph - changes needed? 

message: It seems there are enough choices on what's next that a Wikipedia:Peer Review would be fruitful, so I have started one up. You can see the comments, and my detailed request to previously unexposed editors at: Wikipedia:Peer_review#Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy. We'll see if we can contemplate making use of the suggestions made there. -- Yellowdesk 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: A common thread one runs across is the extent to which the firings, or, alternatively, cases of attorneys who were not fired, influenced various elections across the U.S..  Fired attorneys and elections or voter fraud cases seem to go hand in hand, although not in all cases.  While I am not yet convinced it is a good idea, this is to raise the issue of starting a new section summarizing the various ways the dismissed attorneys thing has possibly influenced elections, including the voter fraud issue.  Could such a new section be substantiated well enough that it would preserve NPOV?  Or is the subject just another X-File?  It is a fact that the administration has pushed the issue of voter fraud, and also a fact that independent studies recently showed that there was not much evidence of voter fraud.  Does the former imply that the issue was a priority for U.S. attorneys?  Etc.
Bdushaw 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this article's failure to cover in depth the explanations for why the firings are considered by many to be politically motivated (e.g. prosecutors were pursuing investigations against republicans and refusing to pursue questionable investigations against Democrats) is a real weakness. NPOV requires that we make the doubt clear when we discuss these issues, but it is just as POV to leave them out as it would be to state that they are true. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The controversy and elections 

message: I created a timeline page but haven't deleted any text from this article that also appears on the timeline page.  You can find the timeline page at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline. Remember 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline page

message: I rather disagree with the way our new lead has portrayed the motivations for the firings.  Not that
I disagree with those particular motivations as possible/plausible, but that there are other equally 
plausible explanations, and the motivations given are too specific to do the subject justice.  See also 
my rather overly-long paragraph above.  To give all of the possibilities would make the lead more fair, 
but also overly-long.  The lead should at least give a broader framework for the dismissals.  (Slightly
tongue in cheek, we probably enough widely varying explanations that we can start an entire template
list of them...both all the X-file-like suggestions on the one hand, and the administration explanations
on the other, both equally all over the map!)
We've also lost our unusual/unprecedented/atypical ("unprecedented" still my preference) description of
the dismissals, per talk above.  I believe that is an important word for the article (still rather disagree
with "atypical").
As an aside, we now also have the McNulty resignation, and the startling Gonzales assertion yesterday that
McNulty was behind the firings.  That assertion does not agree with the facts as I know it, putting
this article in the position of directly disagreeing with the Attorney General of the United States.
At some point, this article should call a duck a duck and declare the firings politically motivated,
with White House involvement, seems to me.  Perhaps not yet, but we might start discussing how to go 
about doing that in a NPOV way.
Bdushaw 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I tried to make the accusations in the lead a bit more general. I'm sorry if my edits were overly bold for a heavily debated page, but it seemed very strange to me that the central accusations than define why critics found the dismissals improper did not appear in the lead (this doesn't necessarily mean they are true, just that they are central to the "controversy"). If you'd like me to find more references, it won't be  a problem, but I thought the Seattle Times ref that had them coming from the mouths of two of the attorneys themselves was particularly compelling in establishing the central importance of these accusations. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead you found before your additions was rather "flat," because it used to be six times bigger, and some of the specific interpretations and criticisms were moved down into the "Issues in brief" section.  Keeping the lead down to basic facts, and allowing the issues in brief section begin to put context on the facts seems to be the way to go. Otherwise, we're subject to lead proliferation again. The angle you added may be better put into that issues section. -- Yellowdesk 15:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very sympathetic to your desire to keep the page, and especially the lead concise. I have again trimmed my additions and made them as general as I could. However, I simply don't think it makes any sense to have a lead to an article about a "controversy" which fails to give any real indication as to what the controversy is about. As it stood before, the lead essentially said "Nine U.S. attorneys were fired in late 2006. This was controversial, and some people think it qualifies as a 'scandal'. Read below to find out why." While these are "basic facts", they are not really basic facts about the controversy, for which we need some very brief suggestion of what exactly is being charged & denied. The way I have revised it now, I don't think it is a "specific interpretation." The job of a USA is to investigate and prosecute - critics say that many of the USA's were fired for investigating and prosecuting Repulicans and/or not investigating or prosecuting Democrats. The administration denies it. That really is the core "controversy", and I think it needs to be stated in the lead.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since  Bdushaw you're on the elections angle, (as well as Rustavo), I invite you (perhaps both of you) to dream up a three or four sentence item for "Issues in brief" at top, and also contemplate a thematic body-of-the article section covering the issue and all of the players that have commented or come forward. What do you think?  On the dismissed list, we could put a new column: Date dismissed, or Date resignation requested, and sort the list by date, and that would take care of the non-standard others, for a while. -- Yellowdesk 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Critics argue that the affair has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the non-partisan tradition of U.S. Attorneys.
The lead is getting a little long again, though.  (I've also added a wikilink to the Feinstein history in the article; that was helpful.)  Bdushaw 22:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I admit when I last touched it, I was noticing that I was dragging the sense away from people contradicting each other (and more towards the documents being contradicting of testimony). Reading the transcript of the dismissed attorneys, and the House commiittee's release of interogatories to dismissed USAs clarifies how the DoJ leadership differs from the USAs views. Comey's House testimony of May also describes the need for reputation and non partisanship. I think I may have quoted him on his own bio page. Go for it. -- Yellowdesk 23:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep looking for ways to shorten the lead.  Do we need: "The controversy began to receive nationwide attention in March 2007."?  It would seem to read better without this sentence.  Bdushaw 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our new lead... 

message: Here's the policy on dates: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). 
Generally link full dates so that the editor/reader's preference settings will display their chosen format. 
Basically, wikify dates of the kind:
* MONTH DAY, YEAR
* MONTH DAY
But not:
* MONTH YEAR
because there is no browser display-preference benefit. LInk on this occasion when there is something that is actually significant about that MONTH YEAR. (Meaning rarely)
:: -- Yellowdesk 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date wikification 

message: Part of the story is the Interim United States Attorneys. Any takers on creating bios for the missing articles? -- Yellowdesk 14:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The interim appointees - who are they? 

message: If someone could help out with the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline page I would greatly appreciate it. Remember 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good so far.  I think it's also OK to have some blank place-holder headers for to-be-expanded upon text. A list of all people summoned to testify in calendar order, may be worth doing,  for example. -- Yellowdesk 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've done a lot to the timeline.  Please someone check it out and give some feedback. Remember 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help (Timeline sub article) 

message: Try filling a job for Deputy A.G. for a lame duck administration under an A.G. under fire. -- Yellowdesk 23:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News of low morale at DoJ 

message: I have been working for the past couple of hours on issues that have been nagging me (in particular, the separation of powers issue as a basis for the Patriot Act changes), clean up regarding our recent separation of subarticles, cleanup regarding how to go about describing the number of dismissed attorneys, and a number of other small changes that I've likely forgotten about.  I hope that these changes come under the mandate of our Talk here.  Before I continue anymore (if I haven't gone too far already), I'll pause for a day or two for others to digest what I have done - comment/correct/revert/yell/etc.  The article is looking a little better to me now; hopefully it looks better to you too...
See also changes to Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary.  Bdushaw 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote from Senator Feinstein at United States Attorney may interest you for historical background. From Senate debate in, I think, March, 2007; via Congressional Record. -- Yellowdesk 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent major changes... 

message: I ran across an article yesterday that pointed out that Griffin's 120-day term limit ended April 20, yet he is still in office.  Since he was appointed under the revised law, I suspect that means that his term is not limited.  I also read some of the e-mails and noted that there was/is a definite strategy to be entirely disingenuous about this process - that is, to talk, delay, feign good faith, etc. and run the clock out on these appointments, while pretending to be respecting the senate's confirmation prerogative.  Not quite sure how to handle this in the article, if at all.  I suspect Griffin and the others are "grandfathered in" and will remain in office to the end of the president's term, in spite of the political rhetoric about respecting the senate's right to confirm nominations.  Griffin stated in February that he would not seek senate confirmation, that he would not get a fair hearing, etc.
The article states that congress has reverted the appointment process, but that the bill has not been signed yet.  Anyone know what the status of that is?  Is that still true?  If it is not signed yet, then "intermim" appointments can still be made.
One nuance the article doesn't discuss (not really important) is that Gonzales assured Senator Pryor that Griffin was to be nominated for Senate confirmation, the senate was not to be by-passed, but a few days later an e-mail from Sampson talked about by-passing the senate on Griffin's appointment.  Pryor was pretty angry about that.
Also, Rove spoke in early March on the issue:  Rove Speaks in Little Rock  Complains that people are playing politics with the issue.  Ironic, eh?   Note he states that he believes all "seven" should be senate confirmed, which leaves out Griffin.  It is perhaps notable that he is speaking fluently on the issue and is seems to be fully engaged in the problem.  What he does not say is that the matter is for the AG and the DoJ; whitehouse influence on the DoJ is apparent.  No more firewall between the whitehouse and the DoJ as in the past.  Bdushaw 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sampson said the "good faith" thing. He's gone. Gonzales said he would confirm Griffin, but Griffin later on said said he would not go before the Senate, when the controversy broke. Probably a promise broken on Gonzales's part now. the two bills have not made it to a conference committee, They seem not to be identical. Check the THOMAS reference to see the status. I speculate any Gonzales appointment stays on, grandfathered in. The bill may specify transitional processes. I forget. -- Yellowdesk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Griffin appointment 

message: I created, for publicly released  documents and hearings transcripts: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents.
It mostly links to the Washington Post, and is modeled in part after their documents links page. 
Not sure If I should turn the order into "natural" chronological order. Now it's Newest on top, old at bottom.  
 It also needs to name the participants in the each hearing, for clarity. (done items)
:-- Yellowdesk 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job!  (FWIW, I also left, there, the following suggestion: "Small suggestion: for transcripts of the hearings, put it under the date of the hearing, rather than "released" date") -- Sholom 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "documents" list/article 

message: For: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy documents
I can't find a journal that published the transcript for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feb 6, 2007, which had Paul McNulty testifying, with others. Looking for help on that transcript. It sppears C-SPAN did not record it either, as best I can tell. 
Generally, available transcipts were originally produced by Congressional Quarterly, and posted by individual newspapers. CQ is a subsciption site. -- Yellowdesk 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a complete Transcript Feb 6, 2007 Senate Judiciary hearing. 

message: On Monica Goodling in the LA Times:  Bdushaw 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monica G. 

message: We seem to have a legal blog link spammer visiting this and other articles.
You can see the activity here: .  Your collective and continuing review of their edits to the various USA articles is desired. -- Yellowdesk 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable opinions and facts will be covered by reliable secondary sources.  Blogs should not be relied on in any article accept for factual information about the blogger (i.e. Blogger "John Doe" writes that that his birthday is Jan1, 1950.)  Being earlier than newspapers and other journalism outlets should be a red flag, not a banner of credibility.  Credible journalism outlets have standards.  Law journals are reviewed by peers.  Blogs by law professors/legal scholars  are not reviewed.  If they have a particular pet legal theory they should submit it to law review.  Or better yet, take it to court.  But some guy's musings on his blog is not notable or scholarly and shouldn't be treated as such.  --Tbeatty 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam to Legal blog for Goodling Transcript by [[User:NonEuclidean||NonEuclidean]] 

message: Looking for objections to pushing the Congressional testimony section into an article of its own.  Remaining in the main article could be a summary paragraph or two and a listing of dates and key persons testifying. -- Yellowdesk 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is no objection for two days, the article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy hearings has been created. It possibly could use a better name. The original section it came from, Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Congressional_hearings from at this moment has not been removed, pending checking for named references that appear for the first "full" occasion in the "congressinal hearings" section, and also appear elsewher in the main article. There is at least one of these to fix. -- Yellowdesk 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now done. -- Yellowdesk 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional hearings or testimony sub-article proposed 

message: One point that confuses me somewhat:  appointments made under the Patriot Act re-authorization...does that make the USA the actual USA?  Or is he still the interim USA?  I suspect the former is true.  So Griffin is now the actual USA, having been appointed under the Patriot Act provision by the AG?  The DoJ website seems to list appointments under the Patriot Act provision.  There seems to be a bit of confusion about this point, e.g. the Jeffrey A. Taylor page.  (the article there points out that if Congress finds Gonzales in contempt, Taylor is responsible for convening a grand jury...and Taylor was appointed by Gonzales under the Patriot Act provisions...what a mess.)  Bdushaw 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're "actual," yet still interim USAs, and merely arrived by non-standard means: AG appointment, and can disappear if the president elects to nominate someone and that someone is confirmed, in that instance, no formal dismissal is needed.  The A.G. cannot unilaterally dismiss even an interim, the President does...but you can see that the USAs assume that the A.G. speaks for the president and can ask for resignations anyway. -- Yellowdesk 07:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim or actual? 

message: Per my earlier threat, I've started a revised section (still very crude) in Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox to replace the existing "Administration planning to replace U.S. Attorneys" section.  Perhaps by the end of the week we might have it ready to go.  I hope it will also draw material from the subsequent sections, so that overall the article will shrink considerably in size while ending up with a much better discussion of the issues involved.  Bdushaw 20:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section underway in sandbox 

message: Should we includ Sara Taylor on the template of people who resigned during the controversy? What do people think? Remember 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, for now. Especially since there's basically nothing at her bio-article.  We do need to get an organization chart of the several departments Goodling and Sampson interacted with. They were mostly dealing with the next level down from Miers and Rove.  And there's a legislative group cited in email/testimony too. -- Yellowdesk 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sara Taylor

message: We'll probably see several elections articles by the time of the Schozman and Graves Senat Judiciary hearings on June 5, 2007. 
This article includes Bud Cummins Arkansas, Todd Graves Missouri, Bradley Schlozman, William Mateja DOJ, David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay Washington State, Mark (Thor) Hearne Bush/Cheny 2004 elections counsel,  Monica Goodling's hiring/influence on the replacement for Graves. 
This is in form ready for citation (use edit section to grab it) 
Bibliographic form:
* 
::Add other articles you might find here, pending incorportion into the article. -- Yellowdesk 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *One more of interest..."Rove Linked to Prosecution of Ex-Alabama Governor"  Bdushaw 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *A change in political tone of U.S. Attorney appointments? (though nothing to do with elections)..."L.A.'s U.S. attorney post may be filled soon" Bdushaw 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Then there is the recent arrest by Kevin O'Connor, Gonzales' present Chief of Staff and U.S. Attorney for Connecticut :"Connecticut Senate Leader Arrested"  Gonzales' Chief of Staff arrests a Republican politician after the horse has left the barn...probably nothing to this, but let us consult the X-files...  Bdushaw 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *McKay in WA seems to think his dismissal was a result of the events of the Governor's election: "McKay suggests cover-up in prosecutor case".  But on all these sorts of things, we are unlikely to ever have, e.g., e-mail records that say "we need to can McKay because he didn't help us during the Governor's election!"  How to best approach the article, when all we are likely to have is innuendo and circumstantial evidence?  The situation is becoming something of a witch hunt (just because you are on a witch hunt, doesn't mean there aren't witches out there?) - too much of this without some concrete evidence will put us out on very thin ice.  Bdushaw 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the fact to report is X former USA said Y. -- Yellowdesk 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On thinking about the issue, I think my concern is that in looking for elections/voting issues we can assemble quite an impressive case of circumstantial evidence such as "X former USA said Y."  But is this based on picking and choosing evidence/stories to tell?  When on a witch hunt, suddenly everyone is a witch...  Piece by piece it can be NPOV, but choosing which pieces to discuss and how those pieces are assembled together may be POV.  Does that make sense?  Just trying to avoid the thin ice; a certain amount of caution is in order.  That said, Schlozman appears in the Heffelfinger story, see below; yet another witch? Bdushaw 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Also an article with comments from Heffelfinger, who is fairly angry at the administration:"Heffelfinger slams Justice Department"  The article refers to the issue of Tribal voting in Minnesota.  Bdushaw 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections Influence sources 

message: An editor has added a new section to our issues in brief that I don't agree is a major issue - an issue
to be sure, but not a major one.  I believe we are trying to keep that section as short, succinct and focused on the major issues as possible.  I would suggest moving the discussion of how the list was generated to our Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox page for now, and perhaps adding a brief sentence about the list development question to one of the other sub-sections (administration contradictions?)
The subsection "Delegation of Attorney General's authority; DOJ investigations" I suggest re-titling something like "Politization of hiring practices at the DoJ" and developing that paragraph along those
general lines (rather than just the Monica G. thing).
(I am back to the wikipedia for a time; I have a photo I took of Brett Tolman's office in Salt Lake City I may upload later today.)   Bdushaw 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the editor that added the item in question seems to log in only once a week and perform just one or two edits. It would be nice have a colloquey here about the paragraph with that editor, whom I invited to provide citations for the added text, but that may take a while. I do notice that  some of the ideas added could be transformed into a single sentence and added to the "Administration rational unclear" section, which might bear suitable re-titling as well. As in--the "rationale" is unclear in part because who's rationale it is is unclear--nobody owns it--within the DOJ.  As far as I'm concerned on your proposed edits, go ahead. I'm going to be busy with other things for the next several weeks. -- Yellowdesk 03:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, here I am. I will go and add citations to the text. I should be able to simply use existing citations in the article, so I hope it will not be too much work. However, if as Bdushaw says we want to keep this section succinct, we might actually want to remove almost all of the explaining text in this section and only have an almost bare list of items (that are now the section headings). What do you think? The article is getting very long. (I will still work on the text since it might be useful anyway.) --KarlFrei 08:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *The substance of your addition is most useful, and worth putting forth in detail in the article (and almost hilarious): detailing the quotations among all of the parties saying something like "I don't know where the names came from" will be valuable. It's a bit of reading to wade through all of the the testimony, and pin down the citations. The several other sub articles "hearings" "documents" and "timeline" undoubtedly have the sources in hand already.  What are your thoughts on combining a succinct summary with the "rationale unclear" issue in brief?  Yellowdesk 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as I was writing it, I got the idea that perhaps it would fit better together with the "Delegation of authority" subsection immediately above it. The combined subsection could be called "Responsibility for the process; origin of list of names". What do you think? BTW, I got the inspiration for writing this subsection from a Daily Show sketch :-) --KarlFrei 19:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *By the way, the article has gone down in size at least 50% in the last month, as we've shipped off major sections to sub-articles. One reason it is so large is the footnotes amount to one-half of the text of the article. You're invited to check over the working outline to rewrite the now duplicated chronology in the main article, so that it is more thematic. See  Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox -- Yellowdesk 12:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues in Brief section 

message: We are starting to see articles on the corrosive effect this scandal has had on the justice system:
*
*U.S. attorneys fallout seeps into the courts.
Perhaps a new section on Issues in Brief?  See also the new ref. 27 by Eggen/Washington post on the trouble in filling positions at the Justice Department.  Bdushaw 06:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fallout

message: I have reverted a large insertion into the introduction concerning Attorney Yang and a purported lack of evidence about Lam (including a claim that Lam didn't prosecute Cunningham):
# It's too much for the intro. Put it where it belongs
# It appears that Yang resigned as US Atty in 2006; the information inserted is not accurate
# It seems implausible that Yang rather than Lam prosecuted Duke Cunningham. If so many sources got this wrong, it' best to cite to court documents. rewinn 05:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yang issue

message: * It looks like ALL of the McClatchy news service, Washington Bureau articles will need new URLs, as the McClatchy Newspaper system has moved off of "realcities.com" to "mcclatchyDC.com."  Please don't dump the bad links but research the link for the original article and relplace with the current URL.  Fortunately this series of articles' footnotes are high-quality, listing the article title and authors and date in nearly every case, so this should be not that hard to fix. 
::-- Thanks. -- Yellowdesk 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McClatchy Newspapers website change. Footnotes need revised URLs 

message: In regard to this statement in the third paragraph under the aformentioned heading:
"There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle of their terms."
Forgive my private school education, but simple math shows more than four years served for every attorney in question. They had all served full terms and were "holdovers." Perhaps the table showing the names and dates of firing could have a column added for the date of appointment (or senate confirmation since all were appointed and confirmed before the Patriot Act changes.)
That is, if we're interested in showing that there is nothing controversial after all.
Chuck in Oklahoma 
Multitasking: The ability to screw up several things at once. 23:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The "middle of a term" phrase refers to the middle of a presidential term; I have clarified that now. It is what the cited source is saying...the middle of the presidential term in office, for the two-term presidents, dismissing appointees that the same administration appointed.   As the article says, holdovers, those who have served the initial four-year term typically stay on. The appointment law says their term may continue until a replacement is confirmed, and in any case, all U.S. attorneys may be dismissed at anytime by the president.  It is atypical to dismiss holdovers appointed by the sitting president, and as the cited sources indicate, to do so to a number of them at once has not been previously done. -- Yellowdesk 01:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations 

message: I have a few comments concerning the new section, although I don't have time to implement the
ideas, alas.
First, the section needs to point out the rather significant Constitutional showdown that is
looming - there are several recent references (LA Times, NY Times, CNN yesterday/today) on this issue:  The stage is set for a significant and perhaps landmark Supreme court case or some other drama such as impeachment of DoJ officials, etc.  The subpoena problem/claims of executive privilege has become really quite a big deal; even dwarfing the Attorneys controversy itself, seems to me.  It is the administration intransigence vs. the will of Congress in its oversight role ("checks and balances") of the Executive Branch.  More needs to be said to highlight these issues.
Second, the article mentions that one of the fallouts of the attorneys controversy is that the USA appointed by Bush will have to enforce the contempt charges against the administration officials/DoJ officials.  That's quite a mess and true.  I note also that apparently Congress has the ability/authority to arrest and hold people on its own, although it has to hold them in the basement of Congress.  This is a factor of last resort, should the USA's be ordered not to enforce the contempt charges.  This was described in a reference recently (so sorry I don't have precise references...; there is a Specter quote on the subject).  While very rarely used, and many many years since it was used, at the moment I wouldn't rule out Congress eventually holding some of the administration people in its basement...
Lastly, the section on the contempt has run into the basic problem that the article structure has with the mixed issues/chronology organization.  We were trying to fix that in the [sandbox], but lost steam on the effort.  The contempt of Congress section is technically out of order.  Perhaps we (i.e., you all...) might have to abandon the sandbox attempt and try a quicker restructure of the existing material along the lines of (a) give a basic and quick chronology, and (b) then describe the issues.  E.g., perhaps break this entire section into a major section of the article outside of the Jan.-Feb.-Mar. timeline.  My 3 cents, Bdushaw 05:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contempt of Congress section 

message: Shouldn't the "a" in "attorneys" in the page title be capitalized? The position is U.S. Attorney, not U.S. attorney. The way we have it now, it sounds like some civilian lawyers were fired instead of federal prosecutors. VolatileChemical 11:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. The term can be found variously capitalized and not. In ordinary prose, it is U.S. attorneys,  similar to a paragraph on various U.S. presidents. It is interesting that the statute does not capitalize the term, even in a section heading. See .  I have not researched the issue.  I would suggest not rushing to change the title. If you want to pursue it, perhaps putting a formal proposal forward here, so the interested know something is about to be decided. There is a redirect with capitalization, so searchers get to the article. There are a number of competing potential names to sort out if a change proposal comes forward. See above:  Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Name -- Yellowdesk 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title capitalization 

message: We seem to be having a problem, approaching vandalism, with the word "unprecedented" in the lead.  I note the following to justify this word:
*We had an extensive discussion in the Talk here (now archived) concerning the lead and specifically the word "unprecedented".  The consensus, I believe, was that "unusual" was not quite appropriate (being somewhat X-file-like), but "unprecendented" was generally acceptable.
*The sentence in question gives several references/citations that discuss the "unprecedented" nature of the firings, specifically using that word.
*The article has a section describing the policies and historical background on USA's appointments and terminations that shows why the situation with these 8-10 USA's is unusual/atypical/unprecedented.
I think these points justify the use of the word "unprecedented" and our defense of its inclusion in the lead sentence.  Bdushaw 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unprecedented" in the lead

message: I renamed the header there about no-confidence, resignation, etc to simply "Resignation". The comment told me to come here and say that. --Golbez 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberto Gonzales 

message: It has been kindly pointed out that a number of source/citation URLs have expired.  
 All of the Associated Press citations should be easy enough to revive. 
It may take more effort for the others. See this set of edits by User:CrazyGlu, on September 10 2007
: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy&diff=156854089&oldid=155526235
-- Yellowdesk 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needing improved URLs