McClatchy: Revised Patriot Act used in firings, officials say(Moschella falling on his sword)

Revised Patriot Act used in firings, officials say
By MARGARET TALEV and MARISA TAYLOR
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON | The Justice Department said Wednesday that revisions in the USA Patriot Act that gave the administration unprecedented powers to replace ousted U.S. attorneys were designed by a mid-level department lawyer without the knowledge of his superiors or anyone at the White House.

The provision allows the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for the remainder of President Bush’s term without Senate confirmation.

~snip~


In e-mails released earlier this week, Justice Department officials discussed relying on the new powers to get “our preferred person appointed” with “far less deference to home state senators,” according to an e-mail by Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Gonzales.

In an interview Wednesday, William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general, said that he pursued the changes on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House. Moschella said his intent was not to strip the Senate of the power to reject U.S. attorneys.



more:http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/16905166.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics


By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
Wed Mar 14, 9:43 PM ET


ProscutorRule Changes were Long Sought
WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials, trying to defuse lawmakers' calls for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' ouster, said Wednesday they considered for several years ways to fill vacant prosecutors' jobs without judicial meddling.

Officials said they never intended to bypass the Senate confirmation process when the Justice Department pushed to change the renewed USA Patriot Act in 2006.

Instead, they said they sought to erase what Associate Deputy Attorney General William Moschella called a "constitutional anomaly" that let federal judges appoint interim U.S. attorneys in jobs that were vacant for more than 120 days.

"There's a conspiracy theory about this and it's nothing other than that," Moschella said in an interview.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/justice_prosecutors_1

If the "Enabling Act" (the "Patriot Act") was changed after it passed the House, did it not go back to the House after the change? How could the Senate and the House pass legislation without knowing what it had in it?

so I would say, yeah, absolutely they would pass legislation w/o knowing what's in it, or even having read it.

They're just that lazy.

Update: Specter Admits Role in Expanding WH Powers
By Paul Kiel - January 17, 2007, 3:33 PM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) confirmed that as Judiciary Committee chairman last year he made a last-minute change to a bill that expanded the administration's power to install U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval.

Seizing upon the new authority granted by Congress last March, the White House has pushed out several U.S. Attorneys, and begun to replace them without the Senate's consent.

"I can confirm for you that yes, it was a Specter provision," a spokesperson for the senator wrote to me in an email earlier today, responding to repeated inquiries. Earlier we reported that Specter had been fingered for the last-minute change, made in a select Republicans-only meeting after the House and Senate had voted on earlier versions.

Still, a mystery remains: Why Specter wanted the change, which arguably weakened the Senate's role in selecting federal prosecutors.

more:http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php


They are all a bunch of liars

changed again? Sounds like there's a big effort to protect Specter and have some mid-level staffer fall on his sword.

I wonder if the Dem Senators will still protect one of their own. Seems that if anyone can "slip" changes to legislation in without either House or Senate noticing then this is pretty dangerous. Who knows what else has been slipped in that we don't yet know about.

some mid-level paper-pusher snuck this into this historic legislation and NOBODY knew a thing about it? Not even the Senate?

Throw a Bunch of Crap Out There and See What Sticks.

You throw a plate of spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

It was clearly in play with these schmucks. I think they got so arrogant as they kept getting away with stuff and not getting caught or questioned for it and never having to pay for it that they just kept on doing it, bigger and badder. I think they figured that they were untouchable at a certain point and were NEVER going to have to face consequences or be held accountable for it.

Remember that famous comment (probably from rove) fairly early in this nightmare? It's the one about how "we're an empire now and when we act, you will study our moves - 'judiciously, as you will' - and while you study we'll act again, and you'll be left to just study what we do." I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the gist of it.

I think they just assumed, by so much previous success, that they were simply golden. Beyond reach. They were different. They had it all covered and had learned how to cover their tracks and stack the deck from all the mistakes of Nixon and Watergate and even Iran/Contra and the rest of it (and remember, too, most of these people CAME FROM THAT, and cut their teeth in those same earlier administrations, and watched it go under seige, and vowed to make sure it would NEVER happen to THEM). They figured that they were so damned good at this that they'd defied fate and karma and swinging pendulums and history and things running in cycles and all that stuff. They were gonna just continue to get away with it because they were going to be able to keep everybody snowed, and everybody else intimidated into silence, and whoever was left would be scared to death by the visions of swarthy, bearded boogeymen and mythical mushroom clouds that danced in these devious assholes' heads. They forgot that NOTHING lasts forever. Not even them. Certainly not their winning streak. And arrogant overreachers that they are, they didn't bother with a "Plan B." Didn't think they'd need it.

Just like in Iraq.

subverting the constitution by sneaking in legislation that takes power from congress, for no other reason than, because they could? :crazy:

It is so incredibly implausible that one guy in the Justice Department could alter a controversial bill to fix what he perceives to be a "constitutional anomaly" without any discussion, debate or approval and, worse, without anyone even noticing, that the lie would be laughable if it weren't so insulting. How corrupt has your government become when the Justice Department tells obvious lies?

We hear all the time that our Congress critters don't fully read the legislation and that provisions get "slipped in". This in itself is nothing short of scandalous.

I have a great idea for a screenplay.

The most powerful man in the world is a little-known reclusive government employee who works in the Congressional printing office. Initially he gets paid by certain people to "slip" in provisions on the qt and then one day he realizes that he himself can slip in whatever he wants. No one can call him on it because he has the goods on them and plus they are never quite sure who did what since there is no accountability anyway. The major plot point is that at first the little printer gets drunk with power and does some stupid crappy laws, but then he decides to use his power for good. Possible romantic involvement with the one young, naive, beautiful Congressional staffer who actually reads everything and figures it out. I'm thinking this might be a good role for Jim Carey.

Now, someone explain to me why this scenario isn't "plausible". I actually think it is plausible.

PS - any producers who like my pitch, give me a call.

some links from January

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002357.php

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002354.php

Aziz Huq: Attorney Firings: What the White House Wanted to do, But Didn't
~snip~
It was then-Chairman of the Senate Judicary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) 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).

Hard questions certainly need to be asked about how partisan politics entered into firing and replacement of prosecutors. But in addition, we need to ask to what extent was that process interwoven with the effort to secure increased presidential power over prosecutorial replacements? This is, as I have explained elsewhere, an executive cares deeply about executive prerogatives far beyond those that law or history would support.

That Tollman is a sitting U.S. Attorney ought not to make him immune from congressional inquiry about his past responsibilities. Both Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales too ought properly to know how and why Tollman came to put in his request. And certainly more must be known about why O'Neill inserted this provision without his Senator's knowledge.

In all this we would do well not to lose sight of Miers' original plan: the firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys. Note that this remains possible under the law today, with the President still having unfettered control over replacements. And even if the law were changed, a President with an aquiescent Senate could still fire and replace prosecutors for large political gain. And a blanket purge by this or a future President would, ironically, be immune from the charges of political bias that last December's firings provoked.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070314/cm_huffpost/043401

William Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general, said that he pursued the changes on his own, without the knowledge or coordination of his superiors at the Justice Department or anyone at the White House.

Somebody's fibbing.....

it's hard to keep track of them all. The story keeps changing by the minute/hour/day.

you mean to tell me that laws are being written by ideologues, by political appointees and not our elected representatives! What has conservatism done to Liberty, to democracy?

are writing the laws, passed by the people who take money for their campaigns from them.

It's hard to match this hilarity.

In the evolving story of the US Attorney Purge, you know that a principal part is played by this little known provision of the USA Patriot Act which allows the Attorney General to appoint US attorneys without senate confirmation (TPMmuckraker played the central role uncovering how the provision ended up in the bill). Up until -- what? days ago? -- the White House was promising to veto any attempts to overturn this critical bit of legislation packed with constitutional import and critical to the prosecution of the war on terror. Now, says the Justice Department, in the words of McClatchy News Service, the provision was "designed by a mid-level department lawyer without the knowledge of his superiors or anyone at the White House."

It's like some pulsing gyre of Anglomania -- George Orwell meets Monty Python, with Benny Hill along for the ride.

The separation of powers issue is just down the memory hole. Now it was just some Justice Department lawyer freelancing.

So not withstanding the fact that we now have emails of the Attorney General's Chief of Staff discussing the importance of using the AG's new power to avoid senate confirmation, apparently this is how the whole thing came about ...

more:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013058.php

in House or Senate know about until they've passed? :banghead: Who can be held accountable for this?

Who SHOULD be held accountable for changing legislation without anyone supposedly knowing?

for the day anyway. :D I love all of them. :hi:

:sarcasm:

That sounds like another instance of passing the buck.. And GOD I hate that name.. the "PATRIOT Act".