evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
Changed interim appointment law in 2006[edit]
See also: The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys and Timothy Griffin
As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The law permitted the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate; the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate.[27] The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March and May 2007, and it was quietly signed into law without ceremony by President George W. Bush on June 14, 2007.[28
Administration testimony contradicted by documents[edit]
See also: Bush White House e-mail controversy
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.[35][36] The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[37][38][39][40] The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.[41][42][43][44] In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress.[45]
Changed interim appointment law in 2006[edit]
See also: The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys and Timothy Griffin
As the controversy emerged, U.S. Senators were concerned about a little-noticed provision in the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2006 that eliminated the 120-day term limit on interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys made by the United States Attorney General to fill vacancies. The law permitted the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without a term limit in office, and avoid a confirming vote by the Senate. The change gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate; the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate.[27] The U.S. Senate was concerned that, in dismissing the U.S. Attorneys, the administration planned to fill the vacancies with its own choices, thus bypassing Senate confirmation and the traditional consultation with Senators in the selection process. Congress rescinded the provision by very large majorities in March and May 2007, and it was quietly signed into law without ceremony by President George W. Bush on June 14, 2007.[28
Administration testimony contradicted by documents[edit]
See also: Bush White House e-mail controversy
Members of Congress investigating the dismissals found that sworn testimony from Department of Justice officials appeared to be contradicted by internal Department memoranda and e-mail, and that possibly Congress was deliberately misled. The White House role in the dismissals remained unclear despite hours of testimony by Attorney General Gonzales and senior Department of Justice staff in congressional committee hearings.[35][36] The Bush administration issued changing and contradictory statements about the timeline of the planning of the firings, persons who ordered the firings, and reasons for the firings.[37][38][39][40] The origin and evolution of the list of attorneys to be dismissed remained unclear.[41][42][43][44] In response the Inspector General's report in September 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey appointed a special prosecutor to determine if administration officials had perjured themselves in testimony to Congress.[45]
