On Fox News, NPR's Liasson misrepresented law on U.S. attorney replacements
SUMMARY: Mara Liasson falsely claimed that the Bush administration's "interim" U.S. attorney appointees "couldn't stay there" without Senate confirmation. In fact, a law enacted as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an "interim" U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation.
On the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson falsely claimed that under new rules governing the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration could appoint people to those positions, "but they couldn't stay there" without Senate confirmation. She added that "Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones if they didn't like them." This assertion is simply false: A law enacted in March 2006 as part of the renewal of the USA Patriot Act does allow an administration-appointed "interim" U.S. attorney to serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation -- a change that lies at the heart of the current U.S. attorney scandal. Under the new law, if the president does not nominate a permanent replacement for his "interim" appointee, the appointee could serve at least until the end of the president's term in office. This denies Congress the opportunity to "pull the plug" on an "interim" appointee, contrary to Liasson's claim.
In December 2006, the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys, knowing that it could handpick replacements who could serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation because of the new Patriot Act provision. As the weblog TPMmuckraker.com noted, under the previous law, the attorney general appointed interim U.S. attorneys who could serve only until the Senate confirmed a replacement or until 120 days had passed, whichever occurred first. After 120 days, the local federal district court could select an interim appointee to serve until the Senate confirmed a replacement. The office of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress passed the Patriot Act renewal, reportedly added the provision eliminating the 120-day limit and the role of the local federal district court. At a February 6 Judiciary Committee hearing, Specter said that a member of his staff had inserted the provision without his knowledge. Democrats have proposed legislation (here and here) that would reverse the provision's changes. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales reportedly said that the administration will not oppose such legislation, but Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) has reportedly indicated that he intends to block the reversal.
Liasson's remarks came during a Special Report "All-Star Panel" discussion of the controversy surrounding the removal of the U.S. attorneys. Liasson noted Democrats' criticism that the Bush administration "was trying to take advantage of this rule that would allow him to put the new ones [U.S. attorneys] in without congressional approval." She then suggested that this criticism was baseless: "In fact," she said, under the new rule, "Congress could have pulled the plug on ... every one of the" administration's "interim" appointees. Liasson added, "They did get to go into office without confirmation, but they couldn't stay there."
In addition, Liasson attributed to "Democrats" the idea that the administration was "trying to take advantage" of the new rules by firing the U.S. attorneys. However, administration emails turned over to the House Judiciary Committee have indicated an intent to do just that in the case of J. Timothy Griffin, the "interim" U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin replaced H.E. "Bud" Cummins III, who was forced to resign. As a March 13 Washington Post article reported, "E-mails show that Justice officials discussed bypassing the two Democratic senators in Arkansas, who normally would have had input into the appointment, as early as last August." One of those "Justice officials" was D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned as Gonzales' chief of staff in the wake of the most recent disclosures, although, according to Gonzales, Sampson is technically "still at the [Justice Department] as he transitions out and looks for other employment." As the Post reported, Sampson wrote an email in mid-December 2006 "suggesting that Gonzales exercise his newfound appointment authority to put Griffin in place until the end of Bush's term." From Sampson's December 19, 2006, email regarding the controversy over Griffin's appointment:
My thoughts:
1. I think we should gum this to death: ask the [Arkansas] Senators to give Tim [Griffin] a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.
[...]
4. The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ leg[islative] affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to [then-White House counsel] Harriet [Miers], [White House senior adviser] Karl [Rove], etc.)
From the March 13 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): Isn't it equally political -- or is it equally political, Mara, for [Sen.] Chuck Schumer [D-NY], silent in the face of a mass firing of all the U.S. attorneys back in 1993, to be indignant now?
LIASSON: Yeah. If Clinton gets to have the U.S. attorneys he wants, which is what that was about, Bush gets --
HUME: All at once.
LIASSON: Bush gets the U.S. attorneys he wants. Now, the one thing that Democrats said, "Well, he was trying to fire them to take advantage of this rule that would allow him to put the new ones in without congressional approval." In fact, Congress could have pulled the plug on every one of them -- every one of the new ones if they didn't like them.
HUME: Right.
LIASSON: They did get to go into office without confirmation, but they couldn't stay there.
Could it be that the real purpose of the Patriot Act wasn't to protect us from turrists? Could it be that the Iraq war really had nothing to do with WMD?
Naaaaaaah.
Say what you will about "witch-hunts" as a lot of right-wingers are calling it, there have been NUMEROUS ADMITTED abuses of power in the justice department and elsewhere recently. Admitted, that is BY THE ADMINISTRATION. And what does Bush threaten to do to the Democratic sponsored bill requiring more transparency and openness in government? Use one of his first vetoes on it. Check it out here...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_co/congress_sunshine
Oh, I neglected to mention that the open-government bills enjoy broad Republican support as well. You would think Bush would enjoy this chance to make a positive PR stand on an issue with bi-partisan appeal... but apparently not.
Thanks for bringing this up, I am always surprised by the massive amont of hypocrisy.
This is what happens when people are attracted to journalism because they believe it's a glamour job, not one that involves work. This is what happens when people are hired as journalists, based on their looks or style, and not on their substance. And this is what happens when there is so much information floating around and so many "journalists" to grab it, that the product becomes more important than the quality.
She is stylish. She's got an old-school Aeon Flux thing going on with her hair.
I can't help but to have read this and thought, "See? MMFA doesn't only pick on conservatives, it picks on so-called 'left-wing' media outlet reps that can't get their facts straight, either!"
Take that, Bembridge scholars!
Liasson has three roles on Hume's show...
1 - act as the show's token female,
2 - agree with Brit when they're both clueless,
3 - bring up "liberal" views so Brit and the other guys can interrupt and shout her down.
Good job, Mara.
Liasson is very sneaky, she will try and support the GOP talking machine at any chance she gets.
so many of the anchors on NPR AM, PM and talk shows are ringers for republicans it makes my head spin and I begin yelling at the radio. We lost our Progressive Talk station here and now I have to listen to it on my computer which doesn't get very loud. Anyway, they've been doing this since the 1st gulf war so it's been going on a long time. don't forget Juan Williams is on that bandwagon too.
I just want to quickly lay it out for the skeptics.
The following is what the United States Code used to say before the reauthorization:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000546----000-.html
§ 546. Vacancies
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant. (b) The Attorney General shall not appoint as United States attorney a person to whose appointment by the President to that office the Senate refused to give advice and consent. (c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of— (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section. (d) If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled. The order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court.Note: if you click on "How current is this?" the link will tell you that it is a year or two old.
This is what it says after reauthorization on Page 56 of 87:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ177.109.pdf
SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:
‘‘(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.’’.
LITERALLY BOTH OF THE PARTS THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME LIMITS FOR INTERIM U.S. ATTORNEY APPOINTEES WERE TAKEN OUT. IF THE PRESIDENT NEVER GETS AROUND TO APPOINTING SOMEBODY ELSE, THE INTERIM APPOINTEE NEVER HAS TO LEAVE.
Great item, thanks R.S.K. and MMFA.
Consider how clearly written and how comprehensive this article is. It contains really just four paragraphs, in addition to the e-mail excerpt and the transcription of the broadcasted lie... consider the second paragraph alone:
It contains a link to the law itself, a pdf file that you can download and call your own, with just a click (yes, you too can possess a library of the laws, right on your computer, downloaded from the Internet Wire)... there's a link to a website that contrasts the reading of the old law with the new, in addition to citing a supposedly dumb-founded U.S. Senator, who inserted the new provision, but is going to blame a staffer for it (there seems an epidemic of that going around: 'blame the staffer')... there's a link to proposed legislation that would close this loophope, this end-around the Senate (read the law!), and also the paragraph notes some kind of GOP 'good cop bad cop' routine, involving the AG and Sen. Kyl, regarding the closing of the loophole...
One paragraph contains all that!
Now I don't know if you call such well-written stuff as this article is, whether you call it Journalism or teaching or an analysis of the law (complete with your own copy of the law!) or what...
But I know this much: If you think you're going to get anything like the truth from the broadcast arm of the RNC (otherwise known as Fox Noise Channel), then you need to think again.. and again... and then a litle bit more...
...and you still won't get the truth, now matter how many calories you burn or watt-hours you consume.
But on the other hand, if you get your information on this matter from MMFA, then you get the truth right in front of your face, right on your monitor...
Complete with links to the law itself!
Yes, you too can read the law, and possess your own law library!
Praise the Internet Wire!
Great job.
Just another day at the Bad Analogy Department
I watch this show on a regular basis and am amazed at it. It is like it is in a different world. Mara's role on the program is to be the balance to Mort and Fred as people have pointed out. However she normally just blurts out inanities such as the one above.
Also the usual FNC misdirection. The issue we are talking about is now not 14 years ago. They must have a full time Bad Analogy Department at FNC because whenever there is clear cut malfeasence in the Bush Admin they have old tired analogies. Ex. Libby = Berger,Delay=Jefferson, War on Terror= WWII
Any I missed?
You forgot one:
Monica Lewinsky = 3,000 dead American soldiers.
I emailed the NPR ombudsman, as the one most likely to care:
ombudsman@npr.org
Thank you, I have emailed as well.
The whole process of this change getting into the Patriot Act is worthy of a separate congressional investigation. In Feburary 2006, both the House and the Senate passed renewal of the Patriot Act. Because of differences in the bills, it went "to committee", where staff from the House and the Senate worked on a bill that would be passed by both the House and the Senate to be sent to the President.
Neither of the original bills passed by the House or the Senate included this change. Instead, a Justice Department employee named Brent Tollman contacted Arlen Specter's chief council, Michael O'Neal requesting the change. The request to insert the change was made because the DoJ was having problems with a particular confirmation of a new US Attorney and wanted to bypass the constitutional requirement of advice and consent from the Senate. O'Neal then added the change to the bill in committee, where it was sent back to the House and the Senate and passed.
No Senators or Representatives were involved in the change to this law. Furthermore, Tollman now serves as the youngest US Attorney. O'Neill apparentlhy was recommended to Specter by the White House.
So we have the Justice Department asking Senate counsel, who have strong ties to the White House, to make changes to bills that aren't seen or debated or written by Congress.
That's worthy of an investigation in and of itself. Not only does the White House change the law with "signing statements," it writes its own laws and inserts them into bills in committee.
It would seem that, besides enriching themselves and their campaign contributors, the NeoClowns' real reason for lying about Iraq and the "War on Turr" is to create an imperial Executive branch.
At present, the Congress's responsibilities to oversee and even investigate (if necessary) the administration of our Federal Government, those responsibilities seem almost overwhelming right now...
It's like there's not enough hours in the day (or staffers on the Hill) for the 110th Congress to properly oversee the Bush administration.
At present, the Departments of Defense and Justice, have been so corrupted by the private financial interests of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al, that it's only a slight exaggeration to say that those Departments have been 'privatized'.
What a job the 110th Congress has ahead of it, to right the crooked ship of state of the Bush administration... to return that ship's course to the heading of the American People.
I hope they can handle it, the 110th... and I hope whoever it is the American People choose to inherit from Bush et al this corrupted administration of their Federal Government, I hope they're up to the heavy task of fixing the DOJ and the DOD.
I hope the '08 ticket has Gen. Wes Clark on it, either at the top or not.
Because Brothers and Sisters, they are serious guys over there at the DOD... and they have an understandable habit of not taking seriously the commands, or even the advice, of one who is not one of their own. I'd think that the next administration of our Federal Government requires Gen. Clark's hand over the broken U.S. Army, broken by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld et al...
I'd think that the American People need Gen. Clark's qualifications in this situation... and it wouldn't matter not a wit whether he seems eager or even willing to volunteer for the job...
If he's called, he'll answer. That's how those guys are.
Duty, Honor, and Country, are no joke to such men, despite what Bush Cheney Rumsfeld et al seem to have done to those words.
This little nugget should give citizens on all edges of the spectrum The Shivers:
I think maybe we need something like Sarbanes-Oxley for law writing. If you're the supposed author of a law, you have to sign off on it.
Yes, the renewal of the Patriot Act was voted for by Clinton, Lieberman, Reid, McCain, and Obama among others as 89 Senators voted for it. Feingold and Byrd were smart enough to vote against it. In the House, on the other hand, most Democrats voted against it (however Edwards voted for it). The Act not only gave Bush the powers to put in interim US attorneys without Congressional approval but also renewed 14 of 16 parts of the original Patriot Act and expanded other powers.
Is Hillary going to argue again that she wouldn't have voted for the Act if she know Bush would abuse the power?
My crystal ball says, "Yes, she will."
This is the difference between career politicians and people who are in office because they enjoy the opportunity to serve their representatives. The Democrats you've mentioned knew better than to vote for the Patriot Act again, but I would wager they did it so they couldn't be called "week on turrur" by the troggs in the media and GOP.
Actually, most of the Patriot Act provisions were written by the Democrats back during Bill Clinton's reign. The Repubs wouldn't let the measures pass for fear of letting the Dems get the credit. Seems both sides are into destroying the Bill of Rights.
I don't even like her on NPR. She's pretty sneaky there as well. Some of the things she says tend to slant toward the right thereby losing her some credibility on a mostly credible news prganization.
That and she kind of looks like Jane from the British version of Coupling. And that Jane is...mad!
C'mon, Gina Bellman is faaaaar cuter.
Fox News loves Mara...
She's the sort of liberal they can count on. And from that bastion of liberal news, NPR.
She's a total joke.