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

Controversy or Scandal?

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)

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)

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? -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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 title
If 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)

Delegating dismissals

"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."[1]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also,: The White House is demanding preemptive access to the emails held by the RNC, claiming the emails may contain information regarding ongoing Congressional investigations.[2][3] [4][politics/politico/thecrypt/main2696174.shtml][5]

And what to make of this? Apparently Monica Goodling Instructs DOJ Officials to Delete Documents.[6]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The other amendment to US Attorney laws

This section is getting attention, because at least one U.S. Attorney is a Justice Department official living in Washington, but appointed in a district far from Washington. Details to come. -- Yellowdesk 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Source: |http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.03199: (Library of Congress Thomas)

H.R.3199

USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
SEC. 501. RESIDENCE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.

(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 545 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Pursuant to an order from the Attorney General or his designee, a United States attorney or an assistant United States attorney may be assigned dual or additional responsibilities that exempt such officer from the residency requirement in this subsection for a specific period as established by the order and subject to renewal.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of February 1, 2005.

• Yes. And now we see that that USA, William W. Mercer, was ther very one who made the change. And, further, Sen Jon Tester is now calling for his resignation. See here Question: how do we work it into this article? -- Sholom 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to be an aspect of a larger story, administration control of Justice department, with Senate approval not needed.
  Anyone know of a resource that identifies all of the individuals or AG/designee orders for dual positions? -- Yellowdesk 14:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph - changes needed?

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)

References

Agree with all above. Remember 21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The word "unusual" tends to skew the article right from the start. The sentence, "...is an ongoing political dispute concerning the dismissal of eight United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration... is more NPOV and less weasel-ly. It still accurately describes what the article is about without biasing the reader in the very first sentence. --Ali'i 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but for the fairly nuanced nature of this article. And the dismissals were certainly not usual; this is not an ordinary, usual personnel matter as the administration is trying to suggest - there is ample evidence that the situation is unusual. The word was not inserted casually - it is meant to set the tone for the article, yes, but it is an accurate tone. I disagree that it skews the description; it does not set a POV. The bipartisan furor about this controversy is exactly because the firings were unusual. However, this is the sort of issue this article routinely faces - there is very little that is black and white here. I'll leave it there and let others discuss so that we can reach a consensus. Cheers! Bdushaw 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you like, we can insert "unusual" further down as a compromise: "The actual reasons for the dismissals remain unclear." -> "The actual reasons for the unusual dismissals remain unclear."? Bdushaw 20:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To Ali'i: After reading Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Terminations under previous administrations which, with citations, describes the uniqueness of the dismissals, I'd like to know if you have a different assessment of the word unusual in this instance. -- Yellowdesk 20:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Gonzales Testimony Template

I had in mind something like this to the right. The C-Span link is there but it (a) seems to have a link that looks fleeting, and (b) is the entire 5 hour hearing via two realplay links (morning and afternoon sessions are separate links). The YouTube links are nice because one can pick and choose what one wants to see; one gets to the meat and potatoes of the hearing more quickly. Bdushaw 05:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the the C-SPAN URL, is javascript. Barf.
I'll see if their archives do the same thing. -- Yellowdesk 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

javascript:playClip('rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter071806_oversight.rm')

Here's a search on C-SPAN:

(Long URL)

I can't complain about YouTube now. -- Yellowdesk 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the revised template on testimony to the main article. It may be subject to scrutiny of the "Wikipedia is not a web-index" flavor. -- Yellowdesk 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Readability of lead paragraphs

Is this an improvement? (just a test) Test format of top

--Yellowdesk 08:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that works - I would suggest starting the list off with a heading (but not a Wikipedia heading?) in bold such as "Key Points" or "Executive Summary" and then modifying the text of the points so that they stand by themselves. I was uncertain if references were required in the lead paragraph, since the lead paragraph is a summary of of the article that follows. Presumably, therefore, the summary is justified by the article that follows. I leave the issue to your better judgement. Bdushaw 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure myself on footnoting the lead. Given how controversial this thing is, I see no harm in footnoting it. I'll try out a format or two following your suggestion on a sandbox subdirectory, and ask for comment. -- Yellowdesk 12:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a stab at another version. Headers subject to improvement and critque. This does highlight that the lead intoductory section could benefit from some modest reorganization and reordering. Take a look at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox. Edit there, comment here, for now, treating that sandbox as a mere mock-up. -- Yellowdesk 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While it reads well, I don't think it captures the full spectrum of the controversy, and the fact that side tentacles are branching off (e.g. the allegations of a partisan litmus test for hiring inside the DOJ, the claimed partisan functioning of the civil rights division, the possibility that a murder investigation was neglected for partisan reasons, interactions of this scandal with current corruption investigations, the undermining of confidence in the justice system, etc.). At its core, the controversy is about whether or not one or more senior government officials (DOJ and/or White House) were attempting to improperly alter the way the Justice Department operated in order to influence elections, and if so, who is to be held accountable. Studerby 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the introductory paragraph does need some work to better capture the elements of the controversy. However, I disagree with Studerby concerning the main focus being the elections. As discussed in the article, there is evidence that the plan was to use the U.S. Attorneys positions to stack the deck for conservatives, to use the U.S. attorney positions to develop the field of conservatives (while filling the positions with those more likely to toe the party line) (c.f., [7] and "A GOP source said..." and the evidence that Rove initially suggested firing all attorneys.) This is the "strategic" background, IMO. The elections component (including McKay in WA with the governor's election, right?) may have provided a "tactical" justification for some of the firings, but other positions with turnover did not necessarily involve elections. Note the title of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings: "Is the DOJ Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys?", together with the recent revelations that Goodling was screening lower-level appointments for political orientation. We have talked about the eight attorneys, mostly, but there seem to be several other examples in the past year or two of questionable appointments. The whole thing is just rather strange; the fired attorneys were mostly conservative GOP party men, so firing them seems to have aggravated conservatives as well (e.g., Senator Ensign of Nevada) (liberals focus on elections and other sinister elements; conservatives focus on competence; both are right in this case, seems to me). So, IMO, the "strategic" background provided the pot, and into that pot goes the elections, the Patriot Act issue and how that Act got changed with no one knowing about it, Gonzales' competence, Goodling, Sampson, the e-mails, administration flip-flopping, interference with on-going investigations, retribution for past investigations, etc., etc., etc. The key administration mistake (speaking from a clinically political POV) was in not pulling the plug on the plan when the GOP lost the Senate in the November elections; someone forgot... If the GOP had kept the senate, nothing would have happened, seems to me. The main difficulty the introductory paragraph faces is providing substantiation for much of this - well and good for the NY Times opinion page to state such things, but the wikipedia needs better substantiation and NPOV. I recall the PBS interview with Senators Specter and Leahy after Gonzales testimony where they both agreed that the reasons for the firings were still unclear - well, they are not stupid people and I think it likely they have some notion of what is going on, but they cannot state as much just yet. One approach for the article lead might be to use the "Some have suggested that...", or "Possible explanations include..." phrasing, and to be very inclusive about the various reasons that have been suggested so far, including giving generous representation of administration statements (insofar as that is even possible). Bear in mind that we are meant to avoid original research as well - can we even take an original source such as a Rove e-mail and start to draw themes and inferences from it? Or do we have to wait for a report or article to be published? Re: references in the lead paragraphs; I scoped around (e.g., Hilary Clinton) and it seems to me that references are common for statements, but perhaps not required. Perhaps references for some of the stronger statements, but a summary drawn from several sources and the development of the article itself might not necessarily require a reference, or even have a reference, seems to me. But any such summary should be well substantiated in the article. Bdushaw 08:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On references in the lead, I think it will save those editing this article from needless dispute to have references, and those references would be re-used in the body of the article too. And save us trouble if, perhaps, the intro is moved into the body of the article. See below. -- Yellowdesk 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Let's all remember that this is merely the intro, mindful of how long this part of the article should be. Perhaps we need only a three sentence intro above the Table of Contents, and launch into a Survey/Summary of the issues after the TOC. Reactions? -- Yellowdesk 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have pared down some of the introductory text, since some is later repeated in detail in the body of the article. Also added, in summary, several additional issues that have not made it into the intro previously. All in part to see if some kind of headers (mock-up only, at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/sandbox} suitable to highlight and improve readability might be put into place. Subheaders on Introduction now implemented on the article. We'll see if they survive for a while now. -- Yellowdesk 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The intro is long and unwieldy compared to other articles. The summary of issues should probably be moved to the body. Also, identifying a particular issue as "key" is subjective and open to dispute. I would move the e-mail archiving and calls for resignation to another part of the article, as the e-mail thing seems relatively minor, and the calls for resignation aren't really an "issue", but a response to the scandal. Djcastel 14:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I added the item about email, and calls for resignation, I'll take them off. I'm favorable to agree on moving a survey of issues into the body of the article. Which implies the question, what should be on top.
On the "key issue" item, none of this could have happened, in the sense that if confirmation hearings were required, the administration would not have so cavalierly dismissed USA's. This "below the level of public discussion" of the administration moves is mentioned in emails of Sampson. That item could be toned down from "key" though. -- Yellowdesk 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read more of the DoJ e-mails than any sane person should, and I did not find that the evasion of confirmation hearings was a major factor in their decision-making. I could be wrong about that, but either way, it's a subjective assessment to say that was "key". I would simply list those issues which are necessary in order for the reader to understand what the controversy is about. It might be something like

• Motivation for firings: It is not clear if the administration fired the USAs for purely political motives (not illegal, but politically embarrassing) or to obstruct the prosecution of a case (clearly criminal).
• Evasion of confirmation process: There is evidence that at some point the DoJ decided to exploit Patriot Act provisions allowing indefinite interim appointments in order to circumvent the confirmation process (even though the Senate was majority Republican).
• Possible obstruction and coverup: Non-cooperative witnesses, contradictory testimony, etc. The e-mail issue might go under here.
• Who was responsible?: AG denies detailed knowledge, passes buck to inexperienced underlings. Possible White House involvement.

Pretty much all of this is already covered in the current summary of issues. Basically, we should just lay out the issues so the reader understands what the charges are, without trying to prejudge which if any of these will pan out. Djcastel 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions regarding the overall organization and spinning off of sub-articles: The lead section seems to me to be an outline of a main analysis-of-issues article; so convert that to the main article, with comprehensive discussions of those issues. Spin off a chronology article that includes the course of events - who did what and when, which is important as a historical document, but not so much for understanding the main issues. And spin off the summary of the dismissed attorneys to a sub-article; that section can almost be moved wholesale to the sub-article. Both the chronology and attorneys sub-articles are of course very important to the main article and should be highlighted at several places. Note that the dismissed attorneys article should also include those other attorneys fired prior to Dec 2006 under similar circumstances. Summary of Dismissed U.S. Attorneys 2006 and Chronology of Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy? Perhaps also Congressional Hearings on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy which could keep a record of the results of the various congressional hearings? Bdushaw 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• PROPOSAL:
  Looking for OBJECTIONS to just moving the four paragraphs in the introduction with subheaders DOWN below the table of contents, as a start to the body of the article.
  That would be:
  Issues in brief:
  • Changed appointment and confirmation law in 2006
  • Administration rationale unclear
  • Administration rationale contradicted by documents and testimony, and changing; extent of White House participation undisclosed
  • Delegation of Attorney General's authority; DOJ investigations into hiring processes
  

-- Yellowdesk 12:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Without objection, after two days, the change has been carried out. We'll see if this one lasts for a while. -- Yellowdesk 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of article

The floor is open for discussion and suggestions on (and opposition to) sections that might be shipped off to be a sub-article.
-- Yellowdesk 08:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that the large section with brief discussions of each of the fired attorneys should be a separate sub-article ("Dismissed U.S. Attorneys"?). Removal of that (very important) section will also make the article flow better. The article is already lacking anything in the way of a discussion of events from the House of Reps., or the various developments with Goodling (delegation of authority, politically screening appointees, etc.). And events are likely to continue to unfold over the next several months. The article will get yet longer. (As an aside, see also: [8].) Bdushaw 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: put all of the controversy over the particular attorney on that particular attorneys page with a redirect to that page. But I agree we need to split this thing up because it is getting too big and seems it will just get bigger. Remember 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps separate the chronology of events to a separate article, and have the article be focused on the main issues? I wrote the Jan-Feb-Mar chronology down since parts there seemed to be missing, but expected that organization would only be temporary. The article is developing an unfortunate mixed chronology-issues (non)organization. So three articles: (1) summary of fired attorneys, (2) main issues/analysis, and (3) chronology? Bdushaw 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea of a timeline article. I vote for that. Remember 12:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an aside, but see also Congressopedia: [9] - a wealth of material there. (I am really out of time to work on this article!) Bdushaw 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with moving the Attorney details to their own collective page, and see how much that helps improve a timeline on the main page...(which may also get shipped out). Looking for a good name.
Dismissed U.S. attorneys seems pretty generic. Any other suggestions? -- Yellowdesk 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to take the initiative and post a request for help over on the Wikipedia administrator's page, if there is such a thing - mainly about what form and direction this overall page should take. This before we get too far; those guys are pretty good at quickly getting things squared away. (I am facing a deadline crunch in my real life and can't spend time on this; so sorry!) Bdushaw 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Request posted here: [10] - don't know if it is the right place or not, but presumably if it is the wrong place the request will get forward it to the right place. Bdushaw

Yes, not really an incident. I hasten to add that I have no objection to the direction that seems to be developing, just a hunch that we might be deviating from acceptable Wikipedia forms. This just in, hot off the press, the cyberbits still warm, in the continuing saga of this story: [11] A nice reference for supporting the stronger, obvious conclusions of the lead section. Bdushaw 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Help me before I edit again!!!) On the proposed "Dismissed U.S. attorneys" page, I've been assuming that the page would be a sub-article to this one, or located at Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy/Dismissed U.S. attorneys Yes? If so, then the generic name would seem to work, since it could not be mistaken for other issues concerning dismissed USA's. Bdushaw 01:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

NO, it stands alone on its own. Generally subdirectories are used for work in progress. -- Yellowdesk 02:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions regarding the overall organization and spinning off of sub-articles: The lead section seems to me to be an outline of a main analysis-of-issues article; so convert that to the main article, with comprehensive discussions of those issues. Spin off a chronology article that includes the course of events - who did what and when, which is important as a historical document, but not so much for understanding the main issues. And spin off the summary of the dismissed attorneys to a sub-article; that section can almost be moved wholesale to the sub-article. Both the chronology and attorneys sub-articles are of course very important to the main article and should be highlighted at several places. Note that the dismissed attorneys article should also include those other attorneys fired prior to Dec 2006 under similar circumstances. Summary of Dismissed U.S. Attorneys 2006 and Chronology of Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy? Perhaps also Congressional Hearings on the Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Controversy which could keep a record of the results of the various congressional hearings? Bdushaw 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(The above comment was copied by Yellowdesk from "Readbility of Lead Paragraphs" to this section, "Length of Article." Apologies.)

• I think we have a starter name, as proposed by Bdushaw in the "Readability" section above:
  Summary of Dismissed U.S. Attorneys 2006
  Let's start that one in a few days after we've had a chance to talk about it. (And lets do just one "major thing" at a time, and sort out the results on this item before doing the next.)
  We can change the title if a better one comes along.
  Please state your opinions/objections.
  -- Yellowdesk 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merely for the purposes of discussion, here is just a cut and paste of the USA's out of the main article, to give you all a sense that there's a bit to be done to make a new article stand up on its own. Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox -- Yellowdesk 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone care to draft a paragraph for the coming blank spot where the dismissed attorneys' brief stories will depart from? -- Yellowdesk 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

• I'm planning on doing the split out of the details on dismissed attorneys in the next day or so, since so far there have been no negative comments.
  Second thoughts on title. The last proposed the title was: Summary of dismissed U.S. Attorneys 2006
  Since it's hard to call it a summary, and we actually call it "details" in this article, I'm looking for objections to, or improvements to:
  Details on dismissed U.S. Attorneys or
  Details on dismissed U.S. attorneys, 2006.
  

-- Yellowdesk 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• the "Details on dismissed attorneys" section was moved to the new article Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary. I don't object to invention of more clearly descriptive name. I elected to leave the "Other related controversial actions under Bush presidencyl" stories in the main article, pending some discussion on moving them or not. -- Yellowdesk 12:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

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)

The controversy and elections

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)

Speak of the devil...[12] Bdushaw 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is also a link to a collection/archive of articles on the attorneys subject at the Washington Post [13] Bdushaw 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another new link on elections: [14] - I'd say we have enough to open a new subsection on elections in the Key Issues section. Bdushaw 04:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline page

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)

Our new lead...

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)

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. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tinkered with the lead - see how you like it. I hope the changes, while significant, are still within the boundaries of our "Talk". I commented out the rather silly (IMHO) furor/scandal sentence; restore it if you really must; I don't think it adds much. I added the hot-button "scandal" word later on. My own view of the controversy/scandal debate is that the situation is obviously a scandal (if it wasn't before, it certainly is now), but that I am happy leaving "controversy" in the title just because that has been the title for so long. So "controversy" in the title, but o.k. to use "scandal" in the article is my view. (Now to delete the sentence about the "ignorant public"...) Bdushaw 18:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Also - I changed the number of dismissed attorneys in the controversy from nine back to eight. My own opinion is that the eight began the controversy and define the controversy. Other attorney's were apparently dismissed previously to this, but I prefer to distinguish those from the eight. At the very least, it is otherwise hard to give a definite number - e.g., I think we might be up to eleven dismissed attorneys, possibly more. So I prefer eight dismissals that start and define the controversy, while others were apparently dismissed under very similar circumstances. But we still need to have a policy decision about that. Similarly, in the table of dismissed attorneys, I am in favor of a two part table - the top part being the dismissed eight, the bottom part being the others fired in similar circumstances. Bdushaw 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have been contemplating...but it might take me a little while to become proficient with the issues/facts to be able to start that section. An election section seems justified. The article and its various sub-articles seem to be in an awkward state of transition at the moment; I wanted to work on aligning the various parts (a little like a tire alignment...) Bdushaw 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the lead, as you see. I wanted to state that for me, at least, the lead now captures the main elements of the controversy; I am happy with it [15]. Is is apparent that the lead will likely require a continual revision as events unfold - the tense will need changing, events become irrelevant, arguments become outdated, etc. Bdushaw 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I mourn the loss of the perfect lead...(sniff, sniff) :) I don't object to the lead but wanted to note that when I said "contradictory" I was referring to the fact that the administration testimonies were contradictory. Not sure if it is worth changing the lead for this nuance. Reading the NY Times editorial today I was reminded of the larger issue here that the lead implies but does not state. The lead mentions all the trees, without stating they are in a forest. I was contemplating adding a sentence like the following right before the Gonzales resignation sentence:

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)

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)

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)

The number of dismissed attorneys

A recent edit has bumped Graves formally up to a "fired attorney" and increased the number from eight to nine. There are other examples like this, e.g.:

Warner Firing

Karl K. "Kasey" Warner may have been fired under similar circumstances as The Eight:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fired_prosecutors

This is to suggest that we develop a cohesive policy for what to do about this situation. Should the article retain the eight fired in December separate from previous firings? Previous recent firings seem historically anomalous as well, the incidents are just individually isolated.

There are also cases (Biskupic, if I recall correctly) of attorneys who were on "the list" but were then taken off (after allegedly playing ball with questionable prosecutions).

My own preference, having thought about it a bit, is to keep the eight fired in December separate from others. I suspect it preserves NPOV better. Bdushaw 19:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe keep the eight separate, but list any other firings or "resignations" under this administration as a subsection. It's at least as relavent as firings under previous administrations. It would mean another sub sub cat., but it could go like this:

4 Details about individual attorneys

4.1 Original 8 atts.

4.1.x list

4.2 Other vacated attorney positions

4.2.x list

It would give room to expand as, or if, needed. R. Baley 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These two sections are proposed to go to a daughter article, unless someone puts forward alternative ideas. See Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Length of article. See a starter (out of date mockup only) at Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox. I guess a listing of names will stay in the main article, with an brief paragraph. -- Yellowdesk 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After being puzzled for a while I've concluded the following: The seven attorneys fired in December 2006 were Iglesias, Lam, Bogden, Charlton, McKay, Ryan and Chiara. Cummins was dismissed in June 2006, and so falls into the category of some of the others, such as Graves. This greatly strengthens the notion that others were fired prior to December 2007, but leaves the organization awkward. Looking for a consensus on how to approach the issue. I still favor keeping the 7 that set off the controversy separate, but am open to ideas. The consensus is important because it significantly affects how the article, its templates, and its sub-articles are organized. I may edit the dismissed summary template to give the separation to see how people like it. Bdushaw 21:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've sketched out a revised template - see how you like it. Bdushaw 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Cummins, though "training" his replacement over the summer of 2006, found out that his replacement was to be appointed in the news in December, and submitted his resignation effective one or two weeks later. He apparently had no timeline told to him. I'll check the cites. -- Yellowdesk 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I found the sources. Griffin came back from a tour of duty in Iraq, and had been working as a special assistant in Cummins's office from September onward. The Talking Points Memo timeline says that Cummins learned of the date of the Griffin appointment only after the announcement, because he had been hiking with his son December 15th...Cummins resigned immediately, effective Dec 20, 2006. (Arkansas Times, Dec 28, 206.) So, He was considered one of the orginal eight, because he was announced in December 2006. But Cummins knew in June or earlier of the desire of DoJ to replace him. -- Yellowdesk 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for opinions from others on how to handle the Cummins dismissal in the article - part of the original eight, or dismissal/resignation in December a coincidence? My mildly held opinion is to keep the Cummins case separate from the seven because he knew his dismissal was coming six months earlier, because of the obviously political motivation for his replacement by a Rove favorite (unlike the others), and because it greatly strengthens the case that others were dismissed prior to the seven in a wider, longer-term strategy to replace some of the USA's. Bdushaw 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Archives: 1 (March 12 - May 1, 2007) • 2 (May2, 2007-May 29, 2007)

Date wikification

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)

Formatting references for easier editing

I went through the text and cleaned out misplaced periods, spaces, quotation marks and the like associated with the text near references. I reformated how the <ref> and </ref> tags related to the text so that they can be found with greater ease in the editing screen. Here is what I suggest when people add a reference. The good result of this is that you can locate the end of any reference easily, since the closing </ref> is on the first column. This should make it easier to add or edit the text of the article while noticing where the end and start of each reference is. Comments invited. -- Yellowdesk 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

some text at the end of the sentence.NOSPACE<ref>NEWLINE
body of reference material hereSPACE-NEWLINE
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

The result looks like this while editing:

some text at the end of the sentence.<ref>
body of reference material here
</ref>
Start of next sentence.

---

I have never seen anyone take the approach you advocate. While I don't think its worth warring over I think your approach makes things extremely messy. Having edited wikipedia for a while now, my eyes look for the <ref> and automatically scan for the </ref> and ignore anything in the middle unless I think that its suspect. I believe that it is preferrable to have refs in as small a space as possible so that when your looking to insert information into a pre-esting segment it is clearer where you can insert without messing up an already existing referrence. Your system becomes especially cumbersome when multiple refs are used for the same point.--Wowaconia 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The intended result is that the editor can easily find:
  - the end of any reference,
  - the beginning and start of each reference when there are several together at the end of a paragraph or sentence,
  - and not least, easily find the start of the sentences,
  - plus generally all sentences are set-off from the references, instead of all being run-on together.
• The run-on aspect of references and text in a reference-intensive article such as this, judging by all of the effluvia that had to be cleaned up--in my view is a challenge for most editors.

-- Yellowdesk 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The interim appointees - who are they?

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)

Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary ()
Dismissed attorney		Effective date of resignation	Federal district	Replacement1
Dismissed December 7, 2006
1.	David Iglesias	Dec 19, 2006	New Mexico	Larry Gomez
2.	Kevin V. Ryan	Jan 16, 2007	Northern California	Scott Schools
3.	John McKay	Jan 26, 2007	Western Washington	Jeffrey C. Sullivan
4.	Paul K. Charlton	Jan 31, 2007	Arizona	Daniel G. Knauss
5.	Carol Lam	Feb 15, 2007	Southern California	Karen Hewitt
6.	Daniel Bogden	Feb 28, 2007	Nevada	Steven Myhre
7.	Margaret Chiara	Mar 16, 2007	Western Michigan	Russell C. Stoddard
Others dismissed in 2006
1.	Todd Graves	Mar 24, 20062	Western Missouri	Bradley Schlozman6
2.	Bud Cummins	Dec 20, 20063	Eastern Arkansas	Tim Griffin5
Dismissed in 2005
1.	Thomas M. DiBiagio	Jan 2, 20054	Maryland	Allen F. Loucks
2.	Kasey Warner	Jul 20054	Southern W. Virginia	Charles T. Miller
1Source: Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys Offices 2Informed of dismissal January 2006. 3Informed of dismissal June 2006. 4Date resignation requested by the Department of Justice is unknown. 5Subsequently submitted resignation on May 30, 2007, effective June 1, 2007. 6Subsequently returned to positions at the Department of Justice in Washington

Help (Timeline sub article)

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)

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)

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)

Consequences of Timeline article

We have a re-write on our hands in the main article, thanks to the great efforts of Remember in filling out the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy timeline.
Views desired. What should stay, and in what organization? -- Yellowdesk 13:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we definately don't need a chronological blow by blow account but I guess we should maintain the basic story about when the planning, the dismissal, and the investigation. Other thoughts? Remember 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Thematic chronology" comes to mind
I'd also like to revive Bdushaw's idea of something like Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy congressional hearings where we could get the list of testimony, transcripts, documents and chronology for that aspect in one place. -- Yellowdesk 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a list of all the stuff related to the hearings. Maybe an elaborate template? Remember 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect, because we have not yet kept track of all of the people appearing before congressional committees, that it's bigger than a template. I suggest starting as an article that looks like a list, and see if it is still as small as a template-able object when we bring it up to date. -- Yellowdesk 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Remember 23:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found a possibly comprehensive listing of transcripts (and documents) in calendar order over at the Washington Post.
Documents Related to the U.S. Attorney Firings Washington Post (no date).
No strong propoasals yet on editing down our main page here...yet.
-- Yellowdesk 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the "Documents Related to the U.S. Attorney Firings" link above goes to the wrong place - here is the correct URL, I think: [16] Bdushaw 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. Fixed now. Thanks for catching that. -- Yellowdesk 01:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Back to the prospect of revising the main article. We, at the moment, need to be careful to update the timeline if the main article's thread/chronology is expanded.
  Looking for ideas and implementors of thoughtful revisions of the main article. -- Yellowdesk 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My own thoughts (and I am wondering what happened to all the editors of this article!) are that the chronology of the main article should be reduced, and the main chronology should be maintained at the timeline article. The limited chronology in the main article serves the purpose of showing how the controversy blew up, which I think is relevant. But many of the chronological details can perhaps be moved over to the chronology page (which I have avoided working on for the time being; only so many hours in a day...). The main article can't keep up with the changes, can't digest them, and I don't think it ought to. (I inserted the Tolman/Sampson fight over the USA position because I thought it supported a number of themes of the article.) We are already rather behind; the McNulty resignation and other important recent events are not disussed. But the discussion of the issues themselves can be more slowly evolving, while the timeline can just add the basic events as they happen. The main article can/should cover the issues only in a reasonably self-contained fashion, avoiding the many details. I still suspect the Congressional hearings should be spawned off to another article. Perhaps leaving a brief 1-2 paragraph summary of the results of the hearings. I've been contemplating the arrangement in the back of my mind...also the brief blurb on elections. Bdushaw 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I note there is a problem in the "Administration rationale unclear" subsection and reference 17. I suspect that those sentences there can be greatly reduced if not deleted. Bdushaw 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been contemplating the two sections "Administration planning to replace U.S. Attorneys" and "Reactions and congressional investigation". The basic issue, seems to me, is to hammer these sections into proper analysis text/conclusions, rather than the list of events. Listing the events in the proper order is easy, taking those events and other material and forming a complete and accurate description if the issues is another, far harder, task. Part of the problem is that we may not be quite at the stage where we can begin to state any hard conclusions (although "Karl Rove at the White House initiated the plan, which was then begun by Kyle Sampson. Sampson carried the planning with him to the DoJ, with the planning encouraged by the White House. Eight attorneys deemed not working to the political advantage of the Republican Party were eventually dismissed and replaced by more acceptable operatives." is perhaps not too far off the mark. We are indeed missing descriptions of the political nature of the replacements!) So how to synthesize those sections into an accurate NPOV description of the issues without them looking like timelines? Don't know yet. I'm now convinced that a new article on Congressional testimony is in order-it should start with descriptions of Gonzales' January testimony, then McNulty's in Feb., and so on. I think that would be valuable; the present discussion of Sampson/Gonzales testimony is valuable, but I think too much detail for this article. We are not a newspaper where every event should be reported, if you know what I mean. I am contemplating another violent maneuver with the article (though not imminent). It is hard to discuss such often necessary large-scale, dramatic changes ahead of time; I can't be sure how it will look once the dust settles. We always have revert, however; that secret, uniquely-wikipedian weapon! If only life had reverts! Bdushaw 06:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

To get the other editors back, we need only talk about changing the article name. :^) -- Yellowdesk

---

• I would like to cease worrying about parallel maintenance on chronology. I'm all for a synoptic survery of the development of the controversy. Whoever does it, needs to read the timeline article, just to see that that works well as detail to the summary / synoptic chronology on the lead article. Sine the old news isn't changing, It could also be worked on in a public sandbox subdirectory, until it satisfies a few that are interested: Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox. I'm not promising to take it on.

On a larger theme-level...I'm looking for criticism of something like a "benign DOJ" story (perhaps failed competency of management), with "unexplained White House participation" as the main structure. I'm not promising to write it.

• Now that the transcripts are in one place, and they have been published, it is possible to read what was said. The McNulty and all hearing for February 6, 2007 opening statments are at the moment not on the documents article, but findable on the Committee web site. I'll try to get them listed, or someone else can pre-empt me. No complete transcript seems to be available, nor video of that particular hearing. Having read the May 23, 2007 Goodling testimony, I notice in her opening (written) statement she said

  In truth, I can not say with absolute certainty that I know why Kevin Ryan, John McKay, Carol Lam,, Paul Charlton, Daniel Bogden, David Iglesias, and Margaret Chiara were asked to resign. I can describe what I and others discussed as the reasons for their removal, but I cannot guarantee that these reasons are the same as those contemplated by the final decisionmakers who requested the resignations of these U.S. Attorneys. I am not aware, however, of anyone within the Department ever suggesting the replacement of these attorneys in order to interfere with a particular case, or in retaliation for prosecuting or refusing to prosecute a particular case, for political advantage.

  The operative words above seem to be within the department.
• The other opening statements point to a similar view, Sampson as well. The opening statments of all participants are published, and have also been cited and analyzed by journals there are citable sourcing for that. Based on a Goodling's testimony, a one (debatable and partial) understanding arrives about Gonzales's upset with McNulty about Cummins/Griffin: Gonzales had not previously understood it was a political replacement before the McNulty testimony made that clear. And McNulty could not summarize a collective reason for the other seven, (except perhaps for Ryan) about their arrival on the list, and defaulted to "performance-based" in his testinony, which might be true in a White House-political-sense. So then McNulty had Sampson and Goodling unhappy with McNulty, since they knew "performance" was a slim reed to rely on; plus and the aggreived USAs. There is a cited ABC news article that Miers, who had departed Jan 31, 2007 advised that McNulty or the DOJ not disclose any personnel particulars, so McNulty also failed to satisfy the White House views as well. It appers to a person there was no DOJ driver of the list, but rather a compiler with a tin cup (Sampson), and group-think that was blessed by the White house. I can't tell if the present sources have NPOV support of that slightly benign view.
• There's a (potential) benign resignation explanation: The Battle, Sampson, Goodling, McNulty recognized they had lost the confidence of an important body within the DOJ, the USAs, and realized they had no credibility with them to manage them any longer.
• It seems a benign view can then hang from it all of the less benign complaints, criticism and lack of information on who suggested each USA and for what reason and how poorly any USA was informed about the dismissal. Bud Cummins has a great quote, derived from his supplemental answers to a committee, on his article.
• Some article writing on all of the replacements needs to be done to check on their backgrounds. They must all have brief Bios at the DOJ.
• That leaves the story about the White House influence.

-- Yellowdesk 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

News of low morale at DoJ

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)

• McLure, Jason; and Emma Schwartz. At DOJ, a Hard Job to Fill Legal Times May 21, 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007.

Recent major changes...

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)

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)

Griffin appointment

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)

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)

New "documents" list/article

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)

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)

Name

This section was pulled from the Archives in order to continue the debate

Is the current article name the correct one? I was the one who originally created the article, but now I am hearing some people toss around terms like "Eight-gate" or "Attorney-gate." What do others think? My other concern is that people may have a difficult time finding this article. Remember 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need the benefit of time before we use a "-gate" nickname for this. Mostly, I've heard it as the "U.S. Attorneys controvery", which isn't descriptive enough. If people have a difficult time finding the article, one thing that might help is to link to it from other places. At this point, however, the non-creative "U.S. Attorneys 2006 dismissal controvery" is the best I can think of right now. -- Sholom 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would favor a name easy to integrate into wlinks from other articles, e.g. Dismissal of United States Attorneys. Terjen 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend leaving this as is for now. This story is just picking up steam. I see this breaking down into a handful of individual wiki entries. Some information I added about the 1993 dismissal of all 1993 US Attorneys has been removed because some users think it is a "red herring". I disagree with that, but I'll refrain from fighting that battle and instead put my vote in for separate wiki entries. These are their subjects.

It took me all of 10 seconds to find this page. You should be fine (for now) Granite26 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Dismissing United States Attorneys

2) 1993 dismissal of ALL 93 US Attorneys, establishing a new precedent[could be subsection of 1)]

3) The 2006/7 debate -- Gabrielsutherland 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP REDIRECTING AND CREATING NEW NAMES FOR THIS ARTICLE UNTIL WE COME UP WITH A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT THE NAME SHOULD BE. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF CREATING THIS TALK SECTION. Remember 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related issue, I suggest that we consistently capitalize United States Attorney and its variations, just as in that entry. Terjen 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that the article should be renamed Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy. Spelling out "United States" is the proper format for almost all Wiki articles. Thoughts? --Daysleeper47 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• There exists a redirect already for that name, so a search, or typing that name will get you to this article already.
  Like so: Dismissal of United States Attorneys controversy;
  Not in favor of "-gate" for failing to be descriptive.
  There are also redirects in that send people to this article:
  Lawyergate and Attorneygate and Purgegate and Gonzalesgate
  also Dismissal of U.S. attorneys scandal gets you here for the same reason.
  and there are other redirects for other capitalizations of the current name. - Yellowdesk 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Talk:Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy#Controversy or Scandal? (In Archive 2) for the suggested method on getting everyone to weigh in on this, if you desire to pursue the issue further. -- Yellowdesk 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a complete Transcript Feb 6, 2007 Senate Judiciary hearing.

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)

Monica G.

On Monica Goodling in the LA Times: [17] Bdushaw 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam to Legal blog for Goodling Transcript by |NonEuclidean

We seem to have a legal blog link spammer visiting this and other articles.
You can see the activity here: NonEuclidean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Your collective and continuing review of their edits to the various USA articles is desired. -- Yellowdesk 07:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Congressional hearings or testimony sub-article proposed

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)

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)

Now done. -- Yellowdesk 04:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Other proposed changes

I would like to suggest that we move most of "Terminations under previous administrations" over to the United States Attorney page; not entirely sure about that, but I suggest doing that. Curiously there is nothing on that page about the dismissal/replacement issue; something that really needs developing over there. A short summary of previous terminations, showing that the present terminations have no precedent, can be included in the "The appointment process for U.S. Attorneys" subsection. Our article doesn't really rely on the United States Attorney article, whereas it stands to reason it should.

I would also like to start a new section toward the end of the article "Present status of interim U.S. Attorneys" to include the Griffin discussion, and discussions of the present state of the law and those interim attorneys. Perhaps even including the situation of U.S. Attorneys residing outside of their appointed state.

I am close to establishing a beachhead in sandbox on a revised "Administration planning to replace U.S. Attorneys" section (if no one beats me to it) - my thoughts are gradually coalescing... Bdushaw 23:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• So far, I haven't done much there, because it's hard to tell how big the dismissal event would be. I've been attempting to leave it alone and allow anyone who cares attempt to grow it without the controversy hanging all over it. I put the Feinstein squote on history there, and would be better done as part of an
• independant appointment law and history article: an oportunity for describing the law and the changes on appointments, and incorporating the issues the DOJ has with interim appointments too.
• for the USA article, if done right, that article should be a system of four of five articles too. It's a big job. Some districts have more than 100 lawyers.
• It seems to the transition thing correctly, someone should go to an outstanding college library, and really track down the statistics on transitions back to the Kennedy change over. It might need to be the Congressional Record, or plus some DOJ publications.
• On precendent, I recently saw a March press conference on C-Span, in which Patrick Leahey (VT-D), committee chair, said he had not seen anything like it in 30 years in congress, plus he was a USA, as was Ranking member Spector (PA-R).. Leahy's words were "unprecedented."
• There's a recent McClatchy Washington Bureau article saying there are 20+ "vacancies" right now, needing a permanant USA. I have not read it yet.

-- Yellowdesk 04:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concluded that the "terminations under previous administrations" section should stay - mainly because it is an important section clarifying some of the administrations statements concerning the history of terminations. I've moved that section up under the appointments section and simplified it a bit to remove the non-essential details. If people hate it, I'd be willing to go back to the previous organization. I've also started a new section "present status" that I suspect is a logical place to develop discussions of what's presently going on, and perhaps include the residency change/problem (e.g. Mercer as above). Again, see how you like it. (I got inadvertently logged out and had to battle the vandal police for a time during my edits, but I think it has settled down now...Nice to know that there are people watching! Perhaps I should have been more careful to announce my intentions ahead of time.) Bdushaw 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Clement

Paul Clement is the second-highest official in the Justice Department, is he somehow involved? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I had not even heard the name until now. Perhaps he was "out of the loop" for the dismissals? Bdushaw 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Very strange, he is one of the top guy in DOJ and there is no single mention of him in the whole affair. What is "out of the loop"?

Out of the loop means not receiving news, communications or participating in decisions. Before email, and when copying was a luxury, memos were passed around with a slip on them, and if you were on the list of people to read the article, item, memoranda, or what ever, you were "in the loop," meaning you were part of the cicuit the item ran through, and were a full participant and fully informed. -- Yellowdesk 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, now I get it. Though, Clement's position is impossible to put him out of loop. He basically handle court cases for the justice department. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And the Soliciter General is not really an "operations" office. He functions as the lawyer's lawyer, responding to government suits, primarily at the Supreme Court level, and writing "freind of the court" briefs stating the government's interest in all other Supreme Court cases, and administers a realtively small staff to deal with all of that. The Dempartment of Justice is 100,000 people big. The SG is the number 4 position, after the Deputy and Asssitant A.G. The S.G. actually has his office at the Supreme Court, so you can see that makes a big difference. -- Yellowdesk 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checked the article on Solicitor General of U.S., it says the SG is excluded from administrative duties. No surprise he wouldn't get involved in firing attorneys, thanks for the explanation. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interim or actual?

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)

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)

New section underway in sandbox

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)]

• I discovered by accident that subpages should go into the "talk" space in conformance with Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses

so I just moved the sandbox to Talk:Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy/sandbox -- Yellowdesk 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sara Taylor

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)

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)

Heffelfinger and voter fraud

[18] - in the LA Times today. That's a whole lot of pattern for mere coincidence or circumstantial evidence. Bdushaw 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the article in ref citable form:

And in readable form:

Hamburger, Tom (May 31, 2007). "Minnesota case fits pattern in U.S. attorneys flap: A prosecutor apparently targeted for firing had supported Native American voters' rights". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-05-31. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

-- Yellowdesk 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be more news after these hearings too: (Yellowdesk 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

* June 5, 2007 - Senate Judiciary Committee: Preserving Prosecutorial Independence: Is the Department of Justice Politicizing the Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys? -- Part V

Panel 1: Bradley J. Schlozman, Associate Counsel to the Directo , Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Former Interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri; Former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Former Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Panel 2: Todd Graves, Former U.S. Attorney, Western District of Missouri, Kansas City, MO

• June 7, 2007 - Senate Judiciary Committee: "Prevention of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation in Federal Elections: S. 453 - Senator Cardin presiding.

I see no clear separation - anywhere - between the separtion of politics in hiring and firing and politics in prosecution of cases. You can fill the place up with Dems or Repubs but if you use the position to go after on Repubs or Dems then you should be impeached. Even if you are just barely inside the law, both parties should be more than glad to return you to Howie, Cheatum and Howe.159.105.80.141 14:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not so far - even from late night comedians - heard about the 83 or so who were not fired. If the 8 were fired for refusing to have politically based prosecutions then were the 83 kept because the went along with the program. Congress seems to have investigations of the wrong group. We know the 8 were honest, we need an investigation of the 83 to see where they come out on the honesty scale.159.105.80.141 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an opinion piece in the NY Times a while back asking the question what did the others do to avoid the ax. There is also evidence that the "tampering", if I may be so bold as to call it that, was in regions where elections were close - e.g., Missouri or New Mexico. In other states there was perhaps less motivation to try to gain a slight additional election advantage, say, using the USAs.

As an aside, I heard from friends in San Diego that Lam's Democratic views were pretty well known and she was apparently not very quiet about it either. She may have been asking for trouble with this admin. Can we use my friends in San Diego as a ref?  :) Bdushaw 18:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Elections Influence sources

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:

• Waas, Murray (May 31, 2007). "The Scales Of Justice". National Journal. National Journal Group. Retrieved 2007-05-31. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Add other articles you might find here, pending incorportion into the article. -- Yellowdesk 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• One more of interest..."Rove Linked to Prosecution of Ex-Alabama Governor"[19] Bdushaw 20:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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"[20] Bdushaw 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Then there is the recent arrest by Kevin O'Connor, Gonzales' present Chief of Staff and U.S. Attorney for Connecticut [21]:"Connecticut Senate Leader Arrested"[22] 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)
• 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"[23]. 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)

It looks like the fact to report is X former USA said Y. -- Yellowdesk 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Also an article with comments from Heffelfinger, who is fairly angry at the administration:"Heffelfinger slams Justice Department"[24] The article refers to the issue of Tribal voting in Minnesota. Bdushaw 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) And Heffelfinger again in the LA Times on how his being on the list to be fired fits the voting pattern: "Minnesota case fits the pattern in flap over firing of U.S. attorneys"[25] Curiously, Schlozman is also involved with this case. I've started an article for Thomas B. Heffelfinger. Bdushaw 18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• A reference on B. Schlotzman's testimony this week (which seem to have been lost to the other events of the day): "Attorney denies politics had role: Schlozman says the pursuit of voter fraud indictments against ACORN was proper"[26] See also:"Official defends filing voter fraud case"[27] or TPM Muckraker: "Schlozman And Iglesias Conflict On Donsanto" And an article in the Washington Post (looking for reliable refs and different views): "Ex-Prosecutor Says He Didn't Think Charges Would Affect Election"[28]. Bdushaw 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Issues in Brief section

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

Fallout

We are starting to see articles on the corrosive effect this scandal has had on the justice system:

• Schmitt, Richard B. (June 17, 2007). "U.S. attorneys fallout seeps into the courts: Defense lawyers in different cases are raising new questions about government prosecutors and potential political biases". Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |accessed= ignored (help)
• 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)

Yang issue

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):

1. It's too much for the intro. Put it where it belongs
2. It appears that Yang resigned as US Atty in 2006; the information inserted is not accurate
3. 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)

McClatchy Newspapers website change. Footnotes need revised URLs

• 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)

Dismissal of U.S. Attorneys under previous administrations

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)

• 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).

Contempt of Congress section

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)

Title capitalization

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)

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 28 U.S.C. § 541. 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)

"Unprecedented" in the lead

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)

The new "unprecedented midterm dismissal" works for me. Bdushaw 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alberto Gonzales

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)

Firing is a right

Just like a corporation, the President can fire of his appointees at anytime. This whole issue is nothing but political muckraking. The fact it was people he appointed is irrelevant.Rlevse 11:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the President can fire his appointees at anytime, but also shows that this has never been done before (until now, no President has fired his own appointed U.S.A.'s). The reason for this precedent is that the Department of Justice is not like a corporation. It has to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. U.S. Attorneys have the power to throw people in jail and confiscate property; once appointed they must rise above the political fray. The larger issue turns on what is legally o.k. vs. what is good public policy. As for "This whole issue is nothing but political muckraking.", let's hear from some of the former U.S. Attorneys themselves on the A.G.'s resignation; U.S.A.'s appointed by President Bush, hence conservative, Republican and hardly muckrakers:

"This is a great, great development. ...The next attorney general has to understand that his primary loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law and that sometimes he has to tell the president no." --Former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico, one of the fired U.S. prosecutors.

---

"It is a good thing for the Department of Justice and it's an opportunity for those career professionals to begin to focus on what is important, and that is the administration of justice." -- Fired Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton.

---

"There comes a time when if you don't have the respect of the Congress and the American public and your own people in the department then it's time to step down." -- Fired Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden.

---

"I don't think he would have ever had to resign until they were able to hang the U.S. attorneys' firings around his neck ... To me, it could all be written off to miscommunication and bad judgment and probably could have been forgiven until they made a conscious decision to be willing to throw some of the U.S. attorneys under the bus." -- Fired Arkansas U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins.Boston Globe

But this is not the place to debate the legitimacy of the Fired Attorneys issue, however. There is obviously political muckraking going on with the issue, but we have worked hard to be sure the article is neutral point of view and well referenced with reliable, reputable sources. I am not altogether happy with the article ("Gonzalez-gate" in the lead should go; lower half of the article needs a better organization, Taylor testimony should be shipped off to the Hearings article). But I have edited enough here, except to ensure that key, sourced, substantive well-discussed points, such as the firings being unprecedented, do not get lost. Bdushaw 05:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations needing improved URLs

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy&diff=156854089&oldid=155526235

-- Yellowdesk 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Political and cultural purges

By objective standards, Category:Political and cultural purges is certainly "applicable" to this article, imo. "Purge" is actually a straightforward neutral term, regardless of one's views on the desirability or appropriateness of particular examples. It simply denotes the removal of a group of individuals from positions of power or influence in furtherance of a political objective.

Furthermore, the attorney firings are widely and routinely referred to, across a broad range (not just liberal) of mainstream news media, as a "purge" (with several instances cited in the Notes section). The word is even used in the text of the article (Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Sampson_resignation):

But DOJ records released on March 23 showed that on his November 27 schedule "he attended an hour-long meeting at which, aides said, he approved a detailed plan for executing the purge."

Lastly, bear in mind that the purpose of putting articles into Categories is to assist readers in finding items of interest. Category:Political and cultural purges includes purges from across the political spectrum (and from different historical periods), without regard to any justifications or explanations that might be offered.

Cgingold (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Any comments on this? Cgingold (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

---

A few things are lacking on the category Category:Political and cultural purges:

• 0. A supported and cited definition is lacking for the category.
• 1. The lead article which the category relies upon, as of this date, Purge has zero cited sources, hence stands as the unsupported effort of the editors that drafted it.
• 2. The dismissal of U.S. attorneys was decidedly not a cultural purge, and not enforced by any societal activities or efforts, and was a controversy because it failed to have the support of leading political actors, or complicity of leading citizens.
• 3. A full quote above, with citation to the source, indicating who is making the evaluation that the DOJ activity is a purge is desirable. One person's statement does not a purge make.
• 4. The reasons for the dismissals have not been revealed by the prime movers on the decisions. Purge implies that there is a known difference and successful outcome to those in power, which the whole dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy fails to satisfy, with the resignation of all of the most senior staff of the DOJ because of their participation in the dismissal decisions, and further the continuing unresolved nature of the legislative body (congress) versus the executive authority (the president) that the continuing tensions appear to demonstrate. See, for example: Paul Kane. Rove, Bolten Found in Contempt of Congress: Senate Committee Cites Top Bush Advisers in Probe of U.S. Attorney Firings Washington Post Friday, December 14, 2007; Page A08 (Retrieved December 17, 2007.
  
• 5. It's fair to say that none of the dismissed attorneys suffered debilitating income and societal results from the dismissal, and more than a few had their stature and visibility much raised by the action. Rather contrary to a purge's outcome.
• 6. Objective standards claimed above are not visible to this editor.
• 7. One of the key enabling statutes that permitted un-confirmed term-limitless appointments to the positions of those dismissed was overwhelmingly repealed in veto-proof majorities by the legislature, and signed into law. Not a sign of an authority with apparently insurmountable ability to enforce an above-the law will, a colloquial characteristic of other purges listed in the category.
• I could go on, but this is a start to the conversation.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like (at least some of) this discussion should be happening at categories for discussion. I don't really see why grouping "cultural" with "political" makes sense, but I wouldn't want to say it's wrong without hearing from whoever created the category.

Be that as it may, I tend to agree with CGingold, that calling something a "purge" is not necessarily a political or POV statement. Regarding #1 above, I don't think a cited article on Wikipedia is necessary; "purge" is in any dictionary, and its meaning is commonly understood. No definition of "purge" would state that the removal of an undesirable group must be political in nature; people on all sides of this issue would agree that the attorneys "gotten rid of" were "undesirable" to those getting rid of them. The controversial issue is whether or not the characteristics that made them undesirable were germane to their job performance.

Yellowdesk, you say: Purge implies that there is a known difference and successful outcome to those in power. Where are you getting that? I would say that a purge is simply the removal of a significant number of undesirable elements, which seems to be in line with what my dictionary says.

Finally, I'd like to point out that where there is no person accused of a crime, it's not necessary to have a legal ruling to support the claim. (Not that anyone has said otherwise, just making sure.) If several reliable sources state that the firing of attorneys amounted to a "purge," that should be sufficient to call it a purge here. If several others say it's not, then both sides should be represented. I'm pretty sure that the first condition holds, not so sure about the second, but happy to be proven wrong. -Pete (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• The controversy, in part, has force because members of the same party as the president, in the Senate and elsewhere found the dismissed individuals not undesirable, but esteemed and valuable members of their state, district or region's legal and political community, and had the power to force visibility on the decisions. Hardly a cultural measure.
  The creator of the category, such as it is, viewing this history of the category, is Cgingold
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yellowdesk, I agree with what you say, except I don't get why you take it to imply that the action was "hardly a cultural matter." Are you denying that more than one culture can exist within a political party? If so, I disagree.

Didn't realize that Cgingold was the category creator, thanks for pointing that out. -Pete (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• The category suffers from poor titling, which is where some of the above comment came from: and cultural purges. I have a bit of irritation on the category, as I found that the Saturday Night Massacre, (a dismissal of one person) was placed by the creator of the category into the category. By that standard, every action of dismissal is a candidate as a purge, which is not workable. Which brings my critical judgment on cavalier use of the category.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a hard time seeing the use of this category -- I think it's too nuanced a concept for simple categorization. I'd encourage you to bring this up at WP:CFD if you think the category itself is a problem. Without the category, I think the rest of our discussion here is moot, so I think we can leave it at that. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A few remarks in response to what's been said here:

• About the use of "and cultural" in the title: that was simply to ensure enough breadth to encompass, for example, the Chinese and Iranian Cultural Revolutions and the Hollywood Blacklist, which though politically motivated, targeted cultural figures. (Ideally it would say "Political and/or cultural purges", but that's contary to Wikipedia naming conventions.)
• Including the Saturday Night Massacre was an error in judgement on my part -- it was the very last article that I added, and I should have known better than to make a decision on an debatable case like that when I was so bleary-eyed. :)
• Lastly, as to this particular article: on the one hand, I continue to feel that inclusion is justified for the reasons I outlined above -- essentially the widespread use of the term "purge" across the spectrum of mainstream news media; on the other hand, given that it is to whatever degree a matter of contention, it's not something I feel compelled to insist upon.

Cgingold (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)