Flawed Argument To Remove US Attorney: Opening the Slot For Others
Who said politics couldn't be entertaining. Congress has reasonably become the needed Coliseum of 2007 where barbarians do battle.
Not long ago the Department of Justice was actively attacking US civilians in their homes, on the streets, and abusing their power without prospect of restraint. Today, it is comical watching the Department of Justice openly spar in the Congressional chambers. Nothing like watching the most vile, contemptible creatures be forced to confront one another. In the end, the victor may also be forced to destroy themselves.
If you think this is entertaining, wait until the US Attorneys are confronted on issues of DOJ Staff complicity with war crimes. Perhaps the arrogant, contemptible war criminals in the Department of Justice are getting a sense of what is about to be unleashed upon them with war crimes indictments. Ready or not, here they come.
The adversarial system promotes a clash of factions. Ideas, arguments, and facts are forced to sustain themselves or fall away. The same is occurring in Congress on the US Attorney issue. Indeed, one way of finding the truth is to judge who arguments, facts, and credibility withstand scrutiny. For example, one flawed argument I've heard about the US Attorney firings was that the Administration wanted to give someone else an opportunity.
This is circular.
1. Solutions cannot violate standards
We're asked to believe that the US Attorney's didn't do anything wrong. Then it doesn't make sense to remove them, deprive them of experience, or thwart would make them more qualified to do their current job; or possibly be nominated as a justice for the Bench. Once the experienced US Attorneys were fired, less experienced people with a higher chance of errors would have been brought in.
It makes no sense to offer someone else an opportunity, when the existing US Attorneys -- as the Administration wold have us believe -- didn't do anything wrong: It would have made sense to keep them in position, continue to build on their experience, make them more qualified, as opposed to starting over with someone new.
The US Attorneys weren't let go to give someone else an opportunity. The fired US Attorneys were being deprived of information, experience, and CV-points that would make them more qualified to act as an independent judge. The "result" of having an open slot wasn't the goal to assist anyone, but a consequence of the Administration having illegally punished US Attorneys for their reasonable refusal to assent to partisan pressure to prosecute or not prosecute or make election calendar news releases.
The slots were opened to not bring in new people who would be qualified, but who showed greater promise to [a] be willing to be manipulated; [b] be more inclined to ignore the standards; or [c] subordinate their decisions to partisan ideology not the law. Qualified people should be allowed to continue increasing qualifications, not make room for less qualified people
2. Illusory opportunity based on a manufactured issue
It defies reason to suggest that the US Attorneys were being moved to bring in people who would "build up" their resume. The oly reason the second crew wold need to "build up" anything was that the original crew was no longer part of the perceived pool of qualified people. Yet, the Administration wold have us believe that there was nothing wrong: SO why remove them, and deny them of the supposed experience that would have made them qualified Judges?
The goal of "finding something new" wasn't required if the original US Attorneys were maintained in the positions. Justifications retroactively create are just as uncompelling as were the excuses to ignore the FISA court and violate FISA.
3. Asserted objective defies reason
It can hardly be said that the proposed replacement, however they were nominated or appointed, were "More qualified" that their predecessors -- the Senate was never given the chance to make that analysis, as required under the Constitution.
The only reasonable explanation: The issues wasn't experience of someone, but that the fired US Attorneys were not, as they are prohibited, responsive to partisan pressure. The goal of the administration wasn't to "open up" the slots, but to retaliate against US Attorneys who were not cooperative.
4. Impermissible consequence: Stated reasons for removal lower confidence alternatives qualified
Suppose for the sake of argument, that the US Attorneys they fired were "cooperative" with the GOP abuse of power: That would them less qualified to be independent judges, but the opposite -- willing to put their legal requirements and duty behind to partisan ideology, which may contradict the law.
The Senate has a role in screening US Attorneys, overseeing their performance, and deciding who they are or are not manged, and whether the appointment of those Attorneys is or is not what the Congress wants to do. The President cannot make Congress approve his nomination; barring this, this President ignored the Constitution and forced Congress to accept what the Constitution does not permit -- unilateral decisions on nominations-appointments on specific classes of Executive Officers.
There are two impermissible sides of the same coin: [a] The Senate was deprived of ability to review the personnel; and [b] less qualified people were not examined. Illegal activity requires more illegal activity to sustain. These raise oath of office issues for White House and DOJ Staff involved, 5 USC 3331.
5. Circular abuse: Unconstitutional conduct requires abuse and illegal activity to sustain
Unilateral changes to the Constitution are illegal. The President has no power to enforce or follow rules which circumvent the Constitution; and Congress has no power to pass legalisation that recognizes illegal abrogations or violations of the Constitutional requirements.
Common Pattern: Abuse of power feeds on itself until checked
As with FISA, once one rule was ignored, then the new batch of people, who were not qualified to be US Attorneys, had to be injected into their jobs without Senate Oversight. This creates more problems requiring more illegal activity to sustain: Non qualified, inexperienced people assenting to partisan pressure to support more illegal activity.