« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Democrats set to remove meddlesome anti-corruption prosecutor.

Elections have consequences.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  May 18th, 2009 at 09:11 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

(Via Instapundit) No, not Fitzgerald: Illinois is a little too prominent right now for that kind of shenanigans. North Carolina, on the other hand…

Democrats fix sights on GOP prosecutor

John Edwards admits federal investigators are asking him questions. Federal subpoenas were issued Friday related to Mike Easley.

As the separate federal probes into a former senator and the former governor are emerging, Democrats are taking steps to replace the Republican prosecutor who is spearheading the inquiries about the highest-profile North Carolina Democrats of the past decade.

All the nearly 100 top federal prosecutors across the country serve at the will of the president. Any replacement for U.S. Attorney George E.B. Holding, a Bush appointee who has kept a priority on public corruption cases from Raleigh to the coast, will be subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.

The process gives a key role in the decision to U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, a Democrat who was in the state Senate leadership for several years until she unseated Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole in November. Already, Hagan has formed a panel to screen candidates. It is led by Burley Mitchell, former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court who now works at the Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice law firm.

They’re claiming that this screening process is ‘coincidental’ to the investigations, of course.

Of course.

It is of course the right of the President to fire and hire US Attorneys as he pleases. Screening replacements is likewise well within the traditional role of US Senators. But – and this is important to consider – there is nothing stopping either from doing either for crassly partisan political purposes. Notice the lack from either of reassurances that US Attorney George Holding will of course be allowed to at least finish up his ongoing corruption investigations, even if he is looking into improprieties involving the former governor of North Carolina*. You could blame that lack on inexperience in both cases… but you could also blame that on a certain desire to quietly squash a potentially embarrassing scandal before it threatens to challenge the Democratic Party’s lock on North Carolina’s state government. If that happens, at the moment our options for stopping them are kind of limited. And by ‘our’ I mean ‘the Republican Party,’ which remains the only organization that has any hope of consistently countering Democratic chicanery.

And no amount of shouting, yelling, pounding the table, screaming, pouting, pontificating – and, frankly, whining – will change that fact.

Moe Lane

*Nobody really cares about Edwards, in my opinion. It’s Easley that they’re interested in, and it’s Easley that could cause a real scandal.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • vettepilot

    He and Gonzalez must be punished. Oh wait, wrong party. Move along, nothing to see here…

    I swear, this whole administration is becoming more like Bizarro-world every day.

  • bk

    “It is of course the right of the President to fire and hire US Attorneys as he pleases.”

    That depends on whether the President has a D or an R after his name. It was fine for Clinton to fire 100% of them; when Bush fired a few there was wailing and gnashing of teeth in Congress that it was a political move demanding oversight hearings, special prosecutors, frog marching, etc. Now of course Obama can do whatever he wants.

  • K James

    The provost of NC State University has already been forced to resign over his connections to Mike and Mary Easley and the influence peddling taking place there. There are probably all kinds of things that Holding could uncover in NC.

    The difference between NC and Illinois is that the Democrat’s stranglehold on the state is more tenuous… so they will of course nip this in the bud any way they can.

    Get yo’ popcorn ready.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • daves_not_here

    Here is a local article on the situation. The update to the main article has some interesting info on Hagan’s replacement deliberations:

    “UPDATE: Now we learn one of the names being considered if Holding is dumped: Ripley Rand. Ripley just happens to be the son of Sen. Tony Rand a strong supporter of none other than one Mike Easley. It just so happens that Easley appointed Rand to a superior court judgship. Which Rand? Well both Ripley and his wife. The same Mike Easley who did a fund raiser for one Kay Hagan.”

  • daves_not_here

    Slow down, Dave.

    Here is the link

  • Jack_Savage

    It just hasn’t been on the national radar. I did a little diary on this some time ago:

    http://www.redstate.com/jack_savage/2008/10/22/the-democrat-culture-of-corruption-in-north-c/

    Just another day in a Democrat controlled state. Nothing to see here.

  • USNJIMRET
  • Aaron Gardner

    rather than being performance related.

    I personally have no problem with Obama firing some U.S. Attorney’s as long as it is for performance….if it is a political hit job…well that is a different story.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and one of the main mistakes of Republicans that Achance has documented so well over the years is our failure to get rid of dems in the executive when we come in to power. Bush made a major mistake of even getting into explaining why he fired some US attys. What was really shocking was that this an area of executive leadership that Dubya was pr pretty schooled in being the first MBA prez we ever had.

    Honestly, I think all execs should ask for the resignations of all political appointees upon taking office, and then deciding whether to keep some based on specific circumstances. This does apply more to to US attys, I would admit, given that so much of their work is non-political, but one thing that is not non-political is in what cases they CHOOSE to prosecute and so the distinction between politics and “performance” can be quite elusive anyway.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    highlight a political firing to highlight a wrong position on policy, etc, but not to try and save the person’s job.

  • randy streu

    I said it during the Bush attorney-firing fiasco, and it has to work here as well: They are appointed by the President, they can be fired for whatever reason he wants them to be. He doesn’t owe anyone an explanation about it. If he doesn’t like that they happen to sneeze loudly, he can fire them.

    Also, agreed that the only real mistake of the Bush administration in that whole event was allowing the Dems to THINK they had any say in the matter. He should have told them to suck it.

  • Achance

    You want your attornies especially to be on the same page as the administration; that’s why I don’t like elected AGs in states, AG stands for Almost Governor if they’re elected. And, Hell yes, I believe in politically motivated investigations and prosecutions, just like the other guys do. There are limits to it, and you can’t trump stuff up, see, e.g., Stevens, Ted, former US Senator, but the Democrat front groups posing as non-profits and unions have had a pass for fifty years and it is time for some Republican AGs to take a peek up their skirts.

    And, the only lament that we should have on this is that Obama won’t fire a lot of US Attornies because GWB left so many holdovers in place just waiting for the next Democrat to come along.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    case when I was in ATL concerning the executive’s power in a certain matter and the dem elect AG sued the GOP guv and the sup ct ruled for the AG. I didn’t see a huge problem given the constitutional issue, but you raise a good point.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    about the difference in state and federal before esp given the context of when dems always try and get the AG of a repub prez to go after their own administration because they are “the peoples’” lawyer.

    great issue

    still thinking and would love for you to elaborate more on why you favor unelected AGs and how you feel about the whole “peoples’ lawyer” claim

  • Aaron Gardner

    There is clearly a difference between what Bush did and what is being talked about here. I believe we do ourselves a disservice in equating the two…in fact I believe we play right into their hands by doing so.

    YMMV

  • Achance

    and an appointed Solicitor General or some similar title, The AG would serve at the Governor’s pleasure, the Solicitor General would be appointed by the Governor but serve a fixed term, say three years if the Gov’s term is four, during which she could only be removed for cause. Both would be subject to confirmation. The Solicitor then becomes the one who handles state cases and supervises prosecutions. The AG would be the legal policy maker, the administrative head of the Legal Department, and the Governor’s legal advisor. The cross-over term would also stop meritorious cases and prosecutions from becoming trade goods in the gubernatorial election since they’d be under the control of the State Solicitor who will still have two years of his term in the next administration during which s/he can only be removed for cause.

  • Achance

    A removal to thwart an investigation or a prosecution would be illegal on some corruption grounds or under ethics laws.

  • Aaron Gardner

    The fact that the players currently involved all stand to benefit from the firing, and subsequent thwarting of an active investigation, should raise some questions.

    Acting like this is happening in a vacuum and calling those who raise objections hypocrites plays right into the Dems hands….They have TPM for that…I don’t understand why we should give them the ammo.

  • Achance

    If the feds don’t want it and the state doesn’t want it, they get a pass; just the way it works.

  • Aaron Gardner

    and not only accept it but promote it on our own sites, giving a pass to all the crap the left has put us through.

    I can deal with fire coming from the enemy…but the stupid throw away lines coming from our “allies” is getting really old.

  • USNJIMRET

    Particularly when that “something” is an absolute right of the President to do, or not.
    Word games to rationalize why this act is ‘wrong’ and that act was ‘right’ are just playing word games.
    Which the left is very adept at doing.
    And some on the so called right are racing to catch up on.

  • Achance

    anything that takes more than two sentences to explain is beyond the grasp of the American public, so nobody will care. The Ds did a very good job of convincing the public that all Republicans are corrupt, therefore this US Attorney is corrupt. Democrats are definitionally good people, so the good people are removing the corrupt attorney. Got it?

  • Aaron Gardner

    Not all firings are equal…sorry.

    And I never disputed the President’s right to fire an AG.

    Oh and you can take your veiled attack on me shove it.

  • Aaron Gardner

    apparently others are fine with the status quo and enjoy fighting from the minority.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Aaron Gardner

    We should mark this on the calendar Neil…;^)

  • Achance

    just that we’re only doing it for our own satisfaction. Trying to either deal with Democrat corruption or get the public to understand it is like trying to teach a pig to sing; it frustrates you and irritates the pig.

  • Aaron Gardner

    But the Dems didn’t get it to that point by being quiet and calling their own hypocrites….they did it through unwavering repetition and a complicit media.

    Since we don’t have a complicit media we have to be twice as loud, unwavering and less antagonistic to our own side, as you have suggested in the past with regard to people like Stevens.

    FWIW the “others” I was referring to in the above comment didn’t include you.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Something’s going on…

  • Aaron Gardner
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    should highlight wrongful substantive reasons for political “hit jobs”. But these substantive reasons are usually the same reasons that separate liberals and conservatives in elections.

    I would really feel better Aa, if you would go back and acknowledge my caveat that essentially made your point, albeit in a more nuanced and legally sophisticated way!

    smile

    Yes, we should make hay and point out the differences with Bush’s act (too bad Bush didn’t himself) but we should not confuse the issue with the “right to fire.”

    cool?

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    you know my pet peeve in which someone disagrees with me when I have actually made essentially there point….

    this time

    you

    smile

  • Aaron Gardner

    And I fully acknowledge that you reiterated my point.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    I am an anal retentive a hole, I know it.

  • gazill

    why we read you Mike

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    to NOT have swept out any and every corner of Government where there was people that could have been replaced…. The Govt. remains LIBERAL regardless of who is President and/or Controls Congress (gets worse, of course, while Democrats control it all) because the reigns of the Agencies throughout DC are staffed by Liberals. We simply must put folks into the Directorships and as many underlings as possible and those folks MUST be committed to weeding out the scum that infests them – all in the PROPER name/cause of reducing the size of Govt.

  • USNJIMRET

    I don’t know you, haven’t read much by you, and am pretty certain you don’t know me.
    But if you think that YOU are so important that I would waste my time in a silly Internet Tough Guy attack…..OK.
    I just find it mildly amusing how many people are willing to go to the mat to decry what Nobama “might” be getting ready to do, without a shred of evidence. And wonder how many of them defended the heck out of Bush when there was no evidence then either.
    As for there being a “political” versus performance cause for a firing, so what?
    If the President of the United States has the Constitutional power to hire/fire U S Attorneys, without Constitutionally established conditions (ie at the pleasure of the President), then the President has that power.
    If Nobama had fired all the serving Attorneys at the outset of his Administration, like Clinton did, that would be political as all get out.
    And no one would have said a word.
    NOW, however, the Presidents Pleasure is to be held hostage to everyone with an opinion of “performance”??
    It’s not “serve at the pleasure of the President” if anyone else gets to establish what “pleasure” means, is it?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    It’s not my fault that one of the consequences of picking a ‘punish the Republican Party’ voting strategy is that it also rewards the Democrats.

  • JadedByPolitics

    President Bush’s pleasure to fire his attorneys? yeah that’s right it is only Republicans that must pay for firing 7 attorneys but the idiot in chief now can damn well do what he wants as well as the whore in chief prior to him!

    Your argument is beyond the pale in calling anyone on this site out for making hay over a US Attorney firing when right at this very moment Bush Administration officials are having to speak to liberals on a witch hunt!

    Go sell your “at the pleasure of the President” somewhere else that dog don’t hunt here nor anywhere else anymore WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IN GOOD FOR THE GANDER oh and when Obama is gone from the Presidency we will call for investigations and congressional hearings on what he knew and when he knew it for socializing the country….the RULES HAVE CHANGED! get used to it!

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …history to end before they lose control of the government. There’s a limit to how often you can kick people before they get tired of it.

  • JadedByPolitics
  • Jack_Savage

    Like maybe the fact that they are hypocrites and liars. This seems like an excellent opportunity to do so, unless you feel they are being consistent in their apoplexy over the Bush firings while working undercover to make this one happen.

    Maybe you could also do some investigation on how tied up NC’s new Senator Kay Hagen is in the whole corrupt NC machine, take a look at the diary in my comment above, and draw your own conclusions.

    I have, and this firing will happen, friend. If you think it is perfectly fine, and it seems like you have, then OK. I think it is outright scandal.

  • Aaron Gardner

    So I guess I must be worth it….and anytime you feel like reading my stuff go ahead and take a gander. I ain’t hiding.

    And again I will say that I have no problem with the President invoking his privilege to fire any or all U.S. Attorneys….what I have a problem with is his party and him using that privilege to protect their allies who are under a current investigation, which regardless of the President’s privilege is at the least unethical.

    As far as no evidence goes…well there is evidence…it just happens to be circumstantial evidence. Add that into the fact that Nancy Pelosi is currently trying to pass more rules to shield Democrats in Congress from prosecution and things start smelling pretty fishy.

    As far as your “Internet Tough Guy” bit…well just another veiled attack…your good at those.

    Get a clue.

  • USNJIMRET

    I’m not to offer MY opinion.
    Got it.

  • Aaron Gardner

    take your pity party elsewhere.

  • Achance

    “At the pleasure” does not include removing a federal officer to save the ass of one of your Democrat buddies; that’s called corruption. It would have been corruption for GWB to do so had one of the US Attornies he contemplated firing been in the midst of an investigation, the termination of which would have benefited the Administration. When you take your hand off the Bible, you fire them all and put your own in. After that, you remove one at your peril.

  • itrytobenice

    How in the world could that be now that those nasty Republicans are out of office? You must be mistaken. Move on folks. Nothing to see here.

    Signed,
    MSM