Giuliani Silent on Prosecutor Purge

The furor over the prosecutor purge at the Department of Justice has connections to the 2008 presidential race for the Republican nomination.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-New York City, N.Y.) has a history in the U.S. attorney’s office in the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Much of the aura surrounding Giuliani, in addition to the phony 9/11 hero worship, involves his days as “Rudy the Crime Fighter” as an Associate Attorney General in 1981 and as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Josh Marshall, writing at Talking Points Memo, wonders why Giuliani, of all people, is choosing to be silent on the purge. Marshall says that with Rudy’s background as a federal prosecutor, Giuliani would have a “unique” perspective on the matter.

2008 presidential tie-in question: Can Rudy Giuliani really get away with refusing to comment on the US Attorney Purge story? Rudy made his name as a mob-busting US Attorney in New York. I’m pretty sure he’s the only former US Attorney in the race in either party. And I’m pretty sure he worked at Main Justice early in the Reagan administration before becoming US Attorney. So he’s uniquely positioned to have something relevant and knowledgeable to say. But he won’t answer. How long can that last?

So how ’bout it, Rudy? What’s your take?

Posted by Matt Ortega
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 6:15 am

10 Responses to “Giuliani Silent on Prosecutor Purge”

he shouldnt be silent, he should get out there tomorrow and point out how senator schumer never asked for janet reno’s resignation following the political firing of 93 US attorneys. he should point out schumers blatant hypocrisy and ask him, for the sake of the nation, to resign from the senate effective immediatley. good call.

firing POLITICAL appointees for POLITICS is now a crime in the eyes of the left. thats about as dumb as arguing the meaning of the word “is”.

Left by matt
March 14, 2007 at 11:35pm

i agree rudy shouldn’t be silent. i think he should get out there tomorrow and ask why chuck schumer didn’t demand the resignation of janet reno when, for the first time ever, president clinton fired all 93 us attorneys. i think rudy should jump right on schumer blatant hypocrisy, as well as pile on clinton for his firings. good call.

Left by matt
March 14, 2007 at 11:39pm

Matt, you’re drinking the kool-aid.

(1) U.S. attorneys are political appointees but they are suppose to be immune from the daily grind of political interference once they are in, unless;

(2) It is customary for new presidents to replace the previous president’s political appointees, all of them if they so choose, for their own. That’s not the issue here.

It is unprecedented for presidents to fire their own U.S. attorneys, and not extend their terms into the second term of the same president.

Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

The administration tried to fire ALL of them midway through Bush’s second term so they could beef up GOP lawyers’ resumes for judicial appointments.

Instead, realizing that would set off a firestorm, they targeted certain U.S. attorneys, some they regarded as “strong” and DOJ officials gave stellar performance reviews.

They wanted to pack Bush loyalists by using the USA Patriot Act to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. They knew guys like Rove’s former protege would not get confirmed, but they wanted him anyway.

There is no “Schumer hypocrisy” and there was nothing extraordinary about Clinton’s firings. Bush did the same thing. It is common practice and legal.

Left by Matt Ortega
March 15, 2007 at 12:37am

the bush admin did nothing wrong, and niether did the clinton admin, thats the point, and the hypocrisy is that the media barely mentioned the firing of 93 attorneys and clammers on and on for resignations about the completely legal removal of 8 bush us attorneys. creating a non-story, to take away attention from the dramatic drop in iraq violence due to general patraeus’s successful surge.

the same can be said for liberals taking the personal moral opinions of the chairman of the joint chiefs and elevating his comments to “SCANDAL”. all to distract the public from the deep division in the democratic congress on iraq, the very issue they duped americans into voting for them on, all the while the surge continues to mount success after success.

now if you would please provide any insight to where the removal of these attorneys was illegal, i’d love to see that, but since even hardened liberal law experts like dan abrams have admitted no laws at all were broken, you and the socialists can all shut up now.

clinton 93
bush 8

jordan fades back, swishhhh, and thats the game.

Left by matt
March 15, 2007 at 1:05am

Matt, you’re hopelessly misguided.

The Bush administration had those attorneys fired and used the Patriot Act to pack federal prosecutors that are Bush loyalists without Senate confirmation because they knew their guys, like Griffin, could never get confirmed.

What Bush did was fire attorneys in the middle of his term — that was unprecedented. Legal scholars themselves say that, not me. I am just reiterating it. They broke tradition so they could pack the U.S. Attorney’s office with loyalists.

Left by Matt Ortega
March 15, 2007 at 1:32am

It should be noted, since for you it does not go without saying, the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, and appoint U.S. attorneys in the case of an emergency.

This had nothing to do with terrorism, and was not an emergency. They planned it for 2 years and used the Patriot Act to skip Congress so they could get their guys in.

Left by Matt Ortega
March 15, 2007 at 1:40am

see the wheels fall off when you base your arguement on “he packed in loyalists”. all i can say is, so what? they serve at the pleasure of the president, he can appoint whoever he wants, for any reason he wants, at any time he wants. either charge someone with a crime or just shut up. this riduculous “death by a thousand” cuts strategey by the left is pathetic. their iraq plans are getting rejected every day, they are divided amongst themselves on how to handle the war, the surge is showing progress every day, with violence against our troops down 80% since the crackdown, all of a sudden the liberals change topic, and try to create scandal where there is none. and the way you say patriot act is a bit disturbing. the patriot act is u.s. law, so when you say they used the patriot act to appoint lawyers you are actually saying they used the law to appoint u.s. attorneys. no problem there.

again, either point out where laws have been broken, or just stop talking.

btw, new cnn poll has giuliani’s leading growing, thought i’d leave you with that fantastic news.

Left by matt
March 16, 2007 at 12:26am

They wanted to pack loyalists so they can use the U.S. attorneys office to wage a partisan war against Democrats with an institution that is suppose to be above politics.

Plus, legal or not, they were purposely abusing a counterterrorism statute for partisan political gain — installing partisan hacks to use the U.S. attorneys office as a vehicle against Democrats without the required Senate vetting process. They did not want to try the confirmation process because they know their hacks would never get confirmed. They are circumventing the Constitutionally-mandated role of Congress.
That’s, at the bare minimum, wholly unethical.

Furthermore, if there was nothing wrong with this why did they lie about it over and over again? Several DOJ officials, including Gonzales, likely committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

Left by Matt Ortega
March 16, 2007 at 12:55am

“legal or not” excuse me? did you just inadvertly confess that everything they did was legal? can you just stop your silly rant. ” they did something legal to hurt liberals waaaaaaa”.

you know what’s wholly unethical, unamiously approving general patreaus one day and then voting on a resolution that completely undermines his authority the next. THATS UNETHICAL. especailly after the general told congress point blank that such a vote would hurt moral, the mission, and the troops. was it legal for congress to act so irrationaly, yes, but was it ethical to undercut the very man the just sent to iraq in the previous days, hell no.

again, point out where the law was broken or just stop talking.

Left by matt
March 16, 2007 at 10:30am

It’s not illegal for a president to remove U.S. attorneys, which is what I was referring to.

Furthermore, I don’t know if their exploitation of the Patriot Act was illegal, but it sure was a usurpation of Congressional oversight on appointments to the U.S. attorneys office which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution as the separation of powers.

Left by Matt Ortega
March 16, 2007 at 11:07am

Something to say?