Does anyone know the status replacing US Attorney Generals?

[dixiegrrrrl]

I am having difficulty finding sources of any Pres. Obama picks for replacing Bush picsk in each state....

[Terran]

1. They're just "US Attorneys". Jeffrey Holder is the only US

Attorney General. And no, I don't, sorry.

[T Wolf]

2. Found this story from Baltimore...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.attorneys09mar09,0,2316940.story

It seems that most are staying in office.

This is change?

[quiller4]

14. They are staying temporarily

Obama has asked senators to send him recommendations from their states. There is an article in my morning paper about one of the names the senators in my state submitted. This process usually isn't complete until about 6 months into a president's term. There are likely to be a few carry-overs in cases where major investigations (Illinois) are still in the works.

[Beetwasher]

3. The Process Happens Slowly, So Don't Listen To The Knee-Jerk Obama Bashers

Who will tell you Obama should purge the DOJ and immediately replace everyone. Not only would that be disruptive, it could easily be construed as obstruction and politicization of DOJ.

It happens slowly (over a couple of years usually) because many hold-over attorney's are involved in ongoing cases and you can't fire them while they are involved in ongoing cases because that could be construed as obstruction and politicization.

[jobycom]

4. Assuming you mean the US Attorneys, I don't think he's done anything much yet.

Usually the president and the new AG fire all previous US Attorneys and pick their own slate. Clinton, IIRC, made an exception by not firing one attorney who was investigating a crime linked to a Clinton ally, to avoid appearances of impropriety.

The only thing I've heard about Obama is that he plans to keep Fitzgerald and fire the rest, but that he had asked them all to stay on until he did so. There are 93 federal attorneys, and about half of them are interim or recess appointments. IIRC, the position is only a four year appointment anyway.

If he's done anything since then, I haven't heard, and I can't find a Google on it. I found this on NPR (ignore the dig at Clinton, it's misleading): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99881017

[Traveling_Home]

5. I think this isn't correct unless ....

there were simply no investigations going on?

You said "Clinton, IIRC, made an exception by not firing one attorney who was investigating a crime linked to a Clinton ally, to avoid appearances of impropriety."

I believe Pres Clinton had Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys.

[jobycom]

7. Au contraire, and you'll never guess which one Clinton didn't fire.

"In 1990, (Michael) Chertoff was appointed by President George H. W. Bush as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Among his most important cases, in 1992 Chertoff put second-term Jersey City Mayor Gerald McCann in federal prison for over two years on charges of defrauding money from a savings and loan scam. Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley. He was the only U.S. attorney not replaced. Chertoff stayed with the U.S. Attorney's office until 1994, when he entered private practice, returning to Latham & Watkins as a partner."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff

[Traveling_Home]

10. Thanks!!! but ...... hehehe

Rostenkowski????????

[jobycom]

15. ?? Rostenkowski wasn't a US Attorney.

He was a victim of some pretty sleazy politics by Newt Gingrich, who, much as when he brought down Jim Wright or criticized Clinton over Monica Lewinski, was guilty of the same crimes as the person he attacked. Sickening how Republicans get people in jail for minor issues whereas we let their last three presidents commit treason and war crimes with impunity.

But what does Rostenkowski have to do with Chertoff or the US Attorneys?

[Traveling_Home]

16. I wasn't clear ....

I was speaking too "Clinton, IIRC, made an exception by not firing one attorney who was investigating a crime linked to a Clinton ally, to avoid appearances of impropriety."

Those investigating Rostenkowski were fired. Or I might be wrong in this too? I appreciate the clarification regarding Chertoff. I had missed that he continued on.

Thanks

[jobycom]

18. Ah. No idea.

Wikipedia says that the House tried to stop the investigation in 92, which was before Clinton was elected, and that in July 93 the Congressional Postmaster pled guilty to some charges, and after that Rostenkowski was investigated and indicted in 94. Not sure of Clinton's role in any of that. He wasn't in office when Congress was blocking it, but if Rostenkowski was investigated between 93 and 95, maybe someone on the case got fired.

Clinton didn't fire a US Attorney over it, though. Clinton fired 92 of the 93 attorneys when he took office, as presidents always do when they begin their administration. Maybe one of them was investigating Rostenkowski--the time-frame would fit. After that, Clinton only fired two US Attorneys--one for choking a reporter on camera, and one for biting and injuring a dancer at a strip club, supposedly while drunk and after she had refused his advances.

Nowhere near what Bush did, firing Attorneys and threatening others to force them to investigate political targets. He was in a class by himself on that.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. My first guess was Ken Starr

But that's pretty interesting.

[bpj62]

6. US Attorneys

Standard procedure is that they tender their resignations at the the end of the administration that hired them. Some refuse to do so and the new AG will either ask them once again or he/she will fire them. All US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Some do stay on because of the sensitivity of the cases they are handling. People must remember that most of the procecutions are handled by career justice department attorneys.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Here is link to transcript of email document received by US Attorneys after 2004 election.

My Journal unchanged since 2004.

[Clear Blue Sky]

8. Attorney general may need to be impeached to be removed.

US attorneys are political appointments and can be fired without cause.

[theboss]

9. Could you maybe state that question in English please?

Thank you.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Sorry...I have M.S. and sometimes brain/hand coordination is weird.

I should have spell checked better.

Thank you for those who corrected the term..I meant US attorneys, of course.

[merh]

17. Think the vetting process times 50 plus

(my state has two districts, north & south, thus there will probably be two new US Attorneys names as well as US Marshals over the districts.) The dem congressman will be providing names to consider, Obama's folks will have to review the names and vet them.

My understanding is that some may well stay in place, but most will be replaced.

[rug]

11. Here.

Title 28. Part II, Chapter 35 of the United States Code.

§ 541. United States attorneys

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000541----000-.html