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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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? -RustavoTalk/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)

[edit] 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 NescioGnothi 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 NescioGnothi 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[1] 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)

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)

[edit] Gonzales Testimony Template

Gonzales Testimony
April 19, 2007 ( v • d • e )
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on the dismissal of U.S. attorneys
Testimony of Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General
Video
Opening Statements
Senators' Questions and A.G.'s Testimony


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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Edits to Notable past firings by previous administrations

An edit was made to this section by anon 71.129.65.194 diff here. I decided to start fleshing it out, but now believe that while this info might be useful somewhere, so far none of these are real firings (at least not comparable to current US attorney dismissal situation). These people were replaced because they were promoted, or were interim, or died. Suggestions?? R. Baley 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't think it belongs in the article, I've removed it and preserved the work here. . .R. Baley 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, Clinton appointed U.S. Attorneys were also replaced by Clinton in his second term with the following: 1997 — Eric H. Holder Jr. moved to the Justice Department where he was unanimously confirmed by the senate as deputy attorney general. He was replaced with Mary Lou Leary an interem U.S. attorney who, though she did not apply for the job on a permanent basis, was nonetheless the first US Attourney to serve the Washington area. Mary Lou Leary was ultimately replaced with Wilma A. Lewis.[2]

  • Jim Wiggens, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1996, was ultimately succeeded by Beverly Martin for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. Attorney position.[3]
  • Caryl Privett resigned on September 8, 1997 and was succeeded by G. Douglas Jones as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama.[4] Privett had served in an interim capacity since February 1995 when federal judges in Birmingham tapped her to fill the position until Clinton made an appointment.[5]
1998 — Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.[citation needed] 1999 — Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.[citation needed] 2000 — Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.[citation needed]

[edit] 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. -RustavoTalk/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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. -RustavoTalk/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.-RustavoTalk/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)

[edit] 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)