home

U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced

By Jeralyn, Section Law Related
Posted on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:17:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Southern District of New York will be losing David Kelly, a well-respected prosecutor who has shunned publicity and politics, because he's a Democrat.

Mr. Kelley, 45, is drawing attention now because the Bush administration is about to replace him. The White House has let it be known that President Bush plans to nominate Michael J. Garcia, the immigration and customs chief for the Department of Homeland Security, according to Senator Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat of New York, who has been monitoring the process.

According to Mr. Schumer and several justice officials, Mr. Kelley was not tapped to continue in his job because he is a registered Democrat. "The virtually universal view is that he's done an excellent job," Mr. Schumer said.

Among the successful prosecutions the office yielded under Kelly's stewardship: Martha Stewart, the Rigas family of Adelphia Communications, WorldCom's chief Bernard J. Ebbers, and the defense lawyer Lynne F. Stewart.

Kelly's philosophy stands in stark contrast to that of prior office holders like Rudy Giuliani and Mary Jo White:

Mr. Kelley likes a lower profile, choosing, as he puts it, to "let the verdict speak for itself." "I'm not a politician," he said in a recent interview. He occasionally holds a news conference to announce a flashy indictment, like the corruption charges he filed this month in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. But after a trial victory, Mr. Kelley said, it is unseemly to crow.

"We don't want to be seen pounding our chests," he said. "That's the wrong message to send about what we are doing."

< Report: 1 of Every 138 U.S. Residents in Jail | Celebrity Blogging Begins May 9 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced | 36 comments (36 topical)
    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 12:01:42 AM EST
    Well, at least they took the time to come up with a reason that doesn't sound too Soviet. Oh, wait.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:31:41 AM EST
    This is all part of the intimidation machine the repugs have refined to art! It's Stalinistic in it's nature. Intent on creating one party rule and to destroy the oposition in all it's forms. Clearly, the impact on the behavior of our MSM demonstrates the effectiveness of this conspiracy.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:10:02 AM EST
    IF it is true that this prosecutor is being replaced simply because he is a Democrat, it's a stupid thing to do (which is about par for the course any more with this administration). BUT, taking Chuckie Schumer's word for it when he is the man who thinks it's just dandy to refuse other people confirmation based solely on their political affiliations, is a bit of a stretch.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:13:44 AM EST
    Ed B - Get a grip. It is SOP to replace people with your party in situations such as this. All administrations do it. Some do it better than others. Just ask the people in the White House Travel office.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:33:02 AM EST
    FYI ... Senator Lamar Alexander's recent lament on the issue begs for a response. Alexander declares, ''Until recently, not to vote at all on a president's judicial nominee was unimaginable.'' One can only hope that Lamar didn't write that sentence, as he must know it is flatly untrue. It was not unimaginable in 1968 when Republicans successfully filibustered President Johnson's nominee for chief justice, Abe Fortas, preventing any vote at all. More recently, it was not unimaginable when the Republican-controlled Senate failed to allow a vote on at least 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, six times the number blocked by Democrats. They did it by denying those nominees not only a simple up or down vote, but even a hearing in committee. They did it by putting anonymous ''holds'' on those nominees; and, yes, they did it by threatening or engaging in the filibuster they so oppose today. ... Alexander continues ''...in the last session of Congress, for some reason that still escapes me, the minority felt it had to use the filibuster to deny an up or down vote 10 times...'' The reason is simple: Democrats believe that the 10 nominees are unqualified for lifetime appointment because they are extreme in their views and activist in their philosophy, and Republicans have stripped the minority of any other means to fight such unqualified nominees. ... Changing rules to suit majority whims seems to be a trend in Republican Party control of Congress. Alexander says he truly believes ''...a rules change is not good for the Senate, not good for the country....'' If the proposal is bad for the Senate and bad for the country, it matters not who is ''provoking'' it; Lamar should vote against it. Will he be true to his beliefs or will he join those like Tom DeLay pandering to the extremists? Doug Johnston is a Nashville attorney.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:35:37 AM EST
    According to your logic (or lack thereof), PPJ, we can't ask them. Because, if SOP is in effect, the Illegal Usurper has already replaced them. Is it SOP to replace everyone who is not in your party in situations like this? I seem to recall a large number of career government employess who were retained by the last legally elected president even though they were not Democrats. Richard Clarke comes to mind right away. All of you Bush Fellators At Work, why don't you get a grip? Stop making excuses for the wanton partisan abuse of the system that the Republics are engaging in. Show that you possess some sort of reality-based ethics and mores and admit that the Republic party under Bush has been engaging in partisan politics to a greater extent than Democrats ever have.* Call for a return to civil discourse, compromise, and bipartisanship in government. Take a good look at what's going on here, and admit that is an example of petty vindictiveness if they're getting rid of the guy because he's a registered Democrat. * - perhaps Andrew Jackson might be close to abusing the spoils system as much as the Taxes Souffle. Perhaps.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:37:55 AM EST
    oops - Freud must have been guiding my hand. I meant the Texas Souffle, not the Taxes Souffle.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:53:04 AM EST
    Yes, Jim, I am sure you were supportive of the shakeup at the White House travel office. Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could. So, do a little research if you think this is sop - how many prosecutors did Clinton replace because they were repubs in his eight years? These are professional positions with caseloads, important work that needs continuity. You would have made such a good german a few decades ago. Fascists everywhere and in every time have relied on your type.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:23:58 AM EST
    CA, Didn't Clinton fire every sitting U.S. Attorney when he took office? How did this effect the ongoing cases? If this guy is being fired because he is a Democrat, it's a stupid move. But someone needs to prove that this is the case before everyone gets their panties in a twist.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:30:29 AM EST
    Link to Clinton firing every US Attorney please, Justpaul.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:33:53 AM EST
    PPJ--Why are you Republicans pushing for a one-party system?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:44:42 AM EST
    CA - Can you say sarcasm? From the article, Kelly "was appointed to the job" in 2003. The fact that he was a Democrat certainly didn't hurt his chances with the Clintons, who were/are known to punish their enemies and reward their friends with great vigor. And I see no particular problem with that. These are political positions, and the person involved knows that. justpaul - Yes, I think that is correct. I know the Repubs claimed that the KC firing was based on the attorney pursuing Whitewater. Or perhaps it was the commodity trading scandal that Hillary was involved in. So, CA. Don't be so offended when a little politics gets into the act. It has happened time and again, by both sides, and will continue into the distant future.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:11:31 AM EST
    Oh what the hell; it only took a minute. Last June, Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, "Judging by Ideology," which appeared on the same day he held hearings on whether ideology should play a role in the selection and confirmation of judges. He concluded it should, to no one' surprise. Earlier this summer, Schumer chaired the first in a series of subcommittee hearings designed to provide cover for the Democrats' obstruction strategy. That hearing -- innocently billed as an inquiry into whether Senators could get away with using ideological litmus tests when evaluating candidates for the apolitical federal bench -- concluded that open and honest consideration of ideology benefits the Senate, nominees, and the Judiciary itself. Or so Schumer said on Tuesday.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:14:59 AM EST
    Marty, You need to review Mr. Schumer's past statements about why it is acceptable to refuse confirmation to an appointee based on their political beliefs. CA, If you want a link for this, either do your own Google search or at least provide the ones you have been asked for first.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#9)
    by marty on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    "...to refuse other people confirmation based solely on their political affiliations, is a bit of a stretch." solely?????? You do know what the word means, don't you?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:18:06 AM EST
    Conscious Angel, We should not forget that Bill Clinton’s first act as president was to fire all the U.S attorneys across the U.S. – an unprecedented act by an American president. (14) Fired all U.S. Attorneys to appoint Paula Casey who prevented Judge David Hale from testifying against Clinton. ALL 93 career U.S. Attorneys (fired by Janet Reno March 23, 1993) When President Clinton took office he fired all the U.S. Attorneys How's that for you? Is this what we are reduced to now CA? You refuse to provide any evidence for your off-topic claims of abuse but feel free to require proof from others? How enlightened of you. Well there you have it, so.... Did this affect ongoing cases? It's a simple yes or no question.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:22:13 AM EST
    PPJim, I'm a Dog, so it's a natural hypothetical: If I were to pee on your foot, would you just say to yourself, oh, well, all Dogs pee on stuff -- just ask a fire hydrant? Because peeing on your foot is more like peeing on a fire hydrant than firing a successful prosecutor because he's a Democrat is like firing the staff of the WH travel office because they are mixed up in embezzlement of office funds. Kelly is highly successful and highly regarded in his work as US Atty. The sole problem (if you want to call it that) he presents for the Bush administration is simply this: He registered as a Democrat. Billy Dale commingled his personal funds with office money, which in itself, even if there were nothing else amiss, would satisfy the legal requirements for an embezzlement conviction. He and his staff presented at least two major problems for the Clinton administration: First, he had repeatedly committed prosecutable offenses in the course of his job, and if they were to tolerate that, they would themselves be vulnerable to criticism or worse. Second, which follows logically and directly from the embezzlement problem, he and his staff were at best -- at best -- incompetent to manage money, which was a key part of their jobs. You're saying these two things should be compared equally. Are you serious? Regards, Dog, etc.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:22:29 AM EST
    Just Paul Do you think a Judge who openly or privately advocates the tearing down of our principles of the seperation of church and state should not be firmly rejected by the Democrats? Schumer's use of the word politics is important. A highly Qualified Judge who supports the klan is not someone I want on the supreme court. Any Judge who would bring his Religious beliefs in to his court is undermining the principle of SOCS and should not be confirmed!

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:35:00 AM EST
    For the non-lawyers commenting on this thread, the position of the U.S. Attorney is a political job. When a President is elected that is of a different party than the previous President, the new president replaces all the US attorneys with ones from his own party. Often, they are not career prosecutors. The US Attorney runs the office, he or she may not try cases themselves. U.S. attorneys are picked by a state's two senators, who recommend them to the President. So Schumer and Clinton in New York would be responsible for picking a Republican U.S. Attorney. The assistant us attorneys, those who actually do the prosecuting, don't have to leave or be of the same party. As the article said, because of the importance of terrorism prosecutions, Kelley, who was never appointed but moved into the job on a temporary basis when James Comey went to the Justice Dept, just happened to stay for longer than ususal. So there's nothing unusual about Kelly's being replaced. It's just a "if the cart ain't broke" kind of thing - since he's done such a good job for the Government, why not leave him there?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:35:07 AM EST
    Ed, No, I don't want someone who wishes to tear down the wall separating church and state confirmed as a federal judge, but I also don't want judges refused, or prosecutors removed, based only on their ideological stances. IF that's what happened in this case, and I for one am not willing to accept Chuckie Schumer's statement that it is as fact, then it's wrong. But even if Schumer is correct in his statement, it seems odd that he would disapprove given his position that it would have been correct to refuse confirmation to Kelly as a judge based on his politics. Can you say "speaking out of both sides of your mouth"?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#22)
    by mpower1952 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:49:21 AM EST
    Ed B - You're right about Lamar Alexander. I called his DC office last week and complained about his disingenuous and misleading statements in that editorial. I ended my 20 minute discussion with his aide by urging him to clarify his remarks since the people of Tennessee deserved a senator who they could trust to give them all the pertinent facts and not just the Republican party line. BTW - Frist is using the same phrases Sen. A used in print. I wonder what came first the Alexander or the Frist?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    Uh guys - guys Did anyone read TL's comment? She's right by the way. I was mostly curious (thanks TL) about how he survived for a whole term plus. So the US Attorney thing should be done now right?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#24)
    by libdevil on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    It's ridiculous on its face to assert that these 10 judges were blocked soley because of their political affiliation or conservative or religious views. More than 200 judges have been approved by the Senate, and as Bush appointees they would be universally Republican and conservative, and overwhelmingly religious (by which Republicans is understood to mean a paid member of certain evangelical Christian sects). If it were about party affiliation, nothing about these 10 would stand out. If it were about conservatism, they wouldn't stand out. If it were about professing the 'proper' religion, none of them would stand out. No, these 10 were blocked because they were the most extreme, with the most objectionable judicial philosophies, most objectionable decisions and opinions, and hold views furthest from the mainstream.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    As we all know Michael J. Garcia is a don't ask, don't tell guy, its crystal clear to anyone who can see. Bush is setting up this guy to do some business and the business isn't to help anyone, but to do his non-enforcement policies as he did at DHS, And ICE, Just wait and see. Bush/Fox, doing business on you!

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - Are you incapable of understanding that these are political appointee positions? Did you read the links where Clinton fired all of them? You may not like it, I may not like it. But both sides have done it, do it and will do it in the future. Quit crying. Someday your side will have its turn. Dog - The WH Travel staff was not involved in stealing. Ask the head of it who was ruined while defending himself. The jury called him not guilty after being out for less than 45 minutes. I don't think it wise to call him quilty of criminal activities he as been cleared of. As for your dog peeing, I would suggest a trip to the Vet. Perhaps he is suffering from PVS and should be starved to death. libdevil writes - "No, these 10 were blocked because they were the most extreme, with the most objectionable judicial philosophies, most objectionable decisions and opinions, and hold views furthest from the mainstream." So, if you are correct, there should be no problem in defeating them during the constitutional process. BTW - There are seven that have been resubmitted from those previously blocked, not 10.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#28)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    So, last poster. You have some corrections of fact to make? Ah, never mind.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#29)
    by Al on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 03:21:06 PM EST
    ...like the corruption charges he filed this month in the United Nations oil-for-food scandal. Among those charged was Texas oilman David Chalmers. The indictment says that Chalmers paid bribes to the Iraqis so that his company could sell Iraqi oil under the UN program. I wonder if he's being thrown out because he's a Democrat. I don't think so.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - Don't tell me. You also have a dog in PVS? What a coincidence. But dogs aside, I will also ask. What did I say that is not correct? Your turn.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:02:10 PM EST
    Thanks for the links, justpaul. I stand corrected. Also appreciate TL's overview of US Attorneys and how the offices work. Guess this is no big deal except to the attorney himself and Schumer?

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    What does Alberto Gonzalez have to say about one of the judges the dems are fighting? (courtesy of mediamatters.org) While serving on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen dissented strongly from the court's 2000 ruling on Jane Doe 1(II), 19 S.W.3d 346, which determined that "Jane Doe" had met the legal requirements for a judicial bypass under the state's parental notification law governing abortion for minors. Owen said the court had acted "irresponsibly." Her dissent earned a harsh rebuke from fellow Republican justice Alberto Gonzales, who is now U.S. attorney general. Gonzales accused Owen essentially of rewriting the law by ignoring the language of the statute and legislative history, and wrote that adopting Owen's position on the case "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Bush nominated Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2002 and re-nominated her in February 2005.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    JL - Nice try. Owens reply was that it wasn't the appeal court's job to retry the facts in the case. A point, I might, that the Left made time and again over Schivo.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#34)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    Conscious. Why on earth did you need the links from Just Paul? It was a big, big deal. How did you miss it? I mean that seriously. Were you out of town? Did you forget? Or were you hoping that nobody would bother linking to what anybody with half a brain already knew and so could claim "he lies" and thus victory? I really don't understand. Of course, when this thread opened up, I expected a bit of moderation on account of Clinton's actions, but I was wrong on that, too.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:09:37 AM EST
    PPJ: I am sorry, did I miss what Gonzalez said? Perhaps I should post it again: and wrote that adopting Owen's position on the case "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism"

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 06:46:55 AM EST
    RA - I tried very hard to ignore the Clinton years. I thought he was republican lite, not new democrat. For all the republicans reacting we elected Fidel, this guy was very middle of the road. In retrospect I can see that the fiscal responsibility forged between Clinton and a republican congress had some good results, but all in all, I just tried to ignore the Clinton years. Most of the time got swallowed up by stupid stuff like Linda Tripp, Monica's thong, and the Rose Law firm. It was bloodsport and I am not a big fan of that stuff. There may have been serious public policy stuff like the Balkans, the opportunities to confront Al Qaeda, but it got overwhelmed by people like Ken Starr and Trent Lott. I thought the Clintons made quite a few political missteps. I missed or forgot their firing of all the US Attorneys. For the record, I think some continuity in these positions would be a good thing and I do not support removing any competent US Attorney because of their political affiliation unless their work on the job has become too politically motivated. For those reasons, I do not think this guy David Kelly should be replaced, but it's a political appointment with advise of consent of the state's senators. So be it. Hope the senators don't opt for filibuster, cause I don't know how we get the 60% to break with just two people voting.

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:29:07 PM EST
    You see, this PPJ character is busy pissing on everyone. He seems to think someone died and made him the official critic and judge of everone else. He is not worth engagement. [insult deleted, commenter warned not to personally insult other commenters.]

    Re: U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    As I said I don't care very much for either of the Clintons. They had an opportunity and just bungled it amazingly from the health care issue to gays in the military to the famous blue dress. I think many people in the Balkans are alive today thanks to Clinton's decisions who would otherwise be dead and he may have accomplished a few other things, but as I said, I am no fan of Bill or Hillary.

    U.S. Atty David Kelly To Be Replaced | 36 comments (36 topical)