DOJ having issues of there own

[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]

There is NOTHING in your wiki link.
The NORMAL process is to gradually replace all 93 DOJ DAs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was this memo which shows Bush's intention to replace the 93 by June of 2001.

[ QUOTE ]
These are political appointments. Anyone in the executive branch can throw their 2 cents in... Part of the power of the executive branch is to set priorities in cases to prosecute. Their priorities might be drugs, white collar crime, corruption, etc... DOJ lawyers that don't follow these priorities should be dismissed. Their job is to implement the adminstrations priorities with regard to law enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course political appointees can be fired at will. The appearance in this case is competence is defined by party loyalty. The administration's priority with regard to law enforcement is "get democrats" and "protect republicans", and they expect the US Attorneys to fall in line. For those like jman (a federal prosecutor?) who imagined that once appointed, a US Attorney would put the law first, this is disappointing.

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, you are spinning the facts....
The standard is the gradually replacement of all DOJ DAs to insure a smooth transition. Clinton's mass firings were a first. All pending cases that the DOJ were involved with at the time were thrown into turmoil. One of many examples where the Clinton administration failed to act like grownups...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to spin dishonestly, I suffer from a lack of facts. My googling for contemporary stories on past DOJ firing practices has failed. I have no personal memory of the Clinton firings. So, I'm stuck with wikipedia, the CRS report on in term firings, and news reports that recycle the same few facts. At least now I understand why Clinton was different. He replaced the 93 within 10 days, while Bush did within 6 months upon taking office. Six months seems better, but both sound very disruptive to me. I guess it depends on how long cases take.

It's not clear to me if you are suggesting the Clinton firings were incompetence (disruption), or obstructing justice (killing Whitewater investigation). Obstruction of justice would be akin to what we have today and worth investigating. Of course it is now 2007 and not 1993 so I think I'm ready to let that go.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a NOTHING story

[/ QUOTE ]

Some prosecutors pissed off various politicians, and their boss was unwilling to protect them. A good AG would have protected his competent employees. Now it looks like the AG might get fired.

The original newsworthy part was the Patriot Act easter egg that lets them make temporary apointments who can serve out the term without Senate approval (upsetting the Senate when they figured out what they'd done to themselves). Obviously money spent lobbying is a waste -- to get the UIGEA repealed we simply need to bribe one staffer.