DOJ having issues of there own

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title.

Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

They recieved high reviews for competency in the news stories i've read, thats part of the controversy, they were dismissed for political reasons, not because they were incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to?

NCAces

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title.

Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but shouldn't incompetent USA's be removed when it is revealed they aren't seeking justice?

[/ QUOTE ]

They recieved high reviews for competency in the news stories i've read, thats part of the controversy, they were dismissed for political reasons, not because they were incompetent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm objecting to the fact that they were let go because of discretionary decisions on who and who not to prosecute. Only the prosecutor is in a position to make that kind of determination after reviewing the evidence, if a prosecutor feels that a case is not warranted, he should not have political pressure applied to him to pursue it. (I'm talkign specifically of the prosecutors who were let go for their decision not to prosecute the cases of alleged voter fraud).

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance.

That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases.

NCAces

[Boris]

The reason Gonzales is taking so much heat is because he has not support from the evangelical, anti-abortion wing of the Republican party. The evangelicals would much, much prefer a John Ashcroft type and they see this "scandal" as a way of ousting Gonzales while letting the Democrats do all the dirty work.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title.

[/ QUOTE ]
So was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 DAs, including those tasked with investigating the Whitewater scandal one month after he was sworn in?

My instincts tell me you have a double standard for Repubs and Dems.......

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
They could not have been fired for being Clinton apointees who wanted to undermine Bush for partisan reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough....
I think Sandy Burger got a sweatheart deal after stuffing secrets down his socks. The DOJ gave him a small fine and he can't have access to national secrets until 2008...just in time to serve in a Hillary administration. This man should NEVER-EVER have access to national secrets forever and ever...

Then there is William Jefferson. Caught with $90,000 of marked money in and his freezer and the DOJ still has not indicted him..... The DOJ is screwed up and Bush is too blame. One for having that numbskull Gonzo in charge and two for not cleaning house....

[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]

So was it OK for Clinton to fire 93 DAs, including those tasked with investigating the Whitewater scandal one month after he was sworn in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think fire is a good word for what Clinton did, and mass replacement does not seem to be unusual. From wikipedia:

[ QUOTE ]
At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. A political office is generally thought of as one where a person "serves at the pleasure of the President."


If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by political appointees from the new President's party.[43] For example, President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993, and shortly after President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[44]

[/ QUOTE ]

In the emails to Karl Rove from 2005, the suggestion was floated to replace them all again. This would have been defensible, but instead they decided it would be disruptive, so they only fired those who failed to use the office as directed by Karl Rove (see wiki link for detailed reasons).

Replacing all US Attorneys at the start of your term?
Standard, not double standard.

Replacing US Attorneys for failing to prosecute opponents in time for an election, or for daring to prosecute friends?
Not illegal, but worthy of scrutiny and reproach.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One cannot understate the damage that firing US Attorneys for political reasons does to the rule of law in this country. I am dismayed that some intelligent people who posted above do not see this. This is one of the worst things that this administration has ever done, and there's a lot of competition for that title.

Editing to add that I am heartened by the fact that senators on both sides of the aisle are lining up not simply to denounce this but to demand Mr. Gonzalez's resignation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Niss here. While they may be political appointments, it is the duty of a prosecutor to be apolitical in excercising his duties. A prosecutor's only duty is to see that justice is done, not to help out the politics of his boss. If these prosecutor's were fired because the president didn't like who they were and weren't prosecuting for political reasons, then this is a travesty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll even go one further (slightly). I can live with Bush, or Clinton, or whoever coming in and cleaning house of US Attorneys, saying that they want to bring in their own people. For example, they want people who do or do not support the death penalty. Fine. What happened here is that these US Attorneys were fired for political reasons relative to a specific "case", or in a very limited number of "cases". That is completely unacceptable. US Attorneys should never feel pressure to do anything other than justice, as jman said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total agreement with both you and jman on this issue.

The differentiating factor is that the traditional "cleaning house" is a political PROCESS that is carried on with no prejudice regarding the actual performance of any US attorney.

Selectively firing specific US attorneys for political reasons while they are performing their task of upholding the law is totally unconscionable and should be dealt with in the harshest way available under our system of law.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sure that 99% of the previous USA that were let go by a new administration were also talented and dedicated public servants who received high marks. What specific political reasons where there for firing these USA's that everyone is objecting to?

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean this to be disrespectful. It sounds like you are not all that familiar with the facts underlying this story. The "specific political reasons" have been discussed ad nauseum in many of the news reports. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who does not seem to be familiar with the key facts but (apparently) simply wants to jump to the defense of the Attorney General and/or the president.

[/ QUOTE ]

No disrespect taken ... I've not kepy up with the specific issues in these cases. Regardless, I believe my general points as to what and why POTUS can and can't do stand. I'll take some time to read up on the current issue and weigh in if I get a chance.

That said, no one seems to be addressing my Kennedy example. As good a reason as there was to choose your own USAs, and it concerned policy issues and a single set of cases.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]


I would much rather Bush had dismissed all the AUSA's rather than just target the ones he did. Dismissing all of them is fine, they do serve at the pleasure of the president, and if the president wants to give some more people a chance, thats fine. However, setting the precedent that you are going to target prosecutor's because you don't like what kinds of people they have and have not been prosecuting is a terrible precedent.