A question about the US attorneys firing...

[Barcalounger]

Accepting tendered resignations upon administration change DOES NOT EQUAL firing attorneys in the middle of a term.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bush does not owe anybody a reason for [insert anything here]

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd, I thought he was an elected official, not a dictator. Elected officials owe their voters a reason for every single one of their actions while in office.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Bush dismissals comparable to Clinton's '93 dismissals

Several media outlets have compared the Bush administration's controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys to President Clinton's dismissal of almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. Clinton's firing of the prosecutors was highlighted March 13 at Drudgereport.com, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge. Over the next 24 hours, several media outlets -- including Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and MSNBC -- echoed the unfounded comparison between the Clinton and Bush dismissals.

In fact, while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."

A March 13 McClatchy Newspapers article -- headlined "Current situation is distinct from Clinton firings of U.S. attorneys" -- further noted that "[m]ass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration." The article added that "Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees."

[/ QUOTE ]
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bush does not owe anybody a reason for [insert anything here]

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd, I thought he was an elected official, not a dictator. Elected officials owe their voters a reason for every single one of their actions while in office.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

Would "because I wanted to" suffice?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

"Carol Lam, for instance. It's amazing to me she wasn't fired earlier because for three years members of Congress had complained that there had been all kinds of border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions. She was a former law professor with no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in southern California for Clinton "
-Orin Hatch-

Bush is a complete political nitwit. Why would you appoint a Bill Clinton campaign mgr as one of your political appointees? This is a case study of political incompetance by a sitting US president.

[Chris Alger]

"Pleasure of the President" isn't license to fire attorneys for any reason. If Bush had these attorneys fired to punish them for investigating Republicans or to otherwise intimidate or influence who they investigated or indicted, he can be impeached, convicted of obstruction of justice and see prison time. This is why the right-wing propagandists are so carefully obfuscating by absurdly insisting no law was broken despite the White House's previous admissions of lying, the refusal to disclose known documents and the frivolous invocation of "executive privilege" in an obvious attempt to conceal pertinent truths.

18 U.S.C. § 1503 defines obstruction of justice as follows: <ul type="square">Whoever ... by any threatening ... communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any ... officer in or of any court of the United States ... or by any threatening ... communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished ... by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.[/list]A related canard is that all presidents fire U.S. attorneys for approximately similar reasons. This was demolished by a Congressional Research Service study released on February 22.

For the 20 years prior to Bush, 54 attorneys left office under the President who appointed them before completing their terms. One died, 30 became judges or other government officials, 15 returned to private practice after announcing their desire to do so. Of the remaining 8, five resigned or were fired after coming under investigation or being publicly accused of impropriety. Three more resigned for reasons unknown, all during Bush.

Bush's sacking of eight more U.S. attorneys is therefore another of his many departures from precedent and law -- illegal edavesdropping, illegal torture, illegal war -- designed to illicitly empower this "conservative" administration.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush's sacking of eight more U.S. attorneys is therefore another of his many departures from precedent and law -- illegal edavesdropping, illegal torture, illegal war -- designed to illicitly empower this "conservative" administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know enough to comment on the specifics, but generally speaking, my sense is that this adminstration has indeed been seeking (and gaining) illegal empowerments, has been exceeding its Constitutional authority, and has at least encroached on the rights of American citizens.

Historically speaking, no doubt other administrations have done some such things too, but this is the first time in my lifetime that it has seemed like such a noticeable or major thing. Maybe some of that feeling is due to my just being more aware lately, but I really feel like this administration has overstepped more than any administration I can remember.

Watergate may have been more blatantly illegal but the current trend seems deeper and more significant and with greater ramifications. In short, I think this is a much more important issue than was Watergate.