DOJ having issues of there own

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Each of these fired US Attorneys was appointed by Bush in 2001, except for Kevin Ryan -- he was appointed in 2002. Some had been assitant US Attorneys before their appointment, but in each case they got that job during a republican administration.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, No, No. Don't let facts get in the way. It is all Clinton's fault!!! or Clinton did it too!!!!

uhhh... Hey, look over there. Evil Doers, it is hard work. We need a young girl to come up missing someplace.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each of these fired US Attorneys was appointed by Bush in 2001, except for Kevin Ryan -- he was appointed in 2002. Some had been assitant US Attorneys before their appointment, but in each case they got that job during a republican administration.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, No, No. Don't let facts get in the way. It is all Clinton's fault!!! or Clinton did it too!!!!

uhhh... Hey, look over there. Evil Doers, it is hard work. We need a young girl to come up missing someplace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't chime in unless you have something to add to the discussion. This post adds nothing.

[NCAces]

[ 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 ]

Ok, you can argue that any President firing US Attorneys (USA) for political reasons is a bad idea. That is a fair argument, and I'd love to hear why you think it is so bad for the rule of law.

Personally, I don't see it being that big of a deal unless it is abused. The new USAs will continue to go after the same real bad guys the old USAs went after. Where they will differ is their aggressiveness with respect to certain issues that relate more to policy than criminality. It appears for example, that one of the USAs that was fired refused to investigate the alleged voting irregularities in Washington State. If the President doesn't think that his appointee is getting the job done investigating voter fraud, then he should act accordingly. Another example would have been some of the southern USAs that Kennedy replaced because they were not being aggressive enough enforcing civil rights laws in the deep south. Should he not have had the right to replace them with USAs who were more aggressive in going after the KKK, etc?

Could the administration have overplayed its hand? Sure, if they let an USA go who was being overly aggressive to a friend of POTUS or something that obvious, then they would have a perception and PR problem. But that does not appear to be the problem here. In fact, I have not yet read an article in which any of the numb-nuts on the Hill have explained why they have their panties in a wad.

What can't be argued is that this administration has done anything unprecedented here. As has been pointed out, this has always been the way it is at the Federal level. Most administrations do it over a long period of time to minimize the disruption it can cause. Clinton did surprise everyone by simply asking for all 90+ USAs to resign and be out of their offices within 7 days. But, he had the ability to do so. Candidly, many conservatives wondered why Bush left so many of the existing USAs in place.

A good friend of mine that I went to law school with is the Acting USA in Atlanta. I can assure you that she was surprised when, as a democrat, she was not replaced. As for politics coming into play here, she is one of the top legal minds in the country who will surely be raised to the level of a Federal District/Circuit Judge at some point ... problem is that as a Democrat she has to wait for a Democratic POTUS. At this level politics is ever present.

NCAces

[jman220]

[ 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.

[Emperor]

[ 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 ]

Yes because firing a handful of of lackluster prosecutors that seem to be overlooking a huge amount of evidence concerning VOTER FRAUD, is sooo much worse than firing EVERY prosecutor to coverup one who is investigating a rackateering/murder conspiracy. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

More disturbing Clinton violence:

http://hometown.aol.com/beachbt/bodies.htm

[iron81]

Emperor, do you honestly believe that Clinton fired 90 some US Attorneys as a cover up for a murder?

[niss]

[ 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.

[Emperor]

[ 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?

[jman220]

[ 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.

[NCAces]

[ 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 ]

But, what if it is their political point of view that is causing what the administration sees as the problem. What if what they think is "justice" doesn't square with the administration?

Example, again: deep south US Attys not aggressively pursuing the Civil Rights Act ... that is for a specific number of cases (or a single Act), yet you can't argue Kennedy was wrong for bringing in his own when the others wouldn't toe the line.

Again, we agree if it is a single case of abuse ... like a USA proceeding against a crony of POTUS. Even if legal, it doesn't look good. But, what is the abuse here? Is there any eveidence that these guys were let go because they were going after the wrong person? I haven't read anything like that.

NCAces