DOJ having issues of there own

[jtflush29]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/...ss_prosecutors

[i]Cliff's notes: The Bush Administration fired 8 U.S. Attorney's for allegedly political reasons.

[damaniac]

I think this belongs in politics (and though i don't read the political forum, I'm sure there's a thread on this already).

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Theses DOJ DAs work for the Attorney General.
The Attourney General works for the President.
These DAs are political appointments and the president can fire them ANYTIME he wants to. When the Clinton took the Whitehouse they fired ALL the DOJ DAs. This has been going on for the the ENTIRE existence of this country.... So why are the Dems bitching about this? Or more importantly, why did the Attorney General apologize for not notifying congress? You got me.

I have maintain as a politician, Bush is an idiot.
As part of his "new tone" in Washington, Bush decided to keep Clintons DAs on the DOJ that wanted to remain on the job. This was STUUUU-PID. Should Bush be surprised that these partisan Dem DAs should go soft on prosecuting Dem Party operatives that were involved in vote fraud? I voted for Bush twice because Gore/Kerry were bigger morons than Bush. I can't wait till Bush is gone....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Clinton fired 96 at one time and the media yawned. Bush fires 8 and people are complaining? You foaming-at-the-mouth Dems might want to keep you glass houses in order before throwing bricks...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784
Clintons fired 93 at once. Now this was unprecedented.
The standard practice is to gradually replace the DOJ attorneys to insure a smooth transition when a new administration takes over. Keeping many Clinton holdovers was part of Bush's setting a "new tone" in Washington. One of Bush's dumb-ass blunders. These partisan Clinton DAs repaid Bush by going soft on Democratic operatives who were caught in vote fraud..... Forget their oaths of office. They can't be expected to prosecute Dems who commit vote fraud...

[iron81]

I'm with Felix, this seems like much ado about nothing. US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President.

That said, if he really is firing people because they pursue Republicans too aggressively, Bush has a lot to answer for.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Felix

[/ QUOTE ]

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with Felix, this seems like much ado about nothing. US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President.

That said, if he really is firing people because they pursue Republicans too aggressively, Bush has a lot to answer for.

[/ QUOTE ]

They got fired for not investigating democrats suspected of voting fraud.

Clinton fired all 96 to coverup the one investigating Whitewater and Vince Foster's murder.

[zyqwert]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping many Clinton holdovers was part of Bush's setting a "new tone" in Washington. These partisan Clinton DAs repaid Bush by going soft on Democratic operatives who were caught in vote fraud.....

[/ 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.

The links from the DOJ may not be around for long since these people have been fired, but each shows when the fired US Attorney was appointed.

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

<ul type="square"> [*]Ms. Margaret M. Chiara[*]John McKay[*]Paul K. Charlton[*]David Igleslias[*]Carol Lam[*]Daniel Bogden[*]Kevin Ryan[*]Bud Cummins[/list]

[niss]

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.

[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