[selowitch]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Apparently a significant number of U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush administration for "political reasons." Now, I'm a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but isn't the administration free to fire these people for whatever reason they deem important? Are their hiring/firing decisions subject to review? Come to think of it, why is politics not a good reason to fire someone from what is, let's face it, at least in part a political, appointed position?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Apparently a significant number of U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush administration for "political reasons." Now, I'm a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but isn't the administration free to fire these people for whatever reason they deem important? Are their hiring/firing decisions subject to review? Come to think of it, why is politics not a good reason to fire someone from what is, let's face it, at least in part a political, appointed position?

I agree. I've never thought it was an important issue. It certainly isn't important when DEMOCRATS fire people for not being Democrats.

Also, just for the record: in B4 Timeline.

[The Crook]

^The fired attorneys were Republicans.

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Come to think of it, why is politics not a good reason to fire someone from what is, let's face it, at least in part a political, appointed position?

Are you joking?

Do you know what U.S. Attorneys are? They are the top prosecutors for the United States. You think federal prosecutors should be able to be fired for not going after political enemies hard enough? How is what you're suggesting not a very bad thing?

[stupendousman]

I think it's another "Valeria Plame" non-scandal scandal used to try and make Bush look as corrupt as the Clinton's were. Back during those eight years, the Clinton's where constantly getting caught with their hands in the ethics cookie jar with multiple special counsels and ethics complaints, illegal fundraising, etc. It seemed like a day didn't go by that someone wasn't getting railroaded or slimed by the Clinton's because they didn't do their bidding, from the Travel Office employees to any of their perceived political opponents. Because of that, whenever there's the slightest bit of biting partisanship from Bush's people, it's going to make headlines.

Like the Plame fishing expedition, there's not likely anything illegal here. As it's been stated, these guys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he doesn't like the tie they are wearing, he can dismiss them. The fact that they refused to fully prosecute cases that their superiors made clear where criminal complaints that needed attention makes it clear that they weren't doing what they were told to do, and not really a "rocket science" sort of thing as far as finding people who would. Unless you can show that the attorneys in question were being asked to do something illegal and they refused, I doubt you have a "case". I'm sure it won't stop the democrats from making something out of it, as they did Plame.

[The Crook]

You dead-enders are incredible.

[Chongo]

Bush should have done what Clinton did, fire ALL of them at once.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bush should have done what Clinton did, fire ALL of them at once.

The fired attorneys were all Bush appointees.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... as the Clinton's were. ... the Clinton's where ... by the Clinton's ...

Clinton's what?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think it's another "Valeria Plame" non-scandal scandal used to try and make Bush look as corrupt as the Clinton's were. Back during those eight years, the Clinton's where constantly getting caught with their hands in the ethics cookie jar with multiple special counsels and ethics complaints, illegal fundraising, etc. It seemed like a day didn't go by that someone wasn't getting railroaded or slimed by the Clinton's because they didn't do their bidding, from the Travel Office employees to any of their perceived political opponents. Because of that, whenever there's the slightest bit of biting partisanship from Bush's people, it's going to make headlines.

Like the Plame fishing expedition, there's not likely anything illegal here. As it's been stated, these guys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he doesn't like the tie they are wearing, he can dismiss them. The fact that they refused to fully prosecute cases that their superiors made clear where criminal complaints that needed attention makes it clear that they weren't doing what they were told to do, and not really a "rocket science" sort of thing as far as finding people who would. Unless you can show that the attorneys in question were being asked to do something illegal and they refused, I doubt you have a "case". I'm sure it won't stop the democrats from making something out of it, as they did Plame.

Seriously Stupendousman you need to get a clue.

I guess that's why there were Subpoenas issued, (but never enforced because Bush told the Justice Dept not to) to Karl Rove and Harriet Myers over these firings? But in your mind they were subpoenaed for nothing right?

Nevermind the fact that Bush fired these attorney's when they wouldn't go after Bush's political enemies such as ACORN. These attorney's actually stood up for their Ethics and were fired because of them.

Never mind the fact that Attorney General Gonzales had to be replaced because of this.

Never mind the fact that Bush is claiming Executive Privilege over thousands of "lost" emails.

Never mind that Rove and Myers are going to go to jail over it. No biggie right? Just a little trampling of the Constitution.

You guys wonder why you lost the election?

No wonder the Republicans thought Palin was their savior, you guys make her look like a MENSA member.

End of story.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I guess that's why there were Subpoenas issued, (but never enforced because Bush told the Justice Dept not to) to Karl Rove and Harriet Myers over these firings? But in your mind they were subpoenaed for nothing right?

You can subpoena a ham sandwich. Then indict it if you like. Seriously, are you telling ME to get a clue?

Nevermind the fact that Bush fired these attorney's when they wouldn't go after Bush's political enemies such as ACORN.

The guys engaged in all kinds of fraudulent activities? The ones that just this election cycle where caught doing all kinds of dirty things and the FBI has been investigating?

It really doesn't matter if they are his "political enemies" or not. If they are potentially engaging in criminal behavior, and their boss tells them it's a priority and they decide they aren't going to do what their boss tells them, and they are a political appointee, it's not rock science what comes next.

Never mind the fact that Attorney General Gonzales had to be replaced because of this.

He was replaced because his testimony regarding this didn't jive with other records. It appeared that despite doing nothing illegal, he may been trying to spin the situation for political gain in a way that wasn't entirely appropriate. Gonzales was made the scapegoat, and for the most part, the entire matter sort of went away and off the front pages. I'm sure that Democrats looking for SOMETHING to accuse Bush of now that they've got their guy in the White House (but really coming up short) will do whatever they can to make hay of it now though.

Never mind that Rove and Myers are going to go to jail over it. No biggie right? Just a little trampling of the Constitution.

THE DRAMA! I love it

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Clinton's what?

Clinton's US attorneys obviously.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Clinton's US attorneys obviously.

Their almost constant legal and ethical lapses.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It really doesn't matter if they are his "political enemies" or not. If they are potentially engaging in criminal behavior, and their boss tells them it's a priority and they decide they aren't going to do what their boss tells them, and they are a political appointee, it's not rock science what comes next.

What comes next should be zero political interference, which is tradionally the case.

What you're suggesting is that the President could direct Republican U.S. Attorneys to bring indictments only against Democrats, regardless of their merit, and that this system is perfectly acceptable to you. Republican donor gets caught financing a cocaine shipment? "Don't indict him or I'll fire you." "Rule of law Republican" you and your ilk certainly aren't.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

What you're suggesting is that the President could direct Republican U.S. Attorneys to bring indictments only against Democrats, regardless of their merit, and that this system is perfectly acceptable to you.

That's not what is happening, or even what they have been accused of.

You have no special protection just because you may be seen as a "political enemy" of the President. If you have engaged in criminal behavior - things that the people in charge have decided should be prosecuted, you should get prosecuted. Other attorney's can't just decide that their bosses priorities aren't their own and act on their own and cry interference once they get fired for not prosecuting criminal behavior regardless of who it is that is engaging in it.

Republican donor gets caught financing a cocaine shipment? "Don't indict him or I'll fire you." "Rule of law Republican" you and your ilk certainly aren't.

Apples and oranges. Stopping attorney's from prosecuting crimes done by allies is WAY different then forcing them to prosecute crimes done by their political enemies. If they don't prosecute, there is no opportunity for those people to be judged by a jury of their peers. If you do prosecute, even your political enemies, a system of checks and balances and a jury of your peers acts as a barrier to over-reaching prosecution.

What the Bush administration has been accused of isn't illegal, and probably doesn't really violate any kind of ethical standards. Spun the right way though, it does look partisan or political, which is why the Democrats have/will use this. It's about all they've got. This will likely go the way of the Plame case - a big fishing expedition used just to get headlines with a few scapegoats sacrificed.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's not what is happening, or even what they have been accused of.

It's the logical conclusion of what you're practically bear-hugging. U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. So (in your view), the President could direct them to go after Democrats, regardless of the merit of the case, and decline to prosecute Republicans.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You have no special protection just because you may be seen as a "political enemy" of the President. If you have engaged in criminal behavior - things that the people in charge have decided should be prosecuted, you should get prosecuted. Other attorney's can't just decide that their bosses priorities aren't their own and act on their own and cry interference once they get fired for not prosecuting criminal behavior regardless of who it is that is engaging in it.

(1) Who's talking about "special protection?"

No one. What I'm talking about is that U.S. Attorneys should not be subject to political interference in enforcing the law of this country. If you think enforcing the law of this country should be based on politics, then I have a problem with that. Certainly, the President may select Attorneys for ideological reasons. There's no problem with that at all. But deciding who to prosecute should be their independent decision. And indeed it had been up until the Bush administration.

(2) This "boss-employee" distinction you're drawing needs to go.

U.S. Attorneys had been their own "bosses" up until the Bush administration. A U.S. Attorney isn't some low-level employee who merely follows orders. No one had interfered with their decisions to bring charges or not to bring charges, and for good reason. The job of enforcing and prosecuting federal law should not be political. Bush changed that.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Apples and oranges. Stopping attorney's from prosecuting crimes done by allies is WAY different then forcing them to prosecute crimes done by their political enemies. If they don't prosecute, there is no opportunity for those people to be judged by a jury of their peers. If you do prosecute, even your political enemies, a system of checks and balances and a jury of your peers acts as a barrier to over-reaching prosecution.

(1) Carol Lam and Paul Charlton were fired in retribution for prosecuting political allies.

(2) That you find nothing wrong with politically-motivated prosecution regardless of the merits again shows Republicans disrespect and disregard for the rule of law.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What the Bush administration has been accused of isn't illegal, and probably doesn't really violate any kind of ethical standards. Spun the right way though, it does look partisan or political, which is why the Democrats have/will use this. It's about all they've got. This will likely go the way of the Plame case - a big fishing expedition used just to get headlines with a few scapegoats sacrificed.

What do you mean "spun the right way, it looks political?"

Didn't you just spend 3 posts extolling the virtues of politics-based prosecution of federal law?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Apparently a significant number of U.S. Attorneys were fired by the Bush administration for "political reasons." Now, I'm a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but isn't the administration free to fire these people for whatever reason they deem important? Are their hiring/firing decisions subject to review? Come to think of it, why is politics not a good reason to fire someone from what is, let's face it, at least in part a political, appointed position?

The scandal part comes from the firings likely being interference with ongoing investigations the U.S. Attorneys were working on, as political favors to those being investigated. I'm not going to do The Google for you, but the info is out there.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

It's the logical conclusion of what you're practically bear-hugging. U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. So (in your view), the President could direct them to go after Democrats, regardless of the merit of the case, and decline to prosecute Republicans.

He could. At that point, Congress would have to ask if ONLY prosecuting one party was an abuse of power. I'm pretty sure the Justice Department forcing it's employees to prosecute all criminal activity, regardless if it's by a "political enemy" or not, isn't even in the same ballpark as you're suggesting. Again, there's a difference between going after criminals who you oppose and giving favors to those who you are allied with.

No one. What I'm talking about is that U.S. Attorneys should not be subject to political interference in enforcing the law of this country.

U.S. Attorneys are subject to the priorities of their bosses up the chain of command. If they refuse to enforce the laws which are on the books that their bosses feel require priority status, they are not doing their job. You can't do that then claim "politics" in a job which is a political appointment, which serves at the pleasure of the President. If you aren't willing to follow the legal orders of your superiors, then you can assume you won't have a job long.

If you think enforcing the law of this country should be based on politics, then I have a problem with that.

Either the people in question where violating the law or not. The law isn't political. It doesn't matter if the people in question where "political enemies" or not. If attorneys refuse to properly prosecute the crimes because they've decided that the priorities of their bosses are irrelevant, there is just cause for removal. Again, if the attorneys are being forced to make up evidence....make false accusations, etc., you'd have a case. We are talking about legal prosecution of criminal behavior.

Certainly, the President may select Attorneys for ideological reasons. There's no problem with that at all. But deciding who to prosecute should be their independent decision. And indeed it had been up until the Bush administration.

Doubtful. I'm pretty sure people from the Justice Department high on the "food chain" have always directed attorneys toward the prosecution of certain crimes or lessoned the priority of others. That's the very reason why the attorney job is a political appointment - so that they'll follow the criminal prosecution priorities of the Attorney General - their boss. Otherwise, you'll CONSTANTLY have the sort of thing happening that we are seeing now.

U.S. Attorneys had been their own "bosses" up until the Bush administration.

No, they haven't. They've always been directed by the head of the Justice Department. Just because they are often giving broad leeway doesn't mean that they are their "own 'bosses'". They are expected to follow legal directives given by those in charge at the Justice Department.

(1) Carol Lam and Paul Charlton were fired in retribution for prosecuting political allies.

Charlton refused to prosecute based on his bosses OPTF initiative and also refused to seek death penalty convictions as per Justice Department orders and Lam served her 4 year term and simply wasn't asked to continue her job after massive failures in prosecuting immigration fraud issues. Again, you don't get to pick and choose which things your bosses tell you to do without getting sacked or not asked to continue. I know I can't with my job.

Which "political allies" did not get prosecuted or investigated once the two mentioned where removed from office?

What do you mean "spun the right way, it looks political?"

When it's not explained that these guys failed to prosecute areas of importance to the Justice Department, and only one side is told, it appears to have only the spin you've given to it.

Janet Reno for YEARS stonewalled investigations in order to keep her job. There were hundreds if not thousands of people who either didn't get indicted or simply got slaps on the wrist who helped the Clintons, because putting people in jail for campaign finance fraud simply wasn't a big priority of hers.

If you want politics out of the job, then politics has to stop being made the reason for hiring. I suggest you start by lobbying the Obama administration to keep the current attorney's in place. After all, if he "fires" them for political reasons, then that would be bad, right? Or is only some types of mixing politics with the law okay?