Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

President Clinton fired almost all of them, replacing them with cronies and political supporters, soon after he took office. Is that any different?

This is a politically-driven "problem".

Certainly no worse than selling pardons to accused felons in exile to countries that will not extradite them.

however the reason for firing the eight who were recently fired is because they were not doing their jobs, not because they were doing them.

You're a good little sheep, Fox.

I'm going to watch to see if your story sticks the same as more and more information comes out that this

Quote:

however the reason for firing the eight who were recently fired is because they were not doing their jobs, not because they were doing them.

becomes more and more of a foolish thing to have said.

Cycloptichorn

U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for whatever reason he wishes.

There is no indication the eight fired by Bush just recently were investigating anybody of any national polticial importance whatsoever.

Lam successfully prosecuted California Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham for corruption; he's now serving time in prison for his crimes. But last May, on the day a report in the Los Angeles Times indicated Lam was turning her investigation toward another Republican congressman(Jerry Lewis of CA), Sampson e-mailed a Miers staff member, writing, "Please call me at your convenience to discuss. … The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're a good little sheep, Fox.

I'm going to watch to see if your story sticks the same as more and more information comes out that this

Quote:

however the reason for firing the eight who were recently fired is because they were not doing their jobs, not because they were doing them.

becomes more and more of a foolish thing to have said.

Cycloptichorn

And I will watch to see if the angry certainty that you have expressed here turns out to be justified. My bet is it won't.

And good little liberals can't seem to argue a point of view without becoming personally insulting. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for whatever reason he wishes. The President is not required nor expected to state his reasons for the firing of any political appointee.

I was wrong about it being 92 of 93 U.S. attorneys though. It was more like 123 of 124 U.S. attorneys, pretty much the entire group. And it threw the entire system into chaos for quite some time.

Foxfyre wrote:

And good little liberals can't seem to argue a point of view without becoming personally insulting. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired for whatever reason he wishes. The President is not required nor expected to state his reasons for the firing of any political appointee.

Yes, since changes were introduced in a 2006 revision of the USA Patriot Act that enabled the dismissals without Congressional authorization

Foxfyre wrote:

I was wrong about it being 92 of 93 U.S. attorneys though. It was more like 123 of 124 U.S. attorneys, pretty much the entire group. And it threw the entire system into chaos for quite some time.

Could you give me a link for that? I've noticed that every on the conservative bloggs talks about that (123 or 124 only recently, since the number of US-attorney isn't clear for everyone).

Excluding the current controversy - according to media and what they've published - the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct.

I'm sure you can Google it up somewhere, but the actual number isn't really important is it? I just corrected my statement to the different number because that is the one currently being reported.

That has nothing to do with appointment of or dismissal of U.S. Attorneys Walter. There WAS no Patriot Act when former Presidents did it. These people are not protected under the Civil Service Act. They serve at the pleasure of the President.

Are you guys on the right effectively saying that it would be okay for the next Dem president to fire any prosecutor who does not sufficiently persecute Republicans?

BTW, Clinton's misconduct, if any, does not justify the same misconduct by Bush and his people.

Are you guys on the right effectively saying that it would be okay for the next Dem president to fire any prosecutor who does not sufficiently persecute Republicans?

BTW, Clinton's misconduct, if any, does not justify the same misconduct by Bush and his people.