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.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

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.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt. All presidents replace US attorneys when they take office. The 'Clinton did it' defense has gotten so stale, you guys should consider retiring it permanently.

I will take this as an admission that you have no good answer to the question:

Do you believe that the politicization of the US atty. should be encouraged, George? That there's nothing at all wrong with firing these prosecutors for not going after Democrats?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As previously posted (just yesterday) all presidents do not fire all the US attorneys immediately upon taking office as Clinton did. Carter took over from a Repulbican administration and mostly retained the Ford appointees replacing some over time mostly through attrition. Reagain retained most of Carter's appointees again replacing some over time mostly through attrition.

What Clinton did by firing 92 of all the 93 U.S. Attorneys immediatley upon taking office was unprecedented and anybody who thinks it was not politically motivated or did not interfere with investigations in progress would have to be from another planet at least.

U.S. attorneys are political appointments and they serve at the pleasure of the President. The President is normally not expected nor required to give a reason to firing anybody who is a political appointment; 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.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

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 informed earlier, however that I was wrong that Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys upon taking office including the one who within 30 days of indicting Rostenkowski and the one investing the Clintons. There is no indication the eight fired by Bush just recently were investigating anybody of any national polticial importance whatsoever. 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.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

I just outlined on the last page two reasons why he can not fire whoever he wishes. Feel free to study up before spouting off such bunk.

Quote:

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

seriously?

Quote:

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."

It's important to keep up with the evidence that has come out before you talk about how there is no evidence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

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.

Anger? Surely you jest! I couldn't be happier with this latest turn of events.

You Republicans. Can't play defense worth a damn. I guess you should stick to offense and holler about Clinton for the next few months; either that, or call the DoJ and the WH, let 'em know that they should get their stories a little straighter before talking to the media.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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

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.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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 don't have a link. It was reported on Television and on our local radio in the last couple of days. 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 was for the benefit of those who nitpick on the slightest details and ignore the actual issue. Smile

Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference

0 Replies

You got to love the irony of Rove (the master of playing politics) when he said some in Congress are playing politics with the appointments.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

I googled that up, on various governmental sites.

Yes, I garee, it's reported on various conservative right-wing blogs.

No, the number isn't important. It doesn't matter of it is 7, 8, 92 or 124.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

As far as I've folowed the legal sites, this case was/is different.

But they might be wrong and I don't no better.

Thanks for clearing that.

0 Replies

What I find funny about this affair are the cries of political frivolousness by the Bushies coupled with the resignation of the General in charge at Walter Reed, the resignation of the Secratray of the Army and the firing of the Army Surgeon General and his subsequent letter of resignation from the Army. A nothing issue that caused an avalanche of resignations from powerful players is rare.

0 Replies

Plame testified under oath just now that she was in fact covert, had done work overseas lately at the time, and was working on Iraq WMD when she was outed and her spy network as well.

So much for the 'she wasn't covert angle.' I hope each and every one of you who argued this is profoundly embarassed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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.

That's exactly what they are saying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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.

Absolutely not. We will whine and cry just like you libs are doing now.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know