Why didn't the eight US attorneys fired by the Bush administration . . .?

Question

want to investigate election fraud?

Or, what's the story here?

Thanks in advance for info. Cites would be helpful too.

Answer 1

For interesting facts, read today's Wall Street Journal opinion page, The Hubbell Standard. It is available on line: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117383831796236349.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Answer 2

There's a little-discused subtext here, which is that the guy on Gonzalez' staff (who just quit) suggested that hey use the "PATRIOT" act to get the attorneys ousted and replaced with people more politically palatable to the Bush administration, much the same way the FBI was under fire last week for using the same law to obtain private information without a warrant that actually had nothing to do with homeland security. I think this is the real issue of the hour.

As far as replacing a competent official with an ignorant contributor goes?---- that's par for the Bush course. Remember FEMA? Remember the CPA? Remember Harriet Miers?

Answer 3

No, in no way. The positions serve on the discretion of the President , who can hearth them at any time for any reason. The fake scandal that the democrats are making this type of vast stink approximately is rather a non-subject. you would be able to desire to appreciate that that's all portion of the Democrats stragey to undermine the present administration and distract the generic public from their loss of concepts. by way of doing no longer something different than pointing their hands on the adminstration for the twelve months and a nil.5 , they want to mantain there hassle-free benefit in congress interior the subsequent elections. as quickly as this one is over, they'll create yet another study or inquiry per despite accusations they could drum as much as whittle the time away. meanwhile, they have achieved little or no when you consider that they gained administration different than for attempting to push forward the main important tax strengthen in US historic previous, which Bush is approximately to veto (thank God). Their habit on the Iraq subject is on the brink of treasonist, and that i think of they have misread the american public particularly badly. They gained the generic public interior the final election out of disgust from the conservative base, who wre uninterested with what the Republicans have been doing. no longer by way of a few mandate from the plenty for replace on foreign places coverage. verify the numbers on how human beings experience approximately Iraq. The habit of Pelosi, Schummer, and Reid are a humiliation to united statesa., and those clowns could desire to be run out of city on a rail interior the subsequent elections!

Answer 4

Apparently they were pressured to investigate certain elections by Republican officials--the method in which they were called about this they considered inappropriate.

Washington State election:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editoria...


More on Washington State election:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6188521&nav=menu...

Washington Congressman Doc Hastings is under fire after allegations he may have been involved in the forced resignation of the Seattle U.S. Attorney.

Former federal prosecutor John McKay told a Senate committee Tuesday that he received a call from the Congressman's Chief of Staff during the 2004 Gubernatorial election controversy.

McKay says he hung up immediately on the call in question without discussing anything because he thought it was inappropriate.


New Mexico election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13attorney...

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

More on New Mexico:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/...

In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Chairman Allen Weh said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House.

Answer 5

By watching the news this morning and reading the papers,there seems to be only one reason they were fired. They would not go along with the Bush administration policies in as much as they would not investigate trivial matters that had no effect on national security. And, once again, Carl Rove had a hand in the firings, although as a White House Man, he was supposed to keep his hands off and mouth shut. Gonzales has said that he will get to the bottom of this firing but, I would say that he will quit before long because once again, Rove will have had his nose where it shouldn't be. Harriet Miers, White House Council, was the bird dog and she had the list of who was supposed to be fired, and passed it on to the Gonzales people. It's a little like the Libby deal, Someone will burn for doing as they were told. I just don't get it...can't the Bush Admin do anything right????

Answer 6

In New Mexico, there was no election fraud to investigate. I'm a county atty. We had reports of a voter voting twice. The FBI interviewed me and found the voter. She had recently moved here from California and went to the wrong polling place. They gave her a provisional ballot. Her husband told her where the correct polling location was and she went there and voted again. We did not count her provisional ballot. She did not intend to vote twice and made an honest mistake. There was no voter fraud here and there was nothing for the U.S. atty to do after the FBI investigated. David Iglesias did not deserve to be fired for going after a non-existent problem.

Answer 7

Of the seven of the eight were for not following up on perceived election violations and one from New Orleans was to be replace for a political patronage.

That's how the game is played.

Answer 8

Answer:NO. As the socialist left explained to me when the Carter and Clinton administrations removed US Attorneys...They serve at the pleasure of the president! Do you find it funny that their blind hate now changes their position? Sorry! My bad. Their position is a fluid as their feet of clay.

Answer 9

I think the problem was that they were supposed to focus on Democrat election fraud--or else.

Answer 10

According to the one in New Mexico, He did investigate and found no evidence of fraud.Gonzales wanted him to indict the guy anyway so news of the indictment could be leaked before the election.

Remember Nuremberg, "I was only following orders" won't keep you from hanging