I don't understand why this is such big news? I must have missed something...
:)
Eight US attorneys are fired by the Justice Department. Why were they fired? And why is it such a big deal that they were? People get fired all the time. So why are there some calling for the Attorney Gerneral's resignation over it? What makes these eight attorneys so special that everyone is upset over their termination?
Can someone catch me up on what I missed?
Thanks....
T.
2007-03-14 08:14:02 · 6 answers · asked by Theophania 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Thank you all for the great answers!!!
Best Wishes...
T.
2007-03-15 21:35:15 · update #1
In most of the cases in question, the attorneys were involved with "sensitive" cases, usually relating to corruption of republican congress members or lobbyists.
The firings appear as though they were removed because they were getting to close to something that could be damaging to the republicans.
One of the attorneys fired was in charge of the investigation and prosecution of Randy Duke Cunningham in California for bribery.
2007-03-14 08:21:35 · answer #1 · answered by Kenneth B 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's politics as usual from the democrat party. Nothing illegal or out of place but that is intended to be lost in the raucous clamor they whip up. The only mistake so far was the sacrificing of the Attorney Generals chief of staff. If only there was some noise about the truth of the underlying issue.
2007-03-14 13:52:33 · answer #2 · answered by gatzap 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
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!
2016-10-02 03:01:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You didn't miss anything. It is not uncommon for Presidents to replace Federal prosecutors at the beginning of a term. Clinton, after all, fired all but one Federal Prosecutor when he took office and nobody blinked an eye.
This is another non-story being hyped in the media to make the administration look bad. Not even worth paying attention to.
2007-03-14 09:59:29 · answer #4 · answered by Rachel M 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't bother me at all.
Clinton did it, what's the big deal.?
2007-03-14 08:20:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
they were all democrats.
2007-03-14 14:55:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋