Why did the Bush Administration lie about the US Attorney firings?

Question

The President clearly has the authority to fire his US Attorneys. So why lie about it? Is it just now habit? A kneejerk reaction when people ask questions? Are they covering something more sinister?

Answer 1

Because this isn't about firing 8 attorneys.

Its about the separation of powers and Bush's attempt to grab as much as possible.

Please read.

No one disputes the power of a president to fire political appointees. Happens all the time. So whats the big deal then?

The problem is the Patriot Act. Bet you didn't see that coming. Last year Arlen Specter's office added a language that circumvented the Senate appointment's of appointees such as US Attorneys. Oh wait. I must explain the usual process first.

US attorneys are appointees who are confirmed by the Senate for a four year term. Typically this coincides with a President's four year term. Also, what typically happens is during the second term, the attorneys are "heldover". That is, they are automatically reconfirmed for another 4 years no fuss no muss. BTW, when you hear some people saying Clinton "fired" all of them, they are wrong. He took office and simply didn't renominate them. Big difference in not having your "holdover" term reinstated and being fired. I digress.

By firing these eight, for what at this juncture appears to be more about loyalty to Bush than merit, Bush seeks to install without Senate involvement, 8 more attorneys...more loyal to Bush.

A power grab. Instead of having Senate Confirmation hearings, the Patriot Act Revision in 2006 allows Bush to install - for four years- whoever he wants. Including far right wing ideologues who would never pass Senate scrutiny.

They are lying in an attempt to maintain their new power. Bush has said that he has the right to fire his appointees at will. He has also said that these where merit based. The switch, for me, is an effort to keep his new power. For him to claim he can fire his political appointees and the install new ones may alert the public to his subverting Constitutional checks and balances. So he lies.

My .02

Answer 2

of course they are. they're always hiding something heinous. it's what they do. the problem isn't that the US Attorneys were ousted. most all incoming presidents do that. it's the when and the why those US Attorneys were fired that's the scandal.

PS. some folks think it's no big deal that the Justice Dept be corrupted for Whitehouse political advantage. however, even some well respected Republican leaders are calling for Gonzales to resign or be fired. Gonzales lied to Congress concerning these firings. LIED TO CONGRESS.

Answer 3

I haven't seen any official press statement where the govt said they did not have the legal authority to fire them. Ignoring the ethical issues, and the poossible motivations for now.

In fact, every official news report I've seen (every single one) has had the govt saying they could legally be fired at will.

As to motivations and whether the firings were proper under the ethical standards for the profession, that's a different issue, and there are strong indications something else was going on behind the scenes.

Answer 4

it extremely works like this. The president asks his advisers and cabinet to attend to components of all the failings that decision for his interest. The criminal expert time-honored additionally has group that he has coping with circumstances. they are in fee of figuring out and coping with problems. they create it to the attention of the two the President or the criminal expert time-honored, which ever they rfile to, the Prez warning signs off on it and the AG warning signs off on it and it occurs. the quantity of counsel released to congress will attest to this being what handed off. They have been fired because of the fact it replaced into felt that, even in spite of the shown fact that they have got been often times fairly stable at their job, the job could be extra effectual achieved by some one else. They carry what's the equivalent of a cabinet job and can get replaced at every time.

Answer 5

.4 of the 7 had major investigations of corruption going on when they were fired. they were fired because they were not team players according to Harriet Meir's, The big question in my mind is what is the team playing, that these investigators were not? Corruption should be investigated at all times, even the hint of corruption makes the government suspect. and gives cause for the people to complain of in justice. Transparency is the basis for any free country,

Answer 6

How did he lie? The people he fired were corrupt.
They have been fired because they held up investigations that proved some winning democratic candidates were corrupt. They held the investigations up until after the 2006 elections. So, they pretty much rigged elections, and caused the democrats to get hold of congress.
Just imagine that, it only took one bad republican senator to hurt the republicans bad, but the democrats had a load of them.

Answer 7

So are you saying that Bush's administration lied or that Bush lied; I get so confused these days with all of the senseless mud slinging flying around.

There were 179 US attorneys fired under Clinton; are you just concerned with what the Republicans do or are you a watchdog for all political parties?

Answer 8

They lie because they look down on the rest of the world and feel that they do not owe we pitiful citizens anything, let alone the truth.

Answer 9

I was thinking exactly the same thing. It wouldn't have been a big deal to fire some people, but lying about it served no purpose and just makes them look bad. They're just compulsive liars, I guess.

Answer 10

Seems to be par for the course with our current administration. It is a sad state of affairs that we can't seem to trust our government.