Why did the Bush administration tell us Harriet Miers brought up the idea of firing those 8 U.S. attorneys?

Question

I'm sure conservatives believe the Bush administration.
But wasn't it to protect Karl Rove? When asked for evidence to back up their claim, they weren't even able to produce any documentation of this against Harriet Miers.
Then the Bush administration began claiming they have "hazy memories" (Scooter Libby come to mind?).

Even Gonzales says that Karl Rove asked him about firing those attorneys, in which Gonzales replied that he thought it would be a bad idea. Straight from his mouth.
Conclusive evidence against Rove, none against Miers. Not consistant with what the Bush administration tells us.

So, do you think believe the government blamed Harriet Miers in order to protect their precious Karl Rove?

Answer 1

None of these matters are of any consequence, it is the President's perogative to retain or remove any and all federal justices for any reason or without any reason whatsoever. Bill Clinton removed 128 upon his first election.

The whole matter is about political perception on the part of the accusers of wrongdoing.

Answer 2

Since she no longer a loyal member of the inner circle, it is easier for them to throw her under the bus to save either Karl Rove or Alberto Gonzales yet again.
We would just have to see how this whole thing evolves. The White House Spokes liar, Tony McSnowjob, has been caught in a lie because he told the press corp one thing about Karl Rove but emails have shown he was involved even earlier
Alberto Gonzales is the more vulnerable of the two because it is now coming out that one of the U.S. attorneys fired had launched an investigation that would have dragged Gonzales himself in.
I see some people again with the obsession with Clinton. Clinton did what other presidents have done, fired all U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his presidency.
The problem Alberto Gonzales and this President have is that the fired attorneys had been doing their jobs and had been looking into Republicans and finding evidence against them even though they had also been investigating Democrats 7 times more than Republicans.
You have a Senator interfering in an on going investigation ( at the time) which is a violation of Senate ethics rules as well as a violation of the law. Sen Domenici (N.M.) did not like the fact that U.S. attorney David Iglesias did not indict a Democrat prior to the Nov 2006 election. Mr. Iglesias did not do so because the evidence was not there.
Now surprisingly, he had "poor" job performance which led to his firing. This was a crock and Mr. Iglesias was able to cite positive job reviews until this dust up with the Sen. Domenici, including the last one that was 3 months before his firing, as well as data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions
There is also a long forgotten demotion that took place in the U.S. territory of Guam.
The U.S. attorney there, Frederick A. Black, had opened an investigation into Jack Abramoff 2 years ago. He was just getting evidence together to possibly indict him then he was demoted and the investigation went away.
This is the pattern with the White House, protect the friends at all costs, to hell with justice.

Then the biggest rub of all, when everyone was being distracted with the " if you don't reauthorize the Patriot Act you support the terrorists" talk, the Republicans slipped in a paragraph buried in the middle of the act, which basically changed the rules for appointing U.S. attorneys where they will no longer be vetted by the Congress but can be appointed with no regard to qualifications. This happened so the U. S attorney for AR could be replaced by a Karl Rove crony who had absolutely no experience in the field.

Answer 3

maximum presidents fire the attorneys on the beginning up of their term. Clinton did that yet Bush waited till 0.5 way with the aid of his 2d term. maximum presidents tell the Senate of what's going on with the attorneys. Clinton did that. Bush tried to sneak around hoping no person could be conscious. curiously in basic terms attorneys who have been on situations investigating incorrect doing by this administration or no longer pursuing trumped up expenses or loss of evidence situations against administration enemies have been singled out for dismissal. That smacks of partisanship. Why is it on each and every occasion Bush does some thing unlawful the infants come out of the woodwork asserting "nicely Clinton did it too and he did no longer get caught"? If Clinton did do it and wasn't caught it replaced into because of the fact Congress led by neocons weren't doing their job. many times Clinton did no longer do it the two yet infantile as they are the Bushbots seem to attempt and deflect complaint whining like little young ones. If Bobby breaks a rule does that propose it extremely is okay for each individual else to break the rule of thumb too in basic terms because of the fact Bobby did no longer get caught? while you're driving alongside and additionally you get to a supply up sign you roll with the aid of and sometime you get a value tag for no longer struggling with could you get a value tag because of the fact the cop wasn't there to offer up you the different situations? If Bob kills Jon and Ned kills Sam does it make it ok for Ned to kill Sam in basic terms because of the fact Bob killed Jon? I quite have a feeling if the firings of the attorneys replaced into an remoted incident the place somebody perhaps made a mistake the Congress does not be investigating. however the administration of George W. Bush is infamous for corruption and lies so it extremely is not any ask your self that Congress feels they might desire to look into. it extremely is, by how Repbulicans besides as Democrats who choose solutions.

Answer 4

It's become obvious to even the most casual observer that this Administration is corrupt to its core. But it's all starting to unravel and is rapidly becoming an avalanche. It's going to get worse for them, not better.

I love these people who keep noting the 93 attorney firings by Clinton. They love to ignore, or maybe they don't know and don't care, that it is common practice of incoming Presidents to fire U.S. Attorneys who worked for a rival party's Administration and replace them with others who have the same policy beliefs as the incoming President - this is common in Republican Administrations as well as Democratic. It is NOT usual practice to cherry pick attorneys mid-term to fire, especially when the reasons are politicized and examination of their performance reviews shows nothing but positive results. BIG difference they just don't want to acknowledge. Gee, wonder why?

Answer 5

There is NOTHING illegal,or even unusual,about a pres. firing US attorneys,EVERY president since Eisenhower has done it. What about slick willy clinton firing ALL of the US attorneys in '93..?? nearly 100 of them,including the 4 investigating his wifes criminal activities !!!!! Its historical fact,not my opinion.

Answer 6

Well now, it was really Rove that said he "THINKS" he recalls her stating something to the fact that maybe she said they should maybe fire some attorneys, but his memory is cloudy right now.

Answer 7

Because the whole group are corrupt liars.

Answer 8

They're grasping at straws and scurrying around trying to cover their own asses.

Answer 9

always someone is sacrificed (with much reward) to take the heat away from someone else connected to the "crime".
- Cristal

U just can't say 'scapegoat", Cristal???
-Cristine.

Answer 10

Did you think that much when the Clinton fired all the US attorneys? I doubt it.