Who Can Look At The Firing Of The Prosecutors . . . .. .Objectively ??

Question

Folks, I don't care what political affiliation you have, this was legal and just normal politics . Now, you may not like the decision, but it was perfectly legal and certainly not worthy of a time-consuming, wasteful investigation . Afterall, what could they possibly conclude. .. . . . . . . . . .that a sitting President acted within the law ??!!??!!

Now before you answer, remember one thing. . .. . . . .I asked who could be 'Objective' . Thank you !!

Answer 1

They were employed at the discretion of the president....no jobs were guaranteed...they were given an assignment to do something...they didn't...they were fired...If you or I do not do our jobs..we get fired..why should they get special treatment...

Answer 2

Objectively.

I honestly think the present administration gets off on riling the liberals. I know i find it entertaining at times.

The firings are such an example. Legal, no doubt, but more fodder for the libs to try and discredit the present administration - just more entertainment for the republicans who must be almost dumbfounded as to why the democrats continue to keep jumping on issues that they can't do a damned thing about except whine and cry - all the while convinced that this is the "smoking gun" that will finally get them back into the White House in 2008.

Telling Congress exactly what you expect in a resolution or bill or else it will be vetoed (even before it is completely written) is another example of baiting your adversaries. And after announcing that, it must be great to just sit back and watch them bitterly comply.
No matter how badly they want to discredit Bush, they will not risk the back lash and possible consequences of making any real changes to policy. If they initiate any real, binding legislation and it fails, they won't be able to spin it in their favor.
It's the ol' adage about the people who never make a mistake - the only way that can happen is if you don't do anything. The democrats seem to have adopted this adage - non-binding resolutions, bills and resolutions that even the authors know won't pass, trying desparately to initiate investigations into every aspect of the present administration in hopes the shere number of investigations will shroud the administration in guilt and, now, the mountain from the attorney firing mole hill.
Stay tuned, they've just begun.

Answer 3

I don't have a problem with the firings, even though they appear to be political in nature. However, I do feel we have a right to know if Congress was misled regarding the reasons for those firings and if so then the Attorney General needs to resign. For years now Conservatives, myself included, have been saying that the fact that Bill Clinton had an affair didn't matter. What mattered was the fact that he committed perjury. If you are true to the principle of equal justice then you must support that idea for all. Anything less would be hypocritical. That is about as objective as I can be on that.

Answer 4

I agree that nothing was done wrong here, except for a HUGE PR blunder. I get it, so he was SUPPOSED to let congress know ahead of time which people were going to be fired. Then it was leaked that people were CONSIDERING just making the decision without consulting congress. Nevermind the fact that congress doesn't NEED to be involved, from what I understand, THEY NEVER ACTUALLY GOT THAT FAR. They never fired anyone. The libs just got their panties in a bunch because someone was THINKING about doing something other than what they said. For us to waste taxpayer dollars to fund an investigation like this is ridiculous. I get it, we're coming into an election year, but honestly...DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH YOUR TIME!

BUT I do think the aftermath was handled incorrectly. The response should have been...Nobody's been fired yet. What exactly are you cry-babies whining about??
The President doesn't need anyone making him look like an idiot. He gets enough bad publicity already. The response should have been planned and well thought out & we might have saved this entire nightmare.
Libs need to GROW UP and stop blaming everyone else for everything that happens....and should definitely stop blaming people for things that haven't even happened yet.

Answer 5

Okay, I'll give objectivity my best shot. It is not illegal for any U.S. Attorney to be fired mid-term. They can be dismissed at the pleasure of the President. This is what I understand the questions and facts are surrounding this:
1) It is common practice for incoming Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, to wipe the slate clean at the beginning of their term, and appoint U.S. Attorneys that support the policies of the incoming President. This is an allowable and accepted political move.
2) It is highly unusual to fire a number of them mid-term, and though not illegal, it obviously raises scrutiny and many questions.
3) It is not acceptable by political standards to fire U.S. Attorneys for refusing to prosecute cases politically advantageous to the current Administration, or for prosecuting cases that will be politically damaging to the current Administration simply for those reasons and none other.
4) I understand that every attorney in question received excellent reviews and there are no discernable reasons for dismissal other than political motive. Again, that is not accepted practice in our government. It is considered underhanded to say the least, and if this proves to be the case ethics will demand that someone's head rolls for it.

This week will bring much more information regarding this issue. I've learned the hard way to wait for the proof before jumping to conclusions. I do tend to find that if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it's probably a duck. But let's wait and see what the duck hunters come up with this week.

Answer 6

I agree that it was within the law, however, Do you honestly not think that this was a totally political move due to the fact that some of these guys weren't following the party line? No president has ever fired this many prosecuters in there second term. It is unprecedented. This administration has been so shady can you believe anything they do is in good faith anymore?

Answer 7

yes it is legal.
but it might still be an abuse of power. abuses of power can happen within the legal boundaries.

most presidents bring in their own people at the beginning of their terms. the fact that these attoneys have been let go midterm has sent up a red flag.
it has been suggested that these people disagreed with the president/administration and were asked to be loyal to the pes/admin and not the law. their loyalty is to the law.
the pres/admin has the power to appoint people whom they believe will err on the conservative (or liberal) side when doing their jobs- without violating the law of course.

firing people for being more loyal to the law than their appointer(s) is an abuse of power and should be investigated.

Answer 8

Frankly, as the appointments are political (Bush appointed them), the firings are political (a Bush appointee fired them, probably for political reasons), and the investigation by Congress will be political (led by Democrats looking for anything better to do than think about the war, withdrawal, and funding issues), I can't imagine how one could discuss the issue without a political bias.

The whole issue IS politics as usual.

Answer 9

You are missing the point. Like Clinton's problem, it's not the action, it's the lies that come later.

Bush can fire every single prosecutor if he wants. When a senator asks why and is told "Performance issues... NOTHING to do with politics" and then said Senator finds out that the COMPLETE opposite is true, there are problems.

And I dont know what your party affiliation is, but doesn't it bother you just a little bit that these prosecutors were told, or at least encouraged, to pursue members only of the opposite party of the "boss"?

Answer 10

The objective answer is that :
1) These prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president.
2) Many presidents have fired many more prosecutors without anyone batting an eye.

Don't expect anyone on the left to admit this. They hate facts.

Answer 11

All i will respond with is this from one of my previous posts on this:

It boils down to this:

Would you be ok if you went into work tomorrow, and your boss walks up and says "You're fired because your political views dont agree with mine."

If you are ok with that, then by all means, poke your head into the sand and let this "legal and normal political" travesty proceed.

If that would bother you, then you have a duty, according to the Declaration of Independence, to fight against that kind of intolerence and injustice in a system of government.

If you feel that document is in error, i suggest you leave my country.

And just to add some FACTS for people:


Yes, Clinton replaced ALL the US attorneys when he came INTO office.

KEY POINTS: ALL, COMING INTO OFFICE.

The Bush admin and DoJ removed only 7, in the middle of a term, because, and i quote from the Washington Post, March 3, 2007 "they believed [the attorneys] were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues" end quote.

KEY POINTS: 7, MIDDLE OF TERM, DISAGREED WITH THE PRESIDENTS POLICIES.

Is it necessary for me to spell out the difference? If so, i dont think you have a place commenting in the politics section.

link below is the reference to the article i quoted.