Were the firings of the eight U.S. Attorney's "improper", or is this more Democratic partisanship?

Question

The Los Angeles Times: Richard A. Serrano
As printed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer 3/21/07

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego: Not prosecuting more firearms and border smuggling cases, and for repeatedly missing deadlines.

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of Alburquerque: Traveled so much he was an "absentee landlord".

U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan of San Francisco: "The office has become the most fractured office in the nation, morale has fallen to the point that it is harming our prosecutorial efforts and he has lost confidence of many of the career prosecutors who are leaving the office."

U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton of Phoenix: Repeated instances of insubordination, actions taken contrary to instructions, and actions that are clearly unauthorized.

U.S. Attorney Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids: Morale in her office was very low and that Chiara has lost the support of her staff.

Improper?

Looks like more partisan political theater starring the Dem's!

Answer 1

Encore! Encore! The circus known as Congressional Investigations and Hearings is the best episode of Masterpiece Theatre I've ever seen!

Answer 2

As even CNN stated, they are political appointee's, actually appointed by Bush. They can be fired/let go replaced at any time. The Baltimore sun pointed out this is a minor issue at best.

It is political theater at its best in an election cycle. Too bad the Democrats would care more for the troops than making a political witch hunt circus and take out the 21 Billion in pork spending in the supplemental Defense Bill to stand by the troops...but the agenda is becoming clearer

Answer 3

Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys when he took office in 1993. At the time Hillary said such things were "routine". Indeed it is customary for the President to replace hold over (from previous admins) US Attorneys as their terms come to an end. Occasionally, they do get fired, though, and as any US Attorney can tell you, they serve at the pleasure of the president, implicitly meaning they can be let go at any time. Bill Clinton is the frst and only president who has fired all of the US Attorneys at once.

Answer 4

Sen. Schumer has to raise money for the Democratic Senate Re-election Committee this gets the blood in the waters for him.

It's pure politics on display.

Answer 5

It is clear they wanted to fill these positions by by-passing Senate confirmation -which the Patriot act allowed for-that (provision of the act) was shot down by the Senate 49-2-even Repubs aren't going for Bush's underhanded stuff .Why won't Rove testify under oath?-the chickenhawks neo-cons said it best when referring to the Patriot Act-"if you don't have anything to hide it doesn't matter"--Bush might go down.....it doesn't matter if 20 percent of Americans support him...don't help much in a Democracy.....LOL

Answer 6

You are completely correct. By law, the attorneys serve at the President's will so if he wants to fire none of them or all of them then it is within his rights to do so whether they prosecuted and won 1,000 cases or no cases, were a democrat or republican, etc.

Answer 7

Senate on Tuesday voted 94-2 to strip Gonzales of his appointment authority .....Looks like some Republicans in that show also...

Answer 8

Improper! I see no reason to have fired these particular attorneys at this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html

Answer 9

Knowing the Senate almost unanimously stripped Gonzalez of his appointing power - it seems they disagree with you.

Answer 10

Don't try and make sense it only upsets the democrats.