Whats the deal with these lawyer firings?

Question

My understanding is that these lawyers may quit or be fired at anytime, and this practice has been done with many presidents before Bush.

So why is this different?

SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY, I DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT DICTATORS, CORRUPTION, OR ANY OF THAT OTHER CRAP.

Answer 1

The Dems are saying the firings were politically motivated. I doubt it.

Answer 2

(1) EVERY president fires the U.S. Attorneys when he takes office (when the previous president is from a different party) because U.S. Attorneys are political positions.
However, it is RARE that U.S. Attorneys get fired in the middle of a presidential term.
(2) Here are the two things that are arguably improper:
(a) Main Justice (i.e. the political bigwigs in Washington) were jerks. They didn't tell the US Attorneys in the field what was wrong and just fired them without warning or reason (that hurts those US Attorneys' careers later, and is very different from the "expected" firing that comes with political change)
(b) (The more important issue) There are indications that some were fired because they specifically didn't respond to OTHER POLITICAL PRESSURE -- like the Senator from New Mexico calling up and saying "Are you going to indict those democrats before the election??" That's an abuse of power and too much political pressure on a (quasi-) independent prosecutorial body.
Add to that that many of the prosecutors were really well known as highly qualified, good, (and sometimes somewhat progressive) prosecutors; that makes peoples' eyebrows raise.
There's speculation that the firings were so even more conservative attorneys could get two years in before the end of republican presidential runs. This is the same as replacing quality prosecutors with political hacks solely for their personal political gain (and the GOP's political gain in the long run).
(c) (still more important) The WHOLE issue was stirred up when there was a suggestion that the Pres was going to appoint these people WITHOUT Congressional approval pursuant to a new provision in the USA PATRIOT Act that allows basically "pocket" appointments of U.S. Attorneys.(another way to get hacks in who aren't quality and won't do justice, but instead just advance the GOP agenda.) Congress thinks this is inappropriate, and may be unconstitutional.
(d) And the final issue -- People at Main Justice and the White House may have been lying as to their true movtives. They were originally saying that it was poor performance (but that wasn't true) then it was not staying with priorities (and that was pretty much not true), and now it seems to be much more sinister. And who knew and who recommended (Myers, Gonzales, the President) changes all the time. So once again, we have the frightening issue of a cover up.

This is NOT Bush's watergate -- but all of these circumstances combined with the DOJ's relatively repentent stance (Gonzales is just saying "I'm sorry; it was a jerk thing to do," nothing more, really...) raises ire when the other party is in the legislature.
I'm a democrat, but I'm surprised how this thing has such legs. We do get right back to the issue you first raised -- U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, so no one did anything ILLEGAL when they were fired (except, maybe, demanding prosecutions be brought for purely political purposes and then firing US Attorneys when that didn't happen, but that's a long shot to prove).
It was just one more jerk thing to do, in a long line of jerk things (this is especially true under the Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ, where "Main Justice" in Washington has attempted more and more control over the U.S. Attorneys in the field, to the chagrin of most everyone, I think).

Answer 3

Well you can see on these boards that most liberals (and I did say most not all) are doing everything they can to make Bush look as dirty as Clinton was. The are deep into the "payback" system. They will say anything that will get people to think ill of the president. What they don't realize is there are way too many of us that know better and we sit back and let them whine and cry all they want.

Answer 4

The issue is not whether they were fired. As you note, the firings were not illegal. The issue is WHY they were fired.

The accusation is that they were fired because they refused to abuse their power by pursuing a political agenda. In other words, they were fired for being neutral and having integrity.

And that (if true) is a violation of Gonzales's oath of office as AG, and a violation of his ethical duty as an attorney. Both of which are grounds to remove Gonzales as AG.

Bush is not the target of these investigations. Gonzales is.

Answer 5

The lawyers were not doing what the boss wanted. So they got fired.

People are trying to claim that there is some sort of conspiracy.

Answer 6

you may desire to learn what criminal specialists have stated in keeping with the problem. The source shrink than has loose criminal expert responses to comparable problem concerns which incorporate: (a million) "What form of criminal expert deals with psychological wellness, money, supplies making plans, trusts, ability of criminal expert, and toddler abuse problem concerns? - Avvo" (2) "Is there a criminal expert indoors the San Antonio area who can prepare in South Carolina that deals with toddler custody? - Avvo" (3) "searching for a criminal expert that deals with veteran reward? - Avvo" (4) "toddler custody problem concerns - Avvo" (5) "i want a criminal expert that deals with poisonous mould exposure at artwork. - Avvo" as nicely, articles by using applying specialists: (a million) "take care of unfavorable components and criminal accountability problem concerns at Your Nonprofit’s specific adventure | Nolo" (2) "Paternity problem concerns and toddler help | Nolo" (3) "elementary problem concerns interior the technique toddler Custody Mediation"