Shouldn't Bush be impeached for covering up the firings of the 8 US attorneys?

Answer 1

Show me the proof that Bush did something illegal and I'll then say we should consider the impeachment of Bush.

Answer 2

I think there is a argument that Bush could be impeached on a lot of issues (although I can't say I agree with them without better evidence)... but NOT for this issue. This is within the Justice Department for letting the administration sway their personnel decisions... the Attorney Generals's office could have said absolutely no to the firings OR could have found other reasons for firing... if the White House insisted or "forced" the Attorney General to do this then you might have an argument... and that's a big might.

Most Attorney Generals side with a administration's "recommendations" for personnel decisions; they just need to be careful of how the dismassals are handled. In this case the Attorney General was not careful. If these firings were for political reasons (and it looks like they were) then the Attorney General should resign but not the impeachment of the president.

Answer 3

To be impeached the president must have committed a criminal act. Firing someone because they were not "getting the job done" is no reason to impeach someone. Did Clinton get impeached for firing 92 US attorneys?

Answer 4

No. US Attorneys serve at the Presidents pleasure. He can fire them any time for any reason. There is no crime here. They were, in his opinion--ineffective as they were unwilling to prosecute crimes the President thought should be prosecsuted. The real crime here is why Dems want to waste our time 'investigating' a non-crime because they're on a witch hunt. That and the fact that Bush doesn't have the balls to stand up and say so.

Answer 5

The president does have the authority to fire attorneys.

However, it seems apparent that these attorneys were fired because they did not support political goals: prosecuting Democrats, ignoring Republicans, and pursuing bogus "voter fraud cases"

I think that the mendacity and deceit in starting up the Iraq War are far better reasons for impeachment. While the firings of the attorneys is a blight on the character of the administration, it really isn't much compared to domestic spying, extraordinary rendition, letting New Orleans decay, and the criminal neglect of our soldiers after they have sacrificed so much for our country.

Answer 6

Not for that ridiculous reason, given the fact that Slick Willy fired over 90 US blood suckers while in power, however I would celebrate if Bush were to resign as our President, only to be replaced by a true blue patriotic total constitution supporting hard chore capitalist with bull sized balls and both a historical and military background, but it looks as if that's just a pipe dream:(

Answer 7

Shouldn't Clinton have been impeached for dismissing 93 federal Attorneys when he took office?

Answer 8

Of course not. He has every right to fire any US attorney he wishes for any reason. This is not a criminal offense and impeachment is only possible if one has committed a crime!

Answer 9

What part of those do-nothing attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President escaped your notice? By your somewhat screwy logic, Clinton should have been impeached for firing 91 of them. Put the bong down.

Answer 10

No! that's nothing to be impeached about. you have no clue as to what previous presidents have covered up. which i am sure at least one has covered up something.

And it's not just the president hiding something, because more people knew than just him. So, maybe it's not just all on the president. Maybe it's the government

(no offenses to anyone)