Dems, which law was broken by firing a few US prosecutors?

Question

Be specific.

Rants will be browbeaten.

Cora suggests it might be an ethical breach. Does Congress investigate ethical rules in the executive branch? How about the other way around, does the executive branch subpeona the staff of congressional members whom they suspect might have been unethical?

Chi guy and Captain Collector suggest obstruction of justice. Interesting, since attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, go back to my original question...which law is broken? If none, then how do you suggest obstruction? What, who, when, was "obstructed?"

Troy's response is the kind of juvenile thinking that mandates that we have a fifth amendment. By his logic, anybody is hauled before a court without charge, since if they have done "nothing wrong they should be more forthcoming."

So far, all Dem responses are lame lame lame and deserve the promised brow beating.

Answer 1

Excellent question.

While I can't speak to all eight fired prosecutors, according to the e-mail's the Justice Department released, there were certainly grounds to fire five of them

Beyond that, what no one seems to get is that the U.S. Prosecutors serve "at the pleasure of the President".

I work for a local court. The day I was hired, it was explained to me that I serve "at the pleasure of the Judge". They went on to explain that if he wakes up one day and decides he doesn't want me working there...then I will no longer work there.

This is nothing more than political theater. It has been undertaken by the Dem's because they believe that if they embarrass Bush enough, the American people will be foolish enough to increase their majorities in both houses and give them the White House in 2008.

Additionally, it provides great "cover" for a Democratic controlled congress that can't seem to accomplish anything of value or merit.

Those who can't legislate, investigate.

Answer 2

He mentioned to not fireplace till helpful of a non civilian aim. Which, via the way, is the way we USED to combat as quickly as we've been a completely honorable u . s .. regrettably, the certainty is that our previous combatants did not intentionally conceal in the back of women human beings and young toddlers the way that the brave Al Qaeda and Taliban do. Unfortunatley, no physique is conscious what number civilians we've killed in Afghanistan because of the fact the tribal elders won't enable examination of bodies via the two our government or the Afghan government to work out if it replaced into an AK47 or an American weapon that did it. on the comparable time, the tribal elders have found out that the U. S. pays repayment however the Taliban does not so that is extra rewarding to the village if the deaths are led to via the U. S.. Dems will refuse to have faith the latter ingredient, yet then they under no circumstances lived interior the stone age, a minimum of not yet.

Answer 3

I don't know if there is a law against firing prosecutors for political reasons, but if that is what happened it should be illegal. How can we effectively enforce laws if the prosecutors fear getting fired if they don't act as puppets for the president?
If the white house did nothing wrong they should be more forthcoming and the investigations will show that and this won't be a story anymore. If they did fire US prosecutors for political reasons then they deserve what they get.
Wait, I'm not a democrat, can I still answer this question?

Answer 4

No law was broken by their firing. But several ethical rules might have been broken.

As Attorney General, Gonzales is bound not only by the laws, but also by his oath of office, and by the ethical rules for attorneys.

The accusation is that Gonzales fired the US Attys because the US Attys refused to abuse their position, and refused to prosecute (or not) merely to satisfy the WH political agenda. In other words, that they were fired for being non-partisan and for following the ethical rules of their profession.

If true, that is a violation by Gonzales of his ethical obligations, and possibly of his oath of office. Both of which are grounds for removal of Gonzales as AG. It's also potentially grounds for an Obstruction of Justice charge, if the goal was to prevent the US Attys from doing their job, though that would be very difficult to prove so it's not currently on anyone's list.

The target of the investigation is Gonzales, not Bush.

Answer 5

One of the Att. refused to prosecute any drug smuggler that had less than 500 pounds. One refuses to prosecute any illegal unless he had been deported once and re-entered the country and committed another felony. Ryan was asked to be removed by a Dem. judge because he was losing cases through laziness. A few months ago Sen. Finestein asked that one of them be removed for not prosecuting illegals.

Answer 6

Obstruction of justice, by removing the California Prosecutor in the midst of an investigation into 2 congressmen involved in the Duke Cunningham scandal (remember Duke's already doing time) they have prevented the determination of these congress men's guilt or innocence by impeding the investigation

Answer 7

Possibly obstruction of justice. The congressional hearing is to determine if any laws were broken. So no laws that we know of at this point.

The Duke Cunningham prosecutor was expanding her probe when she was fired. Prior to her being fired she received a statement from the Justice Dep that she was doing a good job.

To be determined...

Answer 8

I don't know.

But I sure am enjoying the show.

Face it. If it wasn't this, it would be something else that Bush has done wrong.

Answer 9

it's sad that you have to even ask the question.

Answer 10

They HATE Truth and Logic- It is "Partisan"

LOVE IT NO LAWS BROKEN- BUT - There is no BUTS YES or NO?

HAHAH DUKE CUNNINGHAM IS IN JAIL!!!