...you know...fired from the government?...in private...not under oath....It's a "reasonable" request.
2007-03-22 22:00:22 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yeah , I remember Dottygoya.. but what does this have to do with today? HELLO are you just blindly anti-"liberal" or what? Do you know what a liberal really means?
2007-03-22 22:16:12 · update #1
Eight US Attorneys were fired; seven of them allegedly for performance reasons.
Although the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the current presidential administration, the actual motives for firing the eight have come under close scrutiny.
It appears that none of them were ever noticed of any performance problems; that the firings were politically motivated, but covered up with the performance rational.
For example, after Carol Lam of the Southern District of California successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham, she went after other possibly corrupt politicians; many of whom were also Republicans. Please see link below.
Thus, the improper motives concerning the firings are now being sought by Congress.
2007-03-22 22:11:32 · answer #1 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
because it is the right and the privilege for the president to fire his subordinates, including attorneys.
and as for what happened in 93 being connected to what is happening today, its quite simple. if the actions had been illegal, then Clinton would have been slammed for his actions he was not, and the firing of 92 attorneys would hardly go unnoticed. But of course now that Bush is the president it is a criminal conspiracy.
sorry But you should not eat all the liberal tripe they feed you, you might actually start noticing things like history and facts.
2007-03-23 07:39:23 · answer #2 · answered by Stone K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is unclear if the attorneys were fired for political or performance issue. I'm assuming we will find out they were one in the same. Essentially, the President claims that they were fired for non-performance. The Congress agrees but thinks the non-performance (or refusal to prosecute certain enemies of the white house) was politically motivated. The juries still out. We'll all have to wait and see.
2007-03-23 10:37:35 · answer #3 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carol Lam, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, planned to read a statement on behalf of the group, saying, "Each of us was fully aware that we served at the pleasure of the President, and that we could be removed for any or no reason. In most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations."
See, even one of the people that is resigning agrees with the fact that the president can appoint or remove a U.S. attorney with no explanation why. Therefore it is not illegal for a president to do what Bush did.
2007-03-23 05:46:50 · answer #4 · answered by J H 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First you'd have to ask Bill Clinton why he fired all of the 93 attorneys when he took office as president. Then you can ask about the firing of the attorneys now. Dems have such short memories when it comes to the things they did. It's more like "Do as I say, not as I do" with them. Nancy, Harry, Biden hold on to your hats, better yet, you should put on your thinking caps and think back to 1992 when Billy the Kids was in power. Oh but you don't remember do you?
2007-03-23 05:08:05 · answer #5 · answered by dottygoatbeagle 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The president has the power to fire U.S. Attorneys. He's their boss. Do you need an explanation every time someone in the U.S. gets fired? You won't get an explanation. Nothing illegal has been committed here.
2007-03-23 06:56:44 · answer #6 · answered by southfloridamullets 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Which attorneys? You do no say.
2007-03-23 05:04:35 · answer #7 · answered by celianne 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
they wernt good bushies
2007-03-23 05:11:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋