English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I'm serious. I've seen a number of liberals eluding to this as fact. How about provided "credible" sources. And if this is the case, what's the problem?

2007-03-23 05:58:59 · 5 answers · asked by Gus K 3 in Politics & Government Politics

Captain - do Clinton's firings amount to a political vendetta? These are at will employees, meaning they can be fired at anytime by the President.

2007-03-23 06:20:06 · update #1

5 answers

The fired US Attorneys were not investigating the Bush administration, at least I've never seen any credible claim.

The accusation is that the US Attorneys were fired because they refused to play partisan politics and refused to abuse their authority by investigating political rivals of the administration.

In other words, the claim is that they were fired for having too much integrity and for following the law. And if true, that would be a violation of Gonzales's oath as AG, and a violation of his ethical obligations as an attorney. Either of which would be grounds for his removal as AG.

Gonzales is the target of this investigation, not Bush.

2007-03-23 06:07:07 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 1

You're a bit behind on the news--it's been on for days. Some documents--particularly e-mails--have been made public. At least two I've heard specifically discuss efforts by the Republicans to stop these prosecutors from investigating Republicans.

In all fairness, though--although there is clearly at least some impropriety, its not clear yet just how much. That's why Congress wants to supoena documents and talk to Rove, etc. Especially since the administration has kept changing teir story about what, who, why, etc.

My opinion--if bush, Rove, etc. have nothing to hide they'll make these documents public. If there's anything to these allegations, they'll do everything they can to hide the truth.

2007-03-23 06:18:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

As it turns out, that is almost certainly NOT the case.
The single overriding issue in the case of all eight firings is that none of these attourneys were doing their jobs aggressively enough.
In the case of the San Fran gal, her prosecution of gun crimes was WAY down and unacceptable.
The firings in no way affect the cases on hand in those departments because each of the eight offices have HUNDREDS of other attourneys on staff to continue handling them.
This is pure political gamesmanship by Leahy and co to offer an olive branch to the MoveOn.org fanatics because they did not have the courage to stop funding the troops.
What is truly troubling (and it should be to all clear thinking Americans) is how the press carries water for these Dem politicians.
It is beyond the pale!
No liberal bias indeed!

2007-03-23 06:08:39 · answer #3 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 1 1

Some were targeting corruption
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

and if they were fired as a political vendetta to stop the investigations that's obstruction of justice which criminal

2007-03-23 06:13:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

That the lefts way. Spew lies and eventually try to spin it as fact

Doesn't quite work out for them though

Comrade Olbermann tells them what to do

2007-03-23 06:03:43 · answer #5 · answered by John 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers