Did Bush and Gonzales do wrong by the firings?

Question

There is so much mud slinging from both sides that it's hard to find just the facts. I am so sick of partison facts and just want the real story.

Answer 1

Most Presidents fire federal attorneys at the beginning of their first term. It is traditional. Bush Administration waited until half way through the second term before firing any. Why all of a sudden when they all got good performance reviews?

Other presidents informed the Senate as to who they were firing and why. Bush Administration tried to sneak around and not inform the Senate.

Of the attorneys fired by Gonzo for Bush some were investigating Administration wrong doing and another had been investigating some New Mexico Democrats but could not find enough evidence against them. Senator Diminicci (R-NM) wanted something , anything found against the Democrats but the attorney had nothing and as it turns out he was one of the fired attorneys.

The fact that the US attorneys were fired is not the issue. It is that they were fired for obvious political reasons and that the Administration was not going to tell the Senate. The Senate would have found out anyway as they have to approve presidential appointments of US Attorneys.

Personally I believe even if they were fired for political reasons had the Administration informed the Senate they might have been allowed to fire at least some of them. Congress does not like sneaky. They want to be informed.

Answer 2

First, Republicans in Congress are not being silent. greater advantageous than one has spoke of as for Gonzales's resignation. As to the 1993 firings, cleansing domicile upon a clean president taking workplace is traditionally consumer-friendly, especially after 12 hears of rule by means of the different occasion. Firing dissimilar USAttys interior the midst of the term is very almost unprecedented. See the specified discussions above. so some distance as what Gonzales has executed incorrect, it truly is unquestionably one of two issues. the two he intentionally fired USAttys for what seems to be in simple terms politial reasons. Or, in accordance with Gonzales's very own statements, he did not comprehend that any such good sort of USAttys have been being fired. So, the two that's malfeasance or incompetence. Or, there could have been valid motives for the firings. yet, the two Gonzales and Bush admit that "errors have been made" Did Gonzales fail to stay as much as the standards of his workplace, or dedicate movements that have been ethical violations? no person is beneficial good now. that's why there are hearings. to confirm no rely if what got here approximately substitute into incorrect or fallacious, or no rely if it substitute into in simple terms all a series of errors. the factor of the hearings is to get to the fact. that's some thing that i might desire all and sundry desires to discover.

Answer 3

No previous Presidential administration has fired a group of attorneys other than at the start of their term - when it is common to ask them all to resign. This includes multiple term presidents. They only replaced them once. Bush already replaced them all at the beginning of his first term.

The Patriot Act gave the President the authority to bypass congress when appointing these attorneys - so this is an improper use of that act, since no national emergency led to the need for replacements. The House has voted to repeal that part of the Act. One of the replacements is a political campaign staffer of Carl Roves with no judicial experience - so that is improper staffing that would not have survived congressional approval.

One of these fired prosecutors had worked on the Abramoff prosecution and had issued subpoenas to try more criminals related to that (Republican) scandal.

Several of these prosecutors had been pressed to begin prosecutions into Democrat voter fraud during the last election even though, after investigation, there was no evidence that would lead to a conviction.

Several Republican members of congress phoned the fired prosecutors and urged them to prosecute or stop prosecution so this could be a crime of tampering with prosecution.

Answer 4

There is absolutely nothing illegal about the firings. Bush, and his man Gonzales, can fire anyone they want, for just about any reason they want. They are appointed political positions!

There is an argument that says they were fired for political reasons, not enforcing certain laws, or prosecuting certain people for certain crimes.

OF COURSE THAT'S TRUE! That's WHY they are political appointees, so that those doing the "appointing" can press the issues important to them through their appointees!

Want to be tough on immigration? Appoint folks who agree they will indeed be tough on immigration, in example.

It was legal, the firings. But the debate now is whether Gonzales lied to Congress about his knowledge and involvement.

Personally, I don't care. It's not a debate about committing a crime. In other words, the lie might or might not be a crime, but what he was lying about wasn't, so small flub, by my way of thinking.

Answer 5

it's not that those US Attorneys were fired .... it's about the when and the why those US Attorneys were fired.
evidence seemed to suggest that the US Att were fired because they would not compromise their integrity and play politics with the Justice System. i don't remember the finer details lof what exactly were the investigations that were shut down by the firings. Gonzales is in this mess because he lied to Congress about why the US Att were fired.

it's not abnormal for an incoming president to replace US Att. Clinton did it and so did Reagan. What the Bush admin has done appears to be in the least unethical ... perhaps illegal. have to wait and see.

Answer 6

yep they did wrong.

also, contrary to what you will hear, what they did is almost completely unheard of.

there have been fewer than a dozen federal prosecutors who have been fired MID TERM in the last 100 years and most of those were guys who were convicted of a crime or something like that.

this is a complete injection of politics into what is supposed to be a strictly law and order position.

this is the end for bush and gonzalez...

Answer 7

The firings were LEGAL..both sides admit it...Was it political...YES...but then again the 93 GOP members Clinton and the 17 travel staff GOPers that Billery fired were not investigated...The Dems are just looking to embarrass GW as they have egg on their faces as they were unable to do the things they promised to do" IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS WHETHER GW approved or not" have not been done..They have to make it look like they are taking a stand after the failed NON-BINDING resolution...

Answer 8

what "nebtet" said.

Its plain as the nose on your face, even if the Fox 'news' spinners are attempting to bullsht us with a false comparison.

Bush already did his mass replacement, now he is 'selectively' replacing those that are not partisan hacks including an attorney who prosecuted admitted felon republican randy "duke" cunningham.

Answer 9

It is hard to determine whether or not they were in the wrong....if the firings were politically motivated then yes they did wrong.

However, before some neo-con fanboi chimes in on this, Clinton fired a good amount of them as well. and it is unknown as to what his intentions were.

Rumor has it, RUMOR, that these firings were done against people who were investigating corruption incidents. If this is true, and I pass no judgement on this, then they will get into some trouble over it.

Answer 10

Wrong, yes, but its not illegal. I doubt either was impartial when they fired the judge. That is what makes it wrong. I think the Democrats making a big deal of it is worse. Its clearly an attempt to gain more votes.