IF the attorneys were fired for political reasons?

Question

Doesn't that make their hiring for political reasons?

Isn't that a perk to being the Preisdent, you can appoint to whom you feel represents what you believe?

Answer 1

You are exactly right. The president has the right to hiure and fire US attorneys at will. They are supposed to carry out the values and philosophy of the current administration, and if they are not, that is grounds for their termination.

Answer 2

they are hired for political reasons but then they are supposed to function independently. The reason given for their dismissal was "performance", not politics. Yet all of the dismissed attorneys were solid performers according to their annual reviews and their conviction rates.

It is very rare to fire a US Attorney, mid term for any reason other than malfeasance. In the past 25 years, it turns out that only 2 out of 487 US attorneys have been fired for performance reasons, the last one in 1984. It is unheard of to fire top performers for performance reasons.

So, clearly "poor performance" is the first lie.

When you look at their cases, you find that some of the Attorneys had prosecuted Republican office holders, including Duke Cunningham. Others were being pressured to bring corruption charges against Democratic office holders but they did not find enough evidence to bring charges.

So, a picture emerges of a Justice Department that was instructing it's prosecutors to target Democrats and leave Republicans alone. Some didn't play ball and after the Republicans lost the House and Senate in November, someone decided to send a message to the rest to play ball or else.

If that is true, it is a criminal conspiracy to subvert the election process. If this is tied to the President, it could very well be considered the most serious offense by a President since Watergate, and perhaps worse.

This is serious stuff. Dead serious.

Answer 3

Yes you are right.

However, as I understand it, the problem comes in that the attorney's agenda was being manipulated for political reasons.

For example, if the President appoints Oscar the Grouch a U.S. Attorney as a favor to the "League of United Green Furry Citizens" in exchange for their support, he is within his rights to do that.

If Oscar winds up doing an investigation of political corruption in the opposing poltical party... well that's Oscars' job. As long as there is corruption there, (and Oscar isn't just making up stuff and targeting people for investigation because he doesn't agree with their politics) that is all well and above board.

If however Oscar is fired because Oscar decides that an investigation of drug pushing pedophile terrorist gang members is more important than his political corruption probe, and thusly it should be completed first, even though a close election is coming up... well that is begining to smell a bit.

The question here is what exactly is covered by the phrase "political reasons". If it is "he gave money to the Kerry Campaign" then that is one sort of political reason and you would be right.

However, "He refused to let us use his position of public trust to forward our narrow partisan electoral agenda" that is another sort of "political reason" entirely.

I remember well how much the right screamed when it came out that people who were outspoken opponents of Clinton got their taxes audited. We would do well to remember that sense of outrage at the abuse of power as this investigation moves forward.

Answer 4

Yes. U S Attorneys are political appointments.

Answer 5

Yes and yes. They serve totally at the Presidents wishes. Just like the 93 US Attorneys that Clintoon s canned in 1993. He could have renominated many....he for political reason choose to put in his own people...mainly to distract attention away from his own and his wifes legal troubles (Whitewater).

Gonzales is a non scandal.

Answer 6

Yep, Clinton fired 92 out of 93, but no bitching. It's all BS by Dems. Instead of confronting an issue such as immigration or Iraq and dealing with it, they do the typical belly aching on something that people don't care about. I believe one of the criteria for being a liberal is that you have to be a whiny, crybaby, sissy that avoids the topic at hand.

Answer 7

They are hired for political reasons and should be fired if they are not fullfilling their duties. The only lies and deception in all of this is from the liberals who are spinning as hard as they can to forward their pityful cause.

Answer 8

You are right. If they don't like it the way it is they need to change the appointment process to something similar to the Federal judges, who are basically appointed for life.....


Then watch how political it gets..........

Answer 9

It certainly is. In fact, that is a privelege that no President has sidestepped.

What will be the telling tale is how GWB handles this, and how well the Democrats stand up for the American people...we'll see...

Answer 10

Of course, but if you are firing them because they are convicting Duke Cunningham, prosecuting other Republicans or not prosecuting Democrats for lack of evidence then there is a problem. They were all Republican or Independent US attorneys.