Why does it matter why the 8 US attorneys were fired?

Question

US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, right? He can fire them for any reason he wants, including political reasons, right? So let's say that all 8 were fired for deeply political reasons, and these reasons come to light after a lengthy investigation. So what? No laws are being broken, right? We already know the Republicans are a**holes. We don't need an expensive investigation to prove it.

Answer 1

As a former intern at a United States Attorney's office, I can honestly say that the position is largely managerial and bureaucratic. The reason that this incident is significant is the role that the US Attorneys have in determining which cases proceed and what resources are used to try a case. In most instances, a deputy handles case assignments and the US Attorney handles the more overarching issues such as staffing and policy.

In this instance, two different issues combined to make this case particularly noteworthy. One is that the firings occurred in the middle of a presidential term. Although this is not unprecedented, it is very rare and usually only done for clear misconduct or a failure of professional responsibilities. The second is that there are allegations that the firings occurred after a failure to respond favorably to inappropriate contacts between some members of Congress and certain USAOs (United States Attorney's Office).

While a political office, the nature of the position has generally led to a hands off approach with former administrations. It is considered highly inappropriate for individuals outside of the justice department to try to persuade US Attorneys what cases to prosecute, as well as the timing of indictments and Grand Jury sessions. The e-mail leak that claimed the US Attorneys were being looked at to determine who were, "Loyal Bushies" is particularly concerning due to the sensitive nature of the work in USAOs.

The most troublesome one of these firings is from New Mexico, where the US Attorney was fired after contact was made between Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. and David Iglesias, the former U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. According to Laurie Kellman in an AP wire piece, "Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections. Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he rejected what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections."

In summation, the ability of an USAO to initiate and engage in criminal cases makes the office particularly powerful and exposed to abuses of power and corruption. The danger in this instance is that certain actions may have undermined the ability of the Justice Department to prosecute cases above suspicion as well as tarnished the reputation of the US Attorney's General as well as certain individuals in the White House.

Answer 2

US attorneys do indeed serve at the President's pleasure. He does have the right to fire them any time he wants. Even for political reasons. However in light of all the other illegal things this Administration has done we cannot allow him to run amok and that is what has been happening until the Congress has finally started using its power of oversight.

The one big mistake he made was trying to sneak the firings past Congress. They are not amused by that sort of thing.

Had he informed Congress that he intended to fire these particular attorneys because of their inability to meet his expectations they would not likely have these hearings but like everything else they tried to sneak, to be doing the sort of things corrupt politicians do and they got caught.

Answer 3

You don't know that no laws were broken, and frankly that's a rather absurd assumption given that at least two were investigating corruption within the Republicans ranks while another was not pursuing voter fraud against democrats because there was no case but Harriet Myers wanted one brought anyway

Answer 4

This is similar to the Clinton thing. It's the cover-up that matters, sort of.

But in truth, it really does matter if the administration strong-arms the US Attorney's for their personal benefit. Once nominated, they aren't supposed to be affected by anything that occurs in the political arena...but this has apparently happened if you read the interviews of some of the tossed attorneys.

Answer 5

Although Clinton fired 90 something attornies the problem with this is that there were a few eamils suggesting that thiswas to protect someone being investigated. So we learn again if you have something to say do it face to face and not in writing.

Answer 6

I know. I've become somewhat numb to this. I wake up, look at the paper to find out what they're lying about today. It's just non-stop. Maybe they feel they'll get a few items through they really want want if they lie about everything. Kind of the school of fish theory.

Answer 7

most dictators fire the top law officails first when taking over.
bush already has abused his power lied started wars with out need lied some more and know he is getting rid of top law officails . seems like a big deal to me

Answer 8

It's not that they were fired. It's WHY. Simply repeating everythiny Limbaugh says does not a valid point make.

Answer 9

It matters that Democrats can keep a "scandal" going in the public eye. They'lll do anything to whatever they can do to keep the media off of Harry Reid's questionable land deals or their failure to pass a bill bringing the the troops home.

Answer 10

Very few even understand the system. Fewer still even care. The media keeps this one alive.
The conservatives dig their own graves.