Presidents usually clean hour when they first get into office. Clinton and Reagan both cleaned house at the start of their terms. Bush let these prosecutors continue for a few years and decided then to clean house. So why all the flap? If you fire the other team off the bat you're ok but if you fire them in midstream that's reallly bad?
2007-03-29 08:11:55 · 12 answers · asked by HomeSweetSiliconValley 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Ignoring the fact that Gonzales testified at his confirmation hearing that he'd never fire people for political reasons...?
Well, as AG, Gonzales swore an oath to put the administration of justice above partisan political concerns. And as an attorney, Gonzales is bound by the ethical requirements of that position, which means acting in the best interests of justice.
The claims against Gonzales are that he fired the USAttys because they were too ethical, and because they refused to abuse their authority to suit Bush's political agenda. In other words (if the accusations are true) Gonzales violated both his ethical duties as an attorney, and his oath of office as AG.
Either of those are grounds for his removal as AG. That's why Gonzales is the target of the investigation, not Bush.
And if this wasn't the third Justice Department scandal in the past month, it probably wouldn't be that much of a big deal. But since it is one more scandal, and since Congress has oversight over the Dept as a federal agency, Congress is doing their job and holding competency hearings for the AG.
2007-03-29 08:24:27 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The problem with Gonzales firings is this. They are not allowed to fire them for 'political' reasons. Gonzales testified before Congress, under oath, that they were fired for poor performance. It was later discovered that Gonzales lied to Congress, which is a felony, and it appears it goes even deeper. From the evidence so far it looks like they were fired for refusing to dropping criminal investigations against corrupt Republicans. If that is true then Obstruction of Justice charges could also be filed (also a felony). Neither of these charges are minor and if found to be true should be prosecuted.
2007-03-29 11:05:39 · answer #2 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You seem to imply that the prosecutors that were fired were hold overs from Clinton. That is not the case. Most of the recent firings were prosecutors that were appointed by Bush during his "house cleaning" six years ago.
The big deal is this: head prosecutors decide which cases to prosecute. There is an appearance that some of these prosecutors were fired for making decisions based on the rule of law rather than the rule of Rove.
If that proves to be true, the firings are obstructions of justice and illegal.
2007-03-29 08:19:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The best reason I've heard is that the dems are making a big deal out of it for political reasons. Basically they want to take out Bush and Rove. You see this all goes back to the Scooter libby(I hope I spelled that right) trial and why republicans were so furious over it. So the reason was to get Rove and other Bush cabinet members under oath. When this happens anything they say that is a little off or even slightly skewed could be pursued as perjury in any liberal court across the country. I mean if you have heard any audio of the scooter libby trial you would see how unfair it was. There were multiple people who sided with him, including a person who wrote the law that he supposedly violated. They were all ignored or discounted.
2007-03-29 08:23:13 · answer #4 · answered by Annonymas 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
There is no big deal. The liberal media just hates Bush. They have no problem with Clinton firing all 93, it's so obvious.
2007-03-29 10:34:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Politics.
2007-03-29 08:24:35 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Dems smell blood because Gonzales for some reason said he had nothing to do with the firings.
You and I both know he is smart enough not to purposefully lie about something like this that can be contradicted left and right. Not to mention he can fire any of them for any reason, so why lie about it. So it must have been an innocent slip.
But the Dems have nothing better to offer, so they pounced on it, demanding he resign. Big scandal, you know.
Bunch of losers.
2007-03-29 08:17:48 · answer #7 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I don't care for Bush, but I can admit to a witch hunt when I see one. The Dems are angry and they will do whatever is necessary to slam these guys.
2007-03-29 08:57:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush was a nice guy and didn't fire a bunch of Clinton people.
It was a mistake that the country is paying for now.
Never trust a Democrat.
2007-03-29 08:26:22 · answer #9 · answered by wolf 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋
It is simply a witch hunt to lessen the power of the executive branch.
It's stupid to subpeona someone over the president exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right.
2007-03-29 08:32:54 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋