Why are Democrats telling so many lies about the firing of US attorneys?

Question

Democrats have been claiming for years that it was fine and dandy for Clinton to fire all 93 US Attorneys because (defying logic) "that's not political", when in fact that is the definition of political.

Which leads us to the question: why are Democrats telling so many lies about the firing of a mere 8 US Attorneys?

It is once again an attempt by Democrats to prevent Republicans from acting within the law by accusing them of dark, sinister motives. Just like when Republicans try to campaign in the South (because they want to attract racists, of course) or defend ethics (because they are controlled by the extreme religious right).

Those lies won't stand. Not here.

The President can explicitly, under color of law, hire and fire AT WILL throughout his terms in office. To claim otherwise is at best ignorant and at worst deliberately deceptive.

Answer 1

I like how liberals keep saying; Clinton fired them at the beginning of his term, while Bush didn't. Who cares!! Both of them still fired them for political reasons, the time they were fired is irrelevant!

I haven't followed this lame story very closely, but the reports I heard were the attorneys weren't doing the jobs they were appointed to do. And what do you do when someone isn't doing their job?? Ahh fire them!

Answer 2

It really is disingenuous of you, at best, to accuse the Democrats of "telling so many lies," and then decline to list even one of them. So those who might disagree with you are left to imagine what it is you are thinking.

As things stand today, Attorney General Gonzalez's own chief of staff reluctantly admitted that the Attorney General lied about not being part of the discussions or the decision making process that led to these firings. And by the way, this guy is not a Democrat, and he agrees that the A.G. and the President have the right to fire anyone at any time.

There are many things in life that are legal, or at least not illegal, which are still unethical or at least mean spirited. There's no law or policy at our university which says that I can't walk into class tomorrow (Friday) and announce that a previously unmentioned term paper is due on Monday. I am perfectly in my rights to do so, and there have been professors in the past who have been that demanding and that arbitrary. But that doesn't mean that doing this would reflect good teaching or teach my students anything other than life is hell sometimes.

It appears that most of these firings of Republican appointees came without much if anything in the way of prior warning. In fact, many of these people have terrific track records. The fact that, in spite of what he has said publicly until now, Gonzalez did consult with political consultants to the President on these firings makes things look suspicious to say the least.

Then the President refuses to let his aids testify under oath, and another of Gonzalez's underlings tells everyone ahead of time that she will invoke the Fifth Amendment when nobody even knew a crime was contemplated. Things look even odder.

Guess what Republicans would have done to Janet Reno if she had done all this under President Clinton? The same if not worse.

Answer 3

First off, you accuse the Dems of telling lies and then fail to give an example of such. So, kindly indulge us with these "lies".

Two, Bush also let all the AGs go at the beginning of his term. You didn't hear anything about...because its legal. Ditto for Clinton. And Bush Sr. You get the idea I hope.

Three, no one doubts or questions the ability of a sitting president to fire his political appointees. That isn't the problem.

This problem is multifaceted:

1) It is highly unusual for a president to contemplate releasing (not firing) all 93 of his own political appointees. We know this via the released emails. Oddity number one.

2) It is further unusual to fire 8 AGs in the middle of their second term. Usually, the WH only gets involved when an AG is waaaay out there in terms of performance. This speaks to the separation of powers and the lack of politicization of the DoJ.

3) We already know that Sen Spectre's office inserted language into the Patriot Act last year circumventing a Constitutional Check and Balance. US AGs are nominated by the President and sent to the Senate for confirmation of a 4 year term. The one line his office placed in the act allowed the AG of the US to install w/o Senate confirmation interim AGs to replace vacancies. We further know that Sampson and Rove were planning on using this to install Rove's protege into an AG spot. Griffin (the protege) would not have passed Senate scrutiny. A Constitutional end-run and it grates against separation of powers. You will not please the Senate with this...especially an opposition one.

4) Gonzales and the WH have already erred in saying that Rove, Miers and Gonzales were not part of this firing. Released emails and calendar entries (which the above do not refute) place all three at weekly meetings discussing this plan. I will let the reader characterize this as a lie or bad memory (by three people nonetheless)....

5) The WH has given varied reasons for the firings. At one point, they claimed these were political appointees and what's the big deal. Then they said it was performance based. Except DoJ records refute the firings were justified on a performance basis (they had good records).

6) Sen Dominci (sp) of NM has already admitted to calling AG Iglesias and asking about the timing of indictments for Dems on voter fraud before the November elections (Iglesias, a Repub, declined to indict on grounds of lack of sufficient evidence). He also received calls from Miers along the same lines. Iglesias characterized the calls as intimidation. Now here we get into why this is a mess. You cannot intimidate an AG. More specifically, you cannot intimidate an AG to protect Repubs in office from investigation (Lam in LA) or "push" indictments for political gain (Iglesias in NM). To do so is illegal. A felony to be exact.

Based on the above bullets, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the firings were done in a suspicious and possibly felonious manner. This is why the Dems are issuing subpoenas.

So, what lies were told, and ignore bullet 4 here, and by whom?

Answer 4

Because they promised if they won, to keep Bush tied up with hearings and anything else they could do to make him look bad. Get used to it, for the next 2 years they will be telling a lot more lies trying to make them look better for the upcoming election. Why do you think this election season started so early this time?

Bush did NOT lie to congress, he hasn't been in front of them and as president he won't be!

Answer 5

well, it is legal... but is it ethical? as you raise the "ethics point" when crying about liberals... where is your own ethics?

your mind is made up... but for those reading this... the rest of the facts the author of the question left out because they hurt his arguement...

Clinton fired them at the beginning of his presidency, as MANY presidents have and do... mainly because often they think that they know people who can do better, at least that's what they say...

but, Bush is firing his own people here late in his term... that's the difference... why? you don't discuss that?

why did he fire his own people? what job didn't they do? where were their misakes that they were fired for?

no one seems to know? but some did follow the law in ways that went against the Bush administration... but they were following the law? were they fired for that?

in fact, some e-mail say that they were fired because they followed the law a little too closely... and should have ignored it a little more when it came to Bush...

seems to be the only reason out there? is that ethical?

Answer 6

I'm a Conservative and it was not out of the ordinary for President Clinton to fire all of the prosecutors when he entered his Administration. It is pretty common for any incoming President to clean house as his Administration begins.

Look at Ronald Regan. He cleaned house mostly and no on squawked then.

Answer 7

Because it's politics and both sides do stupid crap like this and are hypocritical. Plus Bush is vulnerable and weak and lets his enemies define his battles. The good news is that nobody even cares about this story except the people who truly hate Bush (the media). This is the dumbest news story of 2007 thus far IMHO.

Answer 8

The prez isnt taking responsibility for the firings.Like everything else he blames it on someone else.Seems like you are headed in that direction Become an independent.This way you can try to look at both sides without having to choose a side.

Answer 9

some would have been others weren't yet through fact they did no longer bypass after others vigerously adequate they have been considered as no longer doing their activity. information? Who needs information? purely locate something, something we can use against our perceived enemies. it is the Karl Rove neocon mantra. it quite is now unraveling.

Answer 10

You need to stop watching the FOX NOISE NETWORK and start watching REAL news.

For your information... it is the REPUBLICANS who are defending the lying that has been done by the Bush Whitehouse.

What Clinton did or did not do is OLD BUSINESS... Bush is the President now and it's the REPUBLICANS who have been screwing the country for the past 6 years, so stick to the FACTS.