can you all tell me why he and not he constituents or the white house should take the blame
2007-03-31 03:31:57 · 9 answers · asked by jeremyzspoken11 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Gonzales and Myers are the ones who compiled the list and executed it.
The problem is not that they were fired -- as everyone above me has pointed out, they serve at the pleasure of the president, and thus no law was broken. What bothers people is the motivation -- in at least one case, the US Atty that prosecuted Randy Cunningham was fired the day after she announced she was expanding her probe to include a bunch of his other cronies. The "justification" was that she was "soft on immigration". The problem with that "justification" is that she was that she had the best record of immigration prosecutions of any US Atty in the system.
Ok, maybe I'm crazy, but if Clinton had fired the US Atty that prosecuted some of the peripheral whitewater cases, then I'm guessing that the impeachement would have happened somewhat sooner.
There is the concept in government of avoiding not only impropriety but the apperance of impropriety.
That said, I, as a liberal, wish we could concentrate on MUCH more important stuff. While this might eventually lead to some sort of housecleaning in the whitehouse (which I seriously doubt at this point -- Shrub is, if nothing else, seriously loyal to his buds), in the long run it is still just one more round of tit-for-tat.
Until we stop beating up each other because we have different views of what's best for this country, and start working to find the common ground that is out there, we are pretty much doomed to become the latest 3rd world "former superpower".
2007-03-31 04:26:03 · answer #1 · answered by franson 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because he is the head of the Justice Department from which the senior prosecutors were fired. Most of the people above seem to be missing the point of the scandal (not even counting the other two Justice Dept scandals this month).
If you look at his statements relative to the facts -- facts as defined by the emails that the Justice Dept has publicly released, not even counting the testimony of his ex-chief of staff two days ago -- then one of two things happened.
Either Gonzales didn't know that almost 10% of his most senior prosecutors were being fired, which means Gonzales is incompetent as a department manager. Or he publicly lied about being involved in the firings, which is a violation of his professional ethical obligations as an attorney.
Ignoring the reasons for the firings entirely (which may lead to more unethical violations), just his public response to the news shows that he is not fit to be in his current position.
Either he's a bad manager who doesn't know what's happening inside his department, or else he lied in the performance of his duties, which is a violation of the ethical rules for attorneys. Either way, that's grounds for removal.
2007-03-31 05:29:12 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real problem is the lying liberal media and the democrats. Since 2000 the republicans have been in a cowaring mood. they've choosen the defensive route instead of hitting them head on. As was said Clinton had Janet Reno fire all 93 judges, when he took office, and nothing was said! this is nothing more than the hatred of Bush/Chenney and the same old he lied about WMD's. Even though the same leading this dibacle voted for the war, under their own investigations of WMD's which they came to the conclusion were there!
2007-03-31 03:42:27 · answer #3 · answered by angeline 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is not at fault.
There is no fault.
The US Atty's are political appointees. They can just as rightly be political dis-appointees.
The President could fire them all because he woke up feeling blue, and legally the only thing for them to do is hand over the keys and get out.
2007-03-31 03:51:30 · answer #4 · answered by dBalcer 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The President was trying to do the right thing by keeping the US Attorneys in place, but when some were not doing their job, they were fired.
In hindsight, which is always 100% accurate, he should have fired all of them when he took over. It is his right to do so.
Then you wouldn't be crying about what happened.
2007-03-31 03:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Bubba 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He is not at fault. The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be removed at any time and for any reason. Clinton replaced all 93 of them when he took office.
2007-03-31 03:35:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush should have immediately fired ALL of the federal
prosecutors as soon as the Dems started whining about
the firing of only 8.....Clinton fired them all when he took office
and Bush did not...
2007-03-31 03:36:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Take the blame for what? Firing their own employees? Funny, my boss can do that too and he's never met the President.
2007-03-31 03:34:58 · answer #8 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In that case, he can do what he wants. He is the attorney general.
2007-03-31 03:36:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋