If a Democrat is elected in 2008, will they dismiss all the US attorneys and replace them with their own?

Question

If they do so, will Congress conduct intensive enquiries and endless investigations into the matter to determine if anything wrong was done? If not, why?

Answer 1

Hillary has already publicly stated that she will fire all 93 attorneys and replace them with her own.

Dems are the biggest hypocrites on EARTH.
Really. They are.

Bill Clinton fired all 93 to hinder the whitewater investigation as well as the Rostenkowski investigations. It was simply unprecedented.
He replaced them with his cronies.

Dems are SICK, VILE people.
Really. They are.

And to Dems here who say it is illegal to fire these attorneys during a term............. LOL. Are you really this brainwashed????

LOL

Answer 2

Yes, they will. And no, Congress won't investigate.

You're missing the point here. Almost every incoming President fires all the US Attorneys when they enter office. It's normal, and expected. This particularly happens after a party has held the presidency for eight years.

What is unusual is that Gonzales fired these attorneys because they "weren't loyal Bushies" i.e. they weren't prosecuting Democrats when they were told to, or when the administration felt they needed that for political reason(even if, in their judgement, there was no evidence) and they were prosecuting republicans (when evidence existed).

So, in essence, the judiciary was being used for political purposes, which is a violation of the constitution.

Additionally, the administration's claim that the attorneys were underperfoming has been proven false, and according to Gonzales himself, he was unfamiliar with the performance files of the fired attorneys.

How can you fire someone for poor perfomance, when you haven't even looked at the files?

Gonzales said he wasn't involved, then he was vaguely aware. And yet, testimony from those in his office, and various documents produced by his office, prove that he was involved.

And common sense tells you that the boss would have to be involved in and sign off on a termination.

And finally, who is the pitbull leading the charge? Arlen Spector, a constitutional scholar, and a man with a great respect for the law. A republican.

There are some dirty tricks you can pull, and get away with. Using the judicial process for political gain is one that will come back to bite you on the nether regions. Even the repubs say it's time for "Fredo" to go.

Answer 3

Yes they will, and no the Congress won't.

Here's why -

All administrations replace those appointees with their own when they take office. That's normal Clinton did it, Reagan did it, Bush #1 did it, AND BUSH #2 DID IT.

What they DON'T do is replace THEIR OWN APPOINTEES in mid-term. It had been done maybe five times in history, and it was always for blatant misdeeds. When I say five times in history, I'm talking about five individuals being replaced, in total, not five firings of multiple people, over the previous 30 years.

Saying the president can fire someone for no reason isn't the same as saying the president can fire someone for ANY reason. To draw a parallel - I can refuse service in my business to someone according to my own standards as a business. I can't refuse service to someone because I don't like black people. A historical one - Nixon could replace his Attorney General at will for no reason, to replace him because he wouldn't manipulate an ongoing investigation in Nixon's favor would be wrong and impeachable.

Your question is a false one, because the current investigations don't have anything to do with anything that is normal business, or have ample historical precedent. Your pretending it does is being either willfully obtuse, or feigning ignorance to excuse the inexcusable. You should have asked a more honest question:

If a Democratic president replaces selected prosecutors in mid-term because they won't go along with a political agenda in pursuing or not pursing prosecutions instead of their duty to objectively decide according to the rule of law - if they get fired because they are investigating corrupt elected officials and influence peddlers within their own party, if they didn't go along with pursuing false prosecutions of a non-existent non-crime (so called illegal voter fraud) and ignored actual crimes (election fraud) and if the presidential administration lies about it and illegally destroys documents and records pertaining to it contrary to law and policy, will the Congress conduct inquiries to determine if anything wrong was done?

And the answer to that would be - "Yes, I would hope so. That's their duty and obligation as a co-equal branch."

Get a clue. What has gone on is not business as usual, and has no precedent.

Answer 4

Apparently you don’t understand the current controversy.

The current situation under Bush is unprecedented in American history. Bush replaced eight prosecutors in the middle of his term. Gonzales has admitted that the firings were “flawed.”

Reagan and Clinton replaced all of the US attorneys at the beginning of their terms. It is not unusual for the incoming president to replace US attorneys who have been appointed by the previous administration.

The Bush administration initially asserted that the US attorneys were fired due to “poor performance.” They have been unable to support those assertions and the story keeps changing. Gonzales has been handling the inquiry extremely badly.

The suspicion is that the US attorneys who were fired were either investigating and prosecuting too many Republicans and/or not prosecuting as many Democrats as the Bush administration wanted. If so, that is an illegal interference with ongoing prosecutions. Also, the Bush administration was trying to take advantage of the recent amendment to the Patriot Act that allowed long-term replacements of US attorneys without approval by Congress.

Answer 5

Well, I can tell from all the answers here that you have no idea what you're talking about and just watch Fox news.
There is nothing new about replacing all US attorneys when a new president comes in. It's not a crime or anything near that.
What is a crime is singling out attorneys and fire them if they don't do what you tell them to do. The president can't dictate what they should investigate or demand a certain outcome of a trial. They were republican appointed.

Answer 6

You confuse the issue of when a president fires of dismisses US attorneys. At the beginning of new administration they have that right and ALL presidents use that authority.

In the case of Bush and company they fired US attorneys who failed to follow the Rove policy of ethics. They were fired for not going after Democrats and not to go after Republicans.

Answer 7

A president can fire whomever he wants at the beginning of his term. A president cannot interfere with and manage ongoing federal prosecutions during his term by firing the prosecutors for false reasons. That is illegal.

Answer 8

Well when Bill Clinton became President he let all of them go at one time,and I don't remember hearing a word of complaint. The reason being that it was his right,they are at his disposal,to be hired or fired at his discretion. Except of course if the President is Bush.

AD

Answer 9

ever see the movie HANG EM HIGH?,,Dem's will put out all republicans and charges will insure for the next 50 years or so.fox news will lose its high rating ,as it falls to liberal bigots.go team bush

Answer 10

As they have always done. look at the record they average 20- 90% removal. GW removed less than 10% and look at them Howl!