Do Republicans still think no wrongdoing occured in regards to the prosecutors being fired?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070613/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors


The White House has repeatedly refused to make current and former officials involved in the firings available except in private interviews, without transcripts. Congressional investigators have refused that offer.

"The White House cannot have it both ways — it cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred," Leahy added.


No matter how deep your denial runs, there's only one reason the White House would refuse to let people testify and not allow transcripts to be made:

Because they have something to hide.

It's one more glaring example of how this administration thinks it's above the law and above the checks and balances our government depends on.

Bushy makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

And the 5000 missing emails is probably just a coincidence I suppose.

Answer 1

I want to know why Karl Rove's buddy was ushered into the job in Arkansas and a perfectly qualified Republican was fired to make room for him.

Rove is nothing more than the political advisor to the President and should not be involved in Justice Department decisions.

I also want to know why there are 150 political appointees in the Bush administration who received their law degrees from Pat Robertson's crackpot school of law, which far exceeds the number of graduates serving in the administration from any other university in the US.

Answer 2

Funny that you should mention checks and balances, since part of the checks and balance to which you refer is the power of the executive office to oversee the staffing of its branch of the government.

Executive privilege is a very crucial piece of the checks and balances between the three branches. Without that, the power of the President becomes subordinate to the power of Congress or the Judiciary. Thus, it can indeed stonewall a congressional investigation by invoking that privilege, no matter how much Pat Leahy whines about it.

Answer 3

There was nothing wrong with firing those prosecutors. US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the Executive Branch. The Attorney General can fire them for any reason or no reason at all. Democrats are using this for political purposes only because they are playing on your ignorance. They know that the average American is sadly unfamiliar with the law and the Constitution so they use that ignorace to their advantage. If this is so wrong, why were they so quite when Clinton terminated all US Attorney's when he assumed office?

This is not about legality or fairness, it's about politics.

Answer 4

This is no more than a witch hunt concocted by the Democrats to keep them busy doing nothing instead of actually getting something done. No laws were broken. The Democrats are just crying over this and making a mountain out of a mole hill. But they are Democrats so what else would we expect. Once this blows over they will find some other witch to go after to keep them busy for awhile.

Answer 5

Well I read the article, and I still don't know what wrong doing they are investigating.

Was any law broken ?

The Democrats have not once, said they thought any law had been broken.

So, if a law wasn't broken, why are they investigating ?


Were they fired for politicial reasons, probally so.

I might be a little dense from time to time.

But if it is ok to fire all the attorneys for politicial reasons when you first get elected and again when you get reelected.

Then, what difference would it make, if you fired them for politicial reasons inbetween ?

I just don't get, what they are looking for .

Answer 6

They cannot be guilty of wrongdoing because their powers as spelled out to them state that they can hire and fire attorneys at will without being required to give a reason.

Of course, every administration abuses this power for political gains, the Bush administration is not the first, and until this power is changed, they won't be the last. It's silly to pursue this course of attacking the AG and anyone involved; the solution is to fix the power so that it has checks and balances and move on.

Answer 7

Generally I hate talking politics with people who trust CNN and major media outlets, but love it when you all cherry pick news.
Answer me this, how many prosecutors did Hil-Billy fire when they took the Oval Office?
Answer that, and I might (MIGHT) enter this debate.
The Dems will win in 2008... not b/c of their stances or platforms... only because no one wants to vote GOP due to their debacles.

Answer 8

Since Clinton fired all of his prosecutors within one month of taking office, I see no problem with Bush's being fired. They are there at the Presidential Administration's discretion. This is the biggest pile of crap in history. The prosecutors were all hired by Clinton, and they are whining because they lost their jobs. I'm just pissed that Bush kept them around as long as he did.

Answer 9

As cranberry said, this is all about the election! They're trying to cover their tracks, just like they tried to cover-up their concocted / cherry-picked evidence for that claim that Iraq had WMD by outing a CIA agent.

C'mon! Connect the dots, folks.

Brad ---> Every sane Administration will do that upon entering office. This is different, go read about it yourself. There are more than enough resources for your liking!

Answer 10

Read Greg Palast on this matter. The firings have largely to do with the theft of the election. No wonder they're stonewalling...