2007-08-01 07:51:51 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A U.S. Attorney can be fired for any/no reason. They serve at the pleasure of the President.
2007-08-01 08:00:31 · answer #1 · answered by madd texan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Legitimate" as defined by who?
Prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion to decide which cases to pursue -- that's part of their function of being an independent agency, and not part of any political agenda.
So, if the US Attorney decides the case is legitimate, and refuses to prosecute, that's not doing their job. And yes, they should be removed for failing to do their job.
If someone else (say, the White House Political Adviser as a random example) wants the case prosecuted, and the US Attorney decides that it's not a legitimate case -- that's within the US Attorney's discretion, and not grounds for removal.
~~~~~
Edit: See also Vaughn's answer above -- always a good perspective on the issues. Kudos.
2007-08-01 14:57:13 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bill Clinton fired 93 U.s. Attorney's, some who had invesigations against him and Dems at the time, nobody said crap, He was the So-Called president at the time and he had the power to do it plain and simple for whatever reason, and didn't break a law in this case he broke others not this one. .
Bush Fired 8, president at the time and he had the power to do it plain and simple for whatever reason, and didn't break a law in this case.
For the Bush bashers get over it, for the 9-11 conspricey nuts get over it, For the anti-Americans out there that are pissed the surge and a change of Military Tactics is working get over it,
2007-08-01 15:24:23 · answer #3 · answered by dez604 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Of course, but I am curious as to the case which you are referring to? Do you have a link by chance? Furthermore I wonder who considers this to be a legitimate case? The judge? The general public? Or perhaps certain right leaning groups? Perception is selective, just because one person considers a case legitimate does not make it so.
2007-08-01 15:00:06 · answer #4 · answered by What's The Point 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably. But he sure shouldn't fire attorneys who had great performance reports just because they were prosecuting cases against members of his own party.
2007-08-01 14:54:27 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
SHOULD they? That isn;t my call, that is the president's call. But firing those with outstanding records for prosecuting those from the president's party is criminal. Bush knows this, and that is why he is resisting the investigation. Rememebr the PATRIOT act? You guys said if we had nothing to hide...why don;t you hold your elected leaders to the same standards?
2007-08-01 14:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Fire that attorney attacking Ted Stevens!!!
2007-08-01 14:55:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
absolutely not.
neither should a president silence the surgeon general
its an abuse of power that doesn't suit the people in this country at all
2007-08-01 15:32:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree totally with Vaughn.
2007-08-01 14:56:25 · answer #9 · answered by Nicki 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wasn't even part of the equasion
nice try though
2007-08-01 14:54:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋