Bush Administration directed US Attorney firings

I just read this article at CNN.com - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/fired.emails/index.html

It outlines the fact that the 8 US Attorneys that were fired at the end of last year were done so at the direction of the White House - and in fact they backed away from a plan to fire all of the ones who weren't Bush-administration-friendly.

Further shocking is that the justice department not only complied 100% with the administration, but they actually allowed the administration to control the timing of things to minimize political fall out and maximize the White House's ability to deal with potential political problems that would inevitably result.

Why would anyone be upset about something like this? There is SUPPOSED to be a clear separation of powers - with the executive branch and the judicial branch being separate entities. Allowing politicians to direct the firing of prosecutors along with the selection of prosecutors all but guarantees that political corruption at the highest levels will survive unhindered.

I don't like this one bit - and most especially in a time of war.

 

This seems like a distraction from about a thousand things. Kind of like "Scooter."

 

Get over it, the president is able to do it....let me jog your memory, Clinton did the same thing...its part of being in the office. Below is the link if you don't believe me....this is actually old news.

Link

 

To emphasize my point about political corruption being encouraged by this sort of thing... http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w.../08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/

It's one of the top stories at Digg right now - basically, the first guy to investigate Abramoff got fired a day later (after 10 years of acting as US Attorney)

--
d16man - I'm not trying to make any point about the Bush administration. I think this is a bad thing whoever is in office. The fact that somebody else did it doesn't make it right.

 

again...did you read my post?? Its totally a legit thing for the pres to do...however, it seems that when the bush admin does the same thing that the clinton admin did, people get their panties in a wad....never a bad word for the dems though....

edit: thats the price you pay for being in an "appointed" job...

 

There is plenty of bad press for the democrats. If they were squeaky clean they might actually have control of something. Have you turned on Fox news any time in the last 8 years?

It's one thing to appoint a US attorney who is "friendly", it's another thing all together to fire guys because they don't bend to your political will. It's a whole different thing entirely for the executive branch to be directing the goings on inside the judicial branch.

 

maybe he don't trust them. Would keep someone working for you that you don't trust

 

It is d16mans civil duty to defend Bush AT ALL COSTS.

Just do a search on his posts lol, he should be working in the White House.

There are corrupt bastards in both partys. They are politicians for christs sake.

 

yes, I watch it all the time. The actual news portion (not O'reilly, hannity and colmes, shep smith, etc) is very unbiased, but most don't realize that those other shows are not technically "news broadcasts".

thats the way the US was set up...why do you think the president can appoint judges in the supreme court? I find it funny that no one complained when Clinton did the same thing...but then again, Clinton is not a member of the evil, rich, republican party.

 

But it is interesting how some will only bring it up when one side does it, isn't it?

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstr...Reference/Times Topics/People/C/Clinton, Bill

 

Corrected that for you. Free of charge cause I'm a nice guy

 

but but but clinton ....

I guess that makes it ok then

supposedly they fired their own appointments that were looking into republican corruption

massive abuse of power

I won't be suprised if the repubs take major losses in the next to election cycles, its scandal after scandal

 

Apparently so, since we see who you take issue with over firing of a few attorneys vs someone firing all of them. Which one summoned your outrage?

So a few makes all ok then, that's what you wanted the world to know?

 

here is the big problem.

 

Doesn't look like a big problem to me. Not any bigger than a decade ago. Which one did you take issue with?

 

its not a decade ago and clinton isn't in office

A decade ago I was probably sleeping on some beach with a hippie chick and didn't pay any attention to what was going on in politics

 

same things that the president does
you have to start to look at what is happening in a non partisan way for the sake of the country sometime. let this be a start.

 

"...but ...but Mommy, Billy did it first!"

 

It doesn't take but one day to fire someone. Take the problems at Walter Reed as an example. Gates acted quickly.

On the other hand it does take 2 years to work out some weasel plan where you try and inject politics into the rule of law.

lets see....the fbi has screwed up with its invasions of privacy, the justice dept. is more interested in politics than the rule of law, the army hid mistreatment of wounded soldiers, ....uh uh

oh yeah the administration oversold intelligence to get us into a war......

oh yeah one of the administration lied to the grand jury and law officers about that....and the jurors were curious why the other guys weren't being prosecuted.....

oh yeah....Cheney equates every American who doesn't agree with him as promoting Al Queda...but when the British removes troops he says that is okay....even tho the American army is overstressed to provide additional soldiers (that one makes a lot of sense)

Trust these guys. They have the best interests of American principles at heart. LOL

But in my and other's perspective the biggest lie is about winning the war. Its a lie to the American soldiers, its a lie to the American public and its a lie to your kids. more on that later.

 

I'm pretty sure that just by YOU saying that, 200 innocent Americans will be killed now! Asshole!