Originally Posted By ElKay Since nobody (hey where did he ever go?) created a thread here yet, allow me the honor. The Bush Admin.'s forced removal of eight US Attorneys back on Dec. 7th of last year is right up there with all of the other scandals involving abuse of power and their disregard of "traditional" practices followed by BOTH Republican and Democratic administrations going back decades. Dispite the feeble excuse that the eight USAs were fired for performance issues, its pretty clear that the real reasons were political. Either removed well regarded USAs to get more politically reliable folks in or in some cases to kick out Attorneys that had not towed the Admin.'s line by daring to investigate GOP members as in the case of San Diego's Atty. Lam. This scandal is right up there with the denial of the right to habeus corpus and the just recent inspector general's report that the FBI had been abusing the patriot act's "information letters" in ordering businesses and libraries to give up data on US citizens and residents, they also misled Congress by underreporting their activites. Today, it been reported that dispite the claims made by AG Gonzales and other Admin. reps that the whole idea was hatched by former WH counsel Harriet Miers and was shot down by Gonzales, ABC News reports that Karl Rove hatched this plan back in 2005 and as then WH counsel, Gonzales knew about this plan weeks before he was confirmed as AG. Check out the link: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Politics /story?id=2954988&page=1</a> Several news program have played clips that nominee Gonzales had assured Dem Judiciary members (forget about the GOP members) that he'd never fire a USA for political reasons. I wonder in light of the Libby perjury trial, that Gonzales could be now charged with perjury by the Dems? I sure hope so. Oh, and when asked by the press corps about the firings, Bush claimed that it was nothing unusual for a President to fire all of the Attorneys. Again, this shows how out of touch Bush is or is he just lying to the public (like his assurances that Rummy still had a job in his Admin, then days after the election, asked for his resignation) again. The fact is that NO president has fired USA in such a large group (yeah, eight is a large group) after being re-elected. The only time USA's have been fired en-mass is during the change in Admin. This additional scandal, once again proves that Bush and his Admin. cannot be trusted in either what they say or what they do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fired whenever he wants for whatever cause he wants. President Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys soon after he took power. The replaced US attorneys were dismissed following a long process which included performance reviews. This is a "scandal" entirely of the Democratic making.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj It's not unusual for a President to summarily dismiss all US attorneys simultaneously at the start of a new term. It is unusual for a President to single out attorneys and fire them because they are not following a political line.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I don't think this "scandal" is all that significant. The President does have the right to hire or fire U.S. attorneys -- they work for the executive branch. However, it's just another indication of an administration that likes to make up the rules as it goes along. Think a court case presided by a particular attorney isn't going the way you want politically, just fire the guy and get someone who is more in tune with your agenda. Don't like the idea of people on your team being investigated? Fire the guys doing the investigation. Honestly, I think the President would have fired the Supreme Court if had the chance after they ruled against the kangaroo court system for detainees in Guantanamo Bay. No matter, though -- he just had Congress change the rules midstream. It's sort of like playing against that kid in grade school who always invented new rules in the middle of the game so that he couldn't lose. Personally, I always gained more satisfaction when I played by the rules and won. I guess some people just don't have the character to rise to that challenge.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is unusual for a President to single out attorneys and fire them because they are not following a political line.> And that's not what happened here.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Like it or not, these attorneys can be fired at will. I don't think it's wise, but I didn't make up the rules.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ElKay "I don't think it's wise, but I didn't make up the rules." Well, I suppose that's a good thing. It still doesn't explain why you're an Admin. apologist. Supposedly, you come off as a conservate, who mistrusts an overreaching government. However, you dismiss what this Admin. has done as business as usual. Suppose Maxine Waters in an alternative universe becomes President, would YOU blindly follow what President Waters does if it follows the precendents of bizzaro President Bush? Not likely, you'd scream like an anti-Clinton neocon. Whoops I'm sorry, that is what YOU already do.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ABC News reports that Karl Rove hatched this plan back in 2005 and as then WH counsel, Gonzales knew about this plan weeks before he was confirmed as AG. << This is where the scandal is. Every time the administration tried to talk their way out of this, they lied. And they've been repeatedly caught in these lies. Now congress wants members of the administration to testify, and guess what? They're saying that they'll only testify if they're not sworn in under oath. What a bunch of lying WEASELS! Why would anyone insist on not being sworn in under oath unless they were intending to provide false testimony? Just like they've done all along.
Originally Posted By DAR Republicans during the Clinton administration-this Administration is immoral, blah blah blah. Democrats during the Bush administration=this adminiatration is immoral, blah blah blah. What we have hear is just another tiresome case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Suppose Maxine Waters in an alternative universe becomes President, would YOU blindly follow what President Waters does if it follows the precendents of bizzaro President Bush? Not likely, you'd scream like an anti-Clinton neocon. Whoops I'm sorry, that is what YOU already do.<< Apparently you are already living in an alternate universe.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's never been done on the scale that Bush has done.> Again, it was done on a bigger scale in 1993, when President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys. <So what you're saying is that Kerry actually won in 2004 and cleaned house of all of the Bush appointees?> No, I'm saying that President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys soon after he was inaugurated. <Again, Dougie, you just regurgitate the most stupid talking points that FoxNews or the Admin. spews out.> I'm telling the truth. You are the one regurgitating stupid talking points.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ElKay "What we have hear is just another tiresome case of the kettle calling the pot black." Being a libertarian, DAR, YOU should be quaking in your boots. Here we supposedly have a small gov't. GOP admin. that is totally trashing nearly every Constitutional safeguard. Warrantless wiretaping Abrogating habeus corpus Abusing Nat'l. Security Letters Politicizing Federal prosecutions Torture Whatever happened to the best gov't. is one that governs the least? Clinton, who founded the conservative Democratic Leader Council, should have been the most favored Democrat of any GOP neocon for ending welfare, getting rid of the budget deficit, and touting free trade policies. But NOOOOOOOOO, he was an evil draft dodging, pot smoking, womanizer and had to be purged from the White House, to restore the country's honor. Yeah, just pots calling kettles black.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Being a libertarian, DAR>> Funny I never indicated my political affilation
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>What you repeated keep missing...<< I "repeated" keep missing nothing. What you "repeated" keep doing is attributing the thoughts of others to me, and you "repeated" engage in silly taunts and name calling in attempting to express an opinion.
