Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,853 Posts
You are surprised? Remember Brownie? The only thing that would surprise me about this administration is if it showed an ounce of integrity or competence.
 
G

·
No one cared when Janet Reno fired 93 district attorneys. Why do people now care that 8 got fired? Is it because the AG is a pub?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
No one cared when Janet Reno fired 93 district attorneys. Why do people now care that 8 got fired? Is it because the AG is a pub?
nice regurgitated republican talking point.

Every modern president has begun his term with new US attorney's

The issue here is not that US attorney's were fired, it's why. And why has congress and the country been misled by the justice dept on numerous occasions.
 
G

·
Do they need a reason? As I understand it they can be hired and fired at the whim of the AG. It is entirely possible that I am wrong on this, but that is what I was led to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,826 Posts
nice regurgitated republican talking point.

Every modern president has begun his term with new US attorney's

The issue here is not that US attorney's were fired, it's why. And why has congress and the country been misled by the justice dept on numerous occasions.
First, I don't think it is true that "every" modern president has begun his term with new US attorney's. I think this is a pretty modern phenomena. Secondly, I don't care. He can fire who he wants on his own staff for whatever reason he wants.

His lying about it, however is something different entirely. That was just stupid.

Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
775 Posts
nice regurgitated republican talking point.

Every modern president has begun his term with new US attorney's

The issue here is not that US attorney's were fired, it's why. And why has congress and the country been misled by the justice dept on numerous occasions.
Nice try, to bad your statements are incorrect. Try a little research before you say things like your first point. Oh, maybe the first "modern President" was Bill Clinton. Nevermind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
Nice try, to bad your statements are incorrect. Try a little research before you say things like your first point. Oh, maybe the first "modern President" was Bill Clinton. Nevermind.
I was under the impression that Reagan fired all (or close to all) US attorneys.

update: Reagan did fire all US attorneys when he entered office.

Modern probably was not the correct word... having been born in 1981 it's easy to think of events prior to that as not being modern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
He can fire who he wants on his own staff for whatever reason he wants.
that's not true.

firing a US attorney to impede an ongoing investigation is obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

Monday a justice dept official announced she will use her 5th amendment rights to avoid testimony. yeah... there's nothing illegal going on at all.
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool!
Joined
·
14,062 Posts
Last week, my assistant came in and said "we need more acid". I said, "OK, buy the cleanest, cheapest stuff you can get" and gave her an account number. She bought the good stuff and got a reasonable discount. Was I "involved" in the purchase of the acid?

US Attorneys are hired at the discretion of the president for a 4 year term (coincident with one presidential cycle - funny about that), and confirmed by the Senate. At the end of their 4 year term, if the president doesn't let them go, they just sort of stay, at his discretion. Normally, after a new president takes office, he appoints new Attorneys at leisure, and lets old ones go, over a protracted period. Clinton fired them all upon Janet Reno's confirmation. At least one of them was actively investigating White Water at the time. Clearly obstruction of justice under West's criteria. Now doubt some of those Attorneys were working on public corruption cases; one would hope so anyway. That doesn't mean they're exempt from the right of the president to hire and fire them. And he doesn't have to explain why. Clinton didn't.

Funny how all these US Attorneys were being "fired" at the end of their 4 year term. Kind of like somebody had been evaluating how good a job they did, and were ready to go when their terms expired. The eight were let go for a variety of reasons, including not enforcing several aspects of administration policy, including allowing illegal immigrants as many as 11 arrests before deportation, not enforcing voter fraud laws, not enforcing drug laws, and just plain bad management.

Sure, Gonzales made a mess of his answers. He should have just said, "It's presidential prerogative to fire US Attorneys - lump it", The more you talk and testify, the more chances you have to say something stupid. At the same time, that's about all the democrats have to go on in this, the hope that somebody will say something they can twist to look bad.

Why would Gonzales aide be afraid to testify under oath? You have only to look at the Libby trial. Not tried for "outing Plame", he was tried for giving answers that conflicted with news media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,853 Posts
Last week, my assistant came in and said "we need more acid". I said, "OK, buy the cleanest, cheapest stuff you can get" and gave her an account number. She bought the good stuff and got a reasonable discount. Was I "involved" in the purchase of the acid?

US Attorneys are hired at the discretion of the president for a 4 year term (coincident with one presidential cycle - funny about that), and confirmed by the Senate. At the end of their 4 year term, if the president doesn't let them go, they just sort of stay, at his discretion. Normally, after a new president takes office, he appoints new Attorneys at leisure, and lets old ones go, over a protracted period. Clinton fired them all upon Janet Reno's confirmation. At least one of them was actively investigating White Water at the time. Clearly obstruction of justice under West's criteria. Now doubt some of those Attorneys were working on public corruption cases; one would hope so anyway. That doesn't mean they're exempt from the right of the president to hire and fire them. And he doesn't have to explain why. Clinton didn't.

Funny how all these US Attorneys were being "fired" at the end of their 4 year term. Kind of like somebody had been evaluating how good a job they did, and were ready to go when their terms expired. The eight were let go for a variety of reasons, including not enforcing several aspects of administration policy, including allowing illegal immigrants as many as 11 arrests before deportation, not enforcing voter fraud laws, not enforcing drug laws, and just plain bad management.

Sure, Gonzales made a mess of his answers. He should have just said, "It's presidential prerogative to fire US Attorneys - lump it", The more you talk and testify, the more chances you have to say something stupid. At the same time, that's about all the democrats have to go on in this, the hope that somebody will say something they can twist to look bad.

Why would Gonzales aide be afraid to testify under oath? You have only to look at the Libby trial. Not tried for "outing Plame", he was tried for giving answers that conflicted with news media.
Your getting some acid would explain a lot.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top