Say Anything Blog

I remember when Reno fired all of the prosecutors during the Clinton administration.  It wasn’t a big deal then either.

isn’t it funny how the whole story comes out after they’ve had time to make it up. this might’ve been useful a week or two ago. too bad Rove’s neurons aint firing faster.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

But, as you know, the difference is that the eight that Bush fired were fired because they weren’t willing to pursue charges that weren’t backed up by evidence (with Democrats as the targets) or were pursuing charges that were backed up by evidence (with Republicans as the targets).  And these were *Bush* appointees.  Quite different from Clinton replacing appointees from the previous administration.  Hence the resignations we’ve seen already, and more to come.

... And Bush fired all of Clinton’s appointees.  This is common practice.  These are Bush’s OWN appointees who all acted “too independently”, i.e. not favourable towards the Bush administration itself, as if they were supposed to sacrifice their integrity for partisan pressure.  NOW, with the “Patriot Act” there is no legislative oversight to any new appointees.  Do you care that your elected representatives have no say in this matter?

And don’t forget, when Clinton took office he fired all of GHW Bush’s cabinet members!  And replaced them with Democrats!  (Well, except for Secretary of Defense but, still, he fired the previous SecDef, Dick Cheney).

And then Hillary killed Vince Foster.

LEF.
Yea.

Whistler
You are above the fold on google news buddy!

If you can see, right click and view image. I think SA automatically sizes these down.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

isn’t it funny how the whole story comes out after they’ve had time to make it up. this might’ve been useful a week or two ago. too bad Rove’s neurons aint firing faster.

Actually, Rove discussed this very issue last week when he lectrued at the Clinton School of Government.  I just watched a clip of it on our local news.

Needless to say, the MSM still hasn’t figured this out.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Only three U.S. Attorneys have been forced out since 1981 and all were for ethical issues.  Until Bush came along, nobody fired these people for political purposes.

Liberalityequalsfreedom:
1. Do all these U. S. Attorneys serve at the President’s prerogative or not?
2. Can’t he appoint or fire them as he chooses?
3. Does it matter why he fires them, if it is his choice?
4. Does the Constitution give the Congress authority to appoint or fire U.S. attorneys, or is it a right preserved solely for the Executive branch?
5. Is there or is there not a clear separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches?
6. Other than the power of the purse, what Constitutional right does the Congress have to meddle in this matter?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

BullF**kingShit. US Attorneys are always getting the boot for political reasons. Always have and always will. They serve at the discretion and pleasure of the seated President. They can be changed like used condoms, mainly because they are lawyers, and of far less use to the Human Race than condoms.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Does it matter why he fires them, if it is his choice?

Very much, if they were fired for refusing to pursue bogus charges or refusing to divulge the progress of ongoing investigations.

Woof: I will only concede that single point, if they were ordered to break the law; “divulge ongoing investigations or file false or dishonest charges against someone. But, you KNOW my point was not about something criminal in nature being involved, but whether or not he could fire them for almost any other petty reason.

I think he could fire them because he didn’t like their religious beliefs or because they were gay or because they shaved their legs or other stuff like that; although if that came to light, he would certainly suffer the consequences in public opinion/support.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Sparkie, thanks for letting me know about that.  I ain’t going to let it go to my head.

Yep, top of the fold in Google, little ole me. 

Things are going to start happening to me now.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Only three U.S. Attorneys have been forced out since 1981 and all were for ethical issues.  Until Bush came along, nobody fired these people for political purposes.

This is probably a semantics game.  I learned in a class many years ago that it was tradition for the incoming President to ask for the resignation of all the US Attorneys and the Attorneys to resign.  I suppose that, technically, they weren’t “forced out.” They resigned.  That’s what happened in the case of the Clinton White House.  Reno demanded that they resign.

Not exactly the same as them leaving of their own volition.

"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Toot! Get away from those oilcans! He hates those oilcans!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Nah, they’re just defective.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

I haven’t followed this very closely but I am struck by the notion that firing all of a previous Administration’s prosecutors is somehow more partisan than firing a select few. Most incoming regimes request the resignations of senior mandarins as a matter of course and many, if not most, resignations are accepted. This case seems different though because the firings were not part of a general sweeping out of the old and occurs part way through the president’s mandate.

Leaving aside the particulars of each individual prosecutor’s case, isn’t this event unusual in American tradition?

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

I’ll answer my own question having reviewed the stories this morning. The President is certainly within his right to can the prosecutors but the timing is definitely unusual.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.”

Irving Kristol

Are U.S. attorneys removed when a new president takes office?

Yes. Upon taking office, most presidents choose a new slate of U.S. attorneys. However, U.S. attorneys may stay on for a time if they are in the midst of a major investigation or prosecution.

Are U.S. attorneys always removed after four years in office?

No, not if the president who appointed them is reelected. When Presidents Reagan and Clinton were reelected, their U.S. attorneys stayed in office for a second four-year term.

That tradition was well-known to the Bush administration. In a memo sent to the White House last year, D. Kyle Sampson, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales’ aide who quit this week, said the customary practice was to have U.S. attorneys “serve for four years and then holdover indefinately (sic), at the pleasure of the president, of course.”

Are U.S. attorneys regularly removed from office at the direction of the White House?

No. Officials of past Republican and Democratic administrations say they were unaware of an instance when a large group of U.S. attorneys was dismissed at once.

Do U.S. attorneys carry out the political wishes of the White House?

Most lawyers draw a sharp distinction between policies and partisan politics. The White House or the Justice Department could tell U.S. attorneys to bring more prosecutions for drugs, pornography or immigration violations without raising eyebrows. However, they say it would be disturbing for a Republican president or his advisors to press a U.S. attorney to bring charges against a Democratic official, or vice versa.

“They take seriously their oath of office that forbids political partisanship,” said Harvard law professor Philip B. Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. “It would be destructive for our system if U.S. attorneys saw themselves as owing their first loyalty to the party that appointed them.”

Just like the media to take pot-shots at the administration over this.  It’s a red herring and everyone knows it.  It’s even redder than the Valerie Plame railroad job, and twice as fishy as “voter fraud”; manufactured news with a gutless bunch of bumbling republicans unable to defend themselves at the center of it.

As to which party is more blame worthy when it comes to using law enforcement to protect their administration..."Yes dear, I’ll fire the U.S. Attorney investigating White Water but you have to promise to return those FBI files.”

“Oopsie, me forgoted to accuse the Clintons of bad things, me a bad bad reporter...” TEEHEE Sorry! 

And to those who even slightly believe that US Attornies aren’t political appointments you need to ask your community college for your money back. 

Not only are they political appointees, the power to appoint or dismiss lies solely with the President and not with Katie Couric.