White House Does About-Face on Prosecutor Firings

White House Does About-Face on Prosecutor Firings

www.rr.com

Just hours after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dismissed the hubbub as an "overblown personnel matter," a Republican senator Thursday mused that Gonzales might soon suffer the same fate as the canned U.S. attorneys.

A short time later, Gonzales and his security detail shuttled to the Capitol for a private meeting on Democratic turf.

It was a striking reversal for an administration noted for standing its ground even in the face of overwhelming opposition.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nctimes.com

I can't say I would be sorry to see Alberto go, its just that this administration would probably come up with someone even worse to take his place.

Its obvious to me that the firings of these eight prosecutors was politically motivated, which sets a bad precedent for our judicial system. Partisan politics has no place in decisions about criminal investigations.

Its about time everyone in DC figured that out.

www.rr.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wonder....just how many about faces does it take to make a RETREAT!!

sorry for the one liner, but there's been more than one about faces of late. It seems they've backtracked on alot of things, from prisoner abuse to our policies on Iran...

maybe the whole picture tells a much bigger story than just on little aspect of it ever could?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising


I can't say I would be sorry to see Alberto go, its just that this administration would probably come up with someone even worse to take his place.

Its obvious to me that the firings of these eight prosecutors was politically motivated, which sets a bad precedent for our judicial system. Partisan politics has no place in decisions about criminal investigations.

There is way too much about this story that has yet to be revealed before we can make any comment.

The only thing we are sure of is that these people served at the pleasure of whomever appointed them. They knew that, and knew that they could be fired at any time for any reason.

So, is this story about the eight prosecutors or about Gonzales?

Was there this much fuss in 1992, when Bill Clinton fired every Government attorney, and replaced them with his own people?

Was it political in '92?

Come on guys, history didn't start in the year 2000. George Bush is not the 1st President of the United States.

Were the new federal prosecutors confirmed by the Senate? That would make a substantial difference right there. I did a quick search and didn't come up with an answer to that.

I know it is very convenient for you to counter every charge levelled at Bush by saying, "Clinton did that, too!" or "Clinton did something worse than that!"

Its the old, "I know you are, but what am I?" game. Grow up.

Pointing out that what the slimeball politician you support did is no worse than what the slimeball politician "the other side" supports did does not justify what was done, or in any way make it acceptable. They're both still slimeballs whose actions are ruining the country, and they need to be held accountable and stripped of public office.

What you are doing just perpetuates the problem and legitimizes graft and corruption because, "the other guy did it too." Can't you see that?

I'm pointing out that Clinton did the same thing.

Clinton had the right to do it, as does Bush.

The problem I'm seeing is it was ignored when Clinton did it, but Bush is getting bashed for it...as usual.

Clinton did not do the same thing, he replaced the entire bunch of federal prosecutors shortly after taking office. I'm assuming his new appointments were subject to Senate confirmation, as the provision for replacement without Senate confirmation was (a sneaky) part of the PA.

The DOJ is replacing Bush appointees, and attempting to do it without Senate confirmation. I have been watching the Senate hearings on the firings for the last two hours on C-SPAN, and it appears the dismissals were the result of Bush administration backlash specifically against those dismissed for various politically motivated reasons involving cases chosen and, in one case, the pace of prosecution coinciding with the November 2006 elections.

Well at least we know that is corruption in our government and they are trying to clean house, but the real root of the corruption problem in our government is not limited to this people only.

Now when it said sensitive political corruption investigations we know that this is not going to end with firering this people alone.

We the people should have full access as why they go dismissed.

I don’t think Gonzales is going to be dismissed either, he has been very good to the present administration.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the will of the President, any President.

Here is what Clinton did in 1993...

select.nytimes.com...

ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS


*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information. March 24, 1993, Wednesday
By DAVID JOHNSTON, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, 1053 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the ...

and yes these attorneys did go through Senate Confirmation!

I am not bashing alleged rapist Bill Clinton. Bush should not be bashed for this either. He has the right to do this!

Law requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president. Only, emails have been found on the Republican National Committee email system discussing, among other things, the firings of the prosecutors. The white house (along with past administrations) have defended the use of outside email account as an appropriate method of separating official business from political campaign work..

So, one might assume that the firings were part of that campaign work, wouldn't they? the firings were political!

www.cnn.com...