At no time were names added or subtracted by the White House,” Perino said. “We continue to believe that the decision to remove and replace U.S. attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president was perfectly appropriate and within administration’s discretion. We stand by the Department of Justice’s assertion that they were removed for performance and managerial reasons.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors

No, nothing fishy there… he was their boss, after all.

But those Clinton travel-office firings… now there’s a scandal!

Super-tool!

Christie issued subpeonas on a ridiculous investigation just before the election, an investigation that has since disappeared from radar.

Iglesias was pressured. By more than one Republican and removed from office.

McKay, same thing, pressured to start an investigation, fired after not doing so.

Colantuano in New Hampshire waited almost a year before opening the investigation and delayed prosecution until after the next election.

I can see how Jay, an avid Bush supporter would not find this to be a scandal. After all, serving the Master and not the Public is job qualification #1 for the Bush Administration.

So Christie subpoenaed documents in the course of an investigation. Wow. That never happens.

Iglesias being pressured to investigate Democratic voter fraud.

I know. A phone call is now ‘pressure.’ GMAFB.

McKay in Washington fired for not chasing supposed voter fraud in the Governor’s race.

You have no evidence whatsoever that this is this case. Pure conjecture on your part.

Colantuano in New Hampshire dragging his feet on phone jamming.

Oh I guess a felony conviction in the case is “dragging his feet.”

So you’ve answered nothing about the charges you presented which was:

There are crimes being committed that aren’t being investigated by partisan attorneys. Also, there are crimes that aren’t being committed that are being investigated.

And for the record, the next president will probably fire (or ask to resign) every US attorney appointed by Bush. Just as all the Clinton appointees resigned and all the Bush Sr. appointees were asked to resign and so on. New administrations typically replace the US attorneys with their own appointees.

Yeah. Exactly. For partisan political purposes. If it was simply about job performance, many US attorneys would not lose their jobs.

This is nothing more than just another made up scandal. Democrats and liberals have engaged in their typical displays moral outrage and the press lapped it up.

Cause we missed it that last few times you claimed it was going to occur…

There’s a few for you MR NothingtoseeHere.

Serving the Master and not the Public is job qualification #1 for the Bush Administration.

And for the record, the next president will probably fire (or ask to resign) every US attorney appointed by Bush. Just as all the Clinton appointees resigned and all the Bush Sr. appointees were asked to resign and so on. New administrations typically replace the US attorneys with their own appointees.

What is different is Bush firing his own appointees for non performance related causes and replacing them with cronies, many of whom have little prosecuting experience and most having no ties to the communities they are going to *ahem* serve. Also, it is likely most will not face confirmation. No scandal here.

Name them.

Specifically.

People were convicted of crimes in Whitewater Sir Charles.

You’re right though, nobody has yet to explain how this qualifies. Lots of people have. Jimmmm, for one, right above you.

Actually Jimmmm Cricket didn’t. Considering as I said that the President can fire USa’s for whatever he reason he chooses, it doesn’t qualify.

He talks about politics. So?

Do you think the 90+ attorneys Clinton canned in 1993 were booted because they were doing poor jobs? No. They were bounced for political reasons – namely that a Democratic administration was taking over and wanted to appoint their own cronies.

Yet, that’s not scandalous, but this is? Explain how that makes sense please.

I can see how firing public officials because they choose to serve the public and not the partisan dictates of the Republican party certainly wouldn’t qualify as a scandal in Jay’s extremist mind.

You’re right though, nobody has yet to explain how this qualifies. Lots of people have. Jimmmm, for one, right above you.

If he thinks they wear cheap suits, he can fire them. If he thinks they pick their nose too much, he can fire them. If he doesn’t like their choice of sports teams, he can fire them. It just doesn’t matter.

Five of the eight would have gone quietly into the night if AG Gonzo’s office didn’t also slam the USAs publicly.

There’s a difference between appointing along party affiliation, and appointing along party affiliation AND then firing because they weren’t partisan enough.

Or maybe we’re all safer from terr’sts with a Rove crony stepping up to take over a USA spot from an attorney with a 97% job performance rating…

THANK YOU!

fd, just when did Clinton do all of this mass firing? Was it at the beginning of his term or terms? Was it randomly throughout his terms? Was it 1/2way through his term?

Frank_D said…
He and I have begun to work on a big project with a techie friend of mine.

It could be a total dud, or it could be as revolutionary as the advent of the PC.

You don’t why they were fired, but you can be sure that the Clinton regime had only the purest motives.

Riiiiight….

Stop with the macho posturing. The Clinton regime fired every AG in the country.
End of story.

I know this will be a difficult concept to grasp, but I wonder if you can understand why that would be better. If every AG were fired it would obviously be without regard to party affiliation. In this case specific attorneys general are being targeted because they didn’t kowtow to RNC demands for accelerated prosecution of Democrats. Using the Dept. of Justice and the office of the Attorney General as a means to generate political attack ads is, um, bad.