The Only President Not Allowed to Fire US Attorneys

[Tiger in Spain 0]

G.W. Bush: The Only President Not Allowed to Fire US Attorneys

In moves designed to, yet again, work towards placing members of the Bush Administration (specifically the Left’s favorite whipping boy—political aide Karl Rove) in jeopardy, Democrats and their supplicant RINOs have launched their latest of an increasing number of investigations into anything and everything that is “Bush and Republican”. This time it is a Democrat attack against the firing of a number of US Attorneys in an attempt to have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales fired and top Bush officials grilled by a Democrat-run investigatory committee. This seems eerily reminiscent of the old USSR politburo.

First, allow me to place something out into the open and the bright light of day. US Attorneys hold their offices at ‘the pleasure of the President of the United States’ and are at-will employees. These attorneys may be fired by any current POTUS, at any time and for any reason. That is what “at-will” means.

As an example, during Democrat President Clinton’s Administration all 93 US Attorneys were fired. President George W. Bush has fired only 8. And during President H.W. Bush’s term of office, US Attorneys were also fired. But, President G.W. Bush is not being afforded the same “rights” as are other presidents.

Democrats are now loudly shouting—if not yet overtly at least implicitly: “President George W. Bush does not have the same rights as other presidents of the United States!” And they have been saying it almost since the first day President George Bush took office. Most certainly, Democrats and their RINO supplicants have been attempting, for the last several years, to usurp the Executive Branch’s war powers. Will there soon no longer be a Commander-in-Chief but, rather a “Congress-in-Chief” to direct our US military?

The Stalinist crowd has made the decision that being a Republican president—or just being Republican period (unless one is a RINO)—should now be against the law. This same crowd, which includes the top members of the Democrat Party, has also made the decision to eternally investigate and attempt to prosecute them via their liberally-stacked court system—for being Republican. And, due to the raw reality that a majority of government school attendees have been indoctrinated into Marxist-Stalinist ideologies, much of the younger voting population may agree with them. Throughout their tutelage, these students have not been taught either the true history of the United States or the verity of its laws. They simply do not know any better.

The central problem with this entire issue of US Attorney firings is that President Bush and members of his administration have not (as has sadly and dangerously been their penchant of late) fought back against the leftists. Instead, there seems to be a continuing knee-jerk reaction toward a new policy of constant apologies. And instead of defending the legal privileges of the Executive Branch of government, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales immediately offered his mea culpa for having let 8 (not 93) US Attorneys go.

Mr. Attorney General: There is nothing for which you need to apologize! Instead, the Democrat leadership should apologize to you and President Bush. It should also beg the forgiveness of the American people for wasting their tax dollars.

Yes – we pay for all of these Congressional investigations. However, it appears that Democrats have no intention of asking forgiveness for wasting our time, tax dollars and the improper usage of investigatory committees.

While you still are able to do so (there is yet another Democrat bill floating in Congress to disallow conservative grassroots organizations and individuals from advising the public to complain to their congress people and senators), contact your local congressional representatives and your US Senators to express your opposition to these absurd actions. You and we have a voice. Let’s use it.

There is something implicitly and inherently wrong with a government group that has nothing better to do than begin and implement trivial and ludicrous investigations. And there is an even greater wrong affected by those who allow it to occur.

Link

[Ranger12 46]

This article says what I have been saying this whole time...what is the freakin' big deal? Bush is not the first to fire US attorneys , so why are the liberals making such a fuss about this? Has Gonzales done anything that warrants him losing his job? Far from it. As the article points out, and what liberals seem to have a hard time grasping, US attorneys can be fired for any reason at the President's discretion. They don't want you to educate yourself about the Constitution and the laws of this nation or else you will find out that they are actually making a big deal out of nothing.

The sure the heck don't want you to know about or remember the fact that when Clinton came into office, he fired all 93 US attorneys for no reason whatsoever. That means, not counting anymore he may have fired later on during his presidency, Clinton fired on average almost 12 attorneys a year, which is more then Bush has fired as a whole during his nearly 8 years as president. Basically, during Bush's presidency, out of 93 USAs, he has averaged firing only one per year.

If Republicans were the ones asking for Gonzales to resign over something like this, liberals everywhere would be accusing Republicans of being racist because Gonzales is Latino.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

This article says what I have been saying this whole time...what is the freakin' big deal? Bush is not the first to fire US attorneys , so why are the liberals making such a fuss about this? Has Gonzales done anything that warrants him losing his job? Far from it. As the article points out, and what liberals seem to have a hard time grasping, US attorneys can be fired for any reason at the President's discretion. They don't want you to educate yourself about the Constitution and the laws of this nation or else you will find out that they are actually making a big deal out of nothing.

The sure the heck don't want you to know about or remember the fact that when Clinton came into office, he fired all 93 US attorneys for no reason whatsoever. That means, not counting anymore he may have fired later on during his presidency, Clinton fired on average almost 12 attorneys a year, which is more then Bush has fired as a whole during his nearly 8 years as president. Basically, during Bush's presidency, out of 93 USAs, he has averaged firing only one per year.

If Republicans were the ones asking for Gonzales to resign over something like this, liberals everywhere would be accusing Republicans of being racist because Gonzales is Latino.

You don't see the big deal because even with all this media focus on it, you still haven't grasped the facts. Bush hasn't just replaced 8 USAs. He also appointed them when he came into office, just like Clinton did. The 8 he replaced were ones he had appointed. You guys have to at least get the broad basics before you can understand the more complex issues here. No matter how often these facts are pointed out on this forum and elsewhere, you folks just keep coming back with the same misinformed crap.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Bush hasn't just replaced 8 USAs. He also appointed them when he came into office, just like Clinton did. The 8 he replaced were ones he had appointed.

So what! He can fire them whenever he wants. That's what you liberals can't seem to grasp.

[quietfan 233]

I don't think any reasonable person argues with the idea that the President has the authority to hire & fire US attorneys. ("Reasonable" I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.) The question is whether the firings were politically motivated, or even worse, were the firings part of a concerted effort to stifle ethics investigations against Bush's political allies?

IF the motive of these firings was to impede or prevent the prosecutions of the Administration's friends, then they rise to the level of obstruction of justice, a serious crime. And how will we know if such was the case unless we investigate? For the good of the country, I hope Congressional hearings prove the Administration blameless, but I think it should be looked into.

If Congress had suspicions that Clinton's firings (or any other President's) were so motivated, then those firings should have been investigated also.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Doesn't matter. These attorneys are political appointees and serve at the whim of the President. He can fire them whenever he choses. Bush, Gonzales, Rove, or any other scalp the democrats are after have done nothing wrong. This is yet another in a series of political witchhunts designed to undercut this administration. I'm sure there will be plenty more between now and January, 2009.

[Tiger Al 0]

Doesn't matter. These attorneys are political appointees and serve at the whim of the President. He can fire them whenever he choses. Bush, Gonzales, Rove, or any other scalp the democrats are after have done nothing wrong. This is yet another in a series of political witchhunts designed to undercut this administration.

Then why lie about the reasons the attorneys were fired, namely, because of incompetence, when their reviews clearly showed otherwise?

I'm sure there will be plenty more between now and January, 2009.

Let's hope so.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

It's not Gonzales call to fire or not, if that's what you're alluding to. Bush makes the call. It's his...no one elses.

Back in 1988, I was told by my employer that I was the hardest working young man he had in the assembly plant and how he wished he had 100 more like me. 3 months later, I was out on my ass. Did he lie to me? I hope not, but he was well within his right to let me go.

The point is no law was broken. No crime was committed. These witch hunters are wasting time and taxpayer money over nothing. You know it and I know it.

[CCTAU 3,346]

These witch hunters are wasting time and taxpayer money over nothing. You know it and I know it.

Wasn't that what everybody predicted would happen with this congress. Those first productive 100 hours sure went by quickly. So quickly that I'm not sure anything productive even happened.

And for those of you out there "hoping" for more of this, me too. That will confirm what we already know, dims do nothing but bitch about what others try to do. 2008 will be a good year for republicans.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It's not Gonzales call to fire or not, if that's what you're alluding to. Bush makes the call. It's his...no one elses.

Back in 1988, I was told by my employer that I was the hardest working young man he had in the assembly plant and how he wished he had 100 more like me. 3 months later, I was out on my ass. Did he lie to me? I hope not, but he was well within his right to let me go.

The point is no law was broken. No crime was committed. These witch hunters are wasting time and taxpayer money over nothing. You know it and I know it.

It's Bush's call and he claims he didn't make it. Alberto claimed he didn't know about it. Bush is the only one with the authority to make it. So why doesn't he just come to the podium and say, "I exercised my authority to fire and appoint different US Attorneys." ? Why so coy? Why so secretive? Why doesn't he own it?

[CCTAU 3,346]

keeps the dims busy chasing their own tail. Cause in the end, nothing can be done about this. I bet Bush is planning on sneaking another war in before he gets out of office. But nobody will know about it because all we'll be hearing about is how Gonzales fired a bunch of judges.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

It's not Gonzales call to fire or not, if that's what you're alluding to. Bush makes the call. It's his...no one elses.

Back in 1988, I was told by my employer that I was the hardest working young man he had in the assembly plant and how he wished he had 100 more like me. 3 months later, I was out on my ass. Did he lie to me? I hope not, but he was well within his right to let me go.

The point is no law was broken. No crime was committed. These witch hunters are wasting time and taxpayer money over nothing. You know it and I know it.

It's Bush's call and he claims he didn't make it. Alberto claimed he didn't know about it. Bush is the only one with the authority to make it. So why doesn't he just come to the podium and say, "I exercised my authority to fire and appoint different US Attorneys." ? Why so coy? Why so secretive? Why doesn't he own it?

What difference does it make? It all comes back to the basic point that he can fire them whenever and however he pleases.