Gonzales aide who asserted Fifth resigns

[Gaard]

The firing of these people really isn't that big of deal (unless it was done to obstruct justice in some way). It may be BS, and it's no minor thing to lose your job, but it's really no big issue. The lying, however, IS a big deal. How can those on the right side of the fence justify that? The justification for this administration to lie to us seems to be that other presidents have fired U.S. attorneys in the past. This is true. There's no arguments there. But how does that excuse the lying being done?

Remember, they're not just lying to us 'lefties'.




PJ - In your 8:44 AM post are you saying that you're NOT trying to link Waco and the firing of the US attorneys?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smashp
Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

Libby Was Lying to protect his Boss........... See Falling on sword

That?s your view through your partisan glasses.
Libby?s view is that he did not recall talking to other members of the press etc etc.

Now imagine she gets up in front of congress and says ?I don?t recall any meeting in which X X X was mentioned as a reason to remove this person from office?
And another person in the meeting shows up with notes saying that X X X was in fact talked about.

Now maybe she was lying about X X X, or more likely she just didn?t remember it because it was not important to her at the time. Either way she could be facing jail time.
She?d be stupid to put herself at risk like that.

Even you should be able to admit that.

BTW your "lying to protect the boss" statement is based on what evidence? I don't recall any evidence that points to that being the case. Did I miss that?

Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

 

[Lemon law]

Aegeon perhaps says it best----To further clarify, while the President is supposed to be able to pick federal prosecutors he is comfortable with, albeit with Senate approval needed, when he initially takes office, after this he has been expected to basically leave them alone. The rare post Presidential transition firings in the past have been due to strong incompetence or serious scandal involving the personal actions of a federal prosecutor.

And what it really comes down to is the question----Who does the prosecutor work for? Do they work for the people of the United States who foot the taxpayer money to pay their salary? Or do they only serve the President who appointed them? The second you answer yes to question two, you begin to talk about selective law enforcement, a biased Justice department, and a short road to a police State.

And to protect the independence of Federal Prosecutors, strong ethical guidelines are already codified at the executive and at the congressional level. Once confirmed, It may be all well and fine for a legislator to ask a US attorney about what his favorite sports team is on a conversational level, but as soon as the conversation even touches the subject of what cases the US attorney plans to Pursue, an grave ethical lapse has occurred. And its absolutely way beyond all ethical bounds to have white house staffers HAVING ANY INPUTS into the way the peoples Justice Department is managed.

Were this now a case of mere suspicion that serious ethical lapses occured, it would be one thing, but NOW DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE SURFACED PROVE---ALMOST BEYOND ALL DOUBT, THAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS WERE PRESSURING BOTH THE WHITE HOUSE AND US ATTORNEYS, AND THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WAS INVOLVED IN THE FIRINGS.

Its now not only the right but the DUTY of the legislative branch to get to the bottom of this matter.

Some apologists may try to call it a partisan witch hunt, but its also about the question of an independent judiciary. And about non-partisan enforcement of the law.

Let the truth come out.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The firing of these people really isn't that big of deal (unless it was done to obstruct justice in some way). It may be BS, and it's no minor thing to lose your job, but it's really no big issue. The lying, however, IS a big deal. How can those on the right side of the fence justify that? The justification for this administration to lie to us seems to be that other presidents have fired U.S. attorneys in the past. This is true. There's no arguments there. But how does that excuse the lying being done?

Remember, they're not just lying to us 'lefties'.

PJ - In your 8:44 AM post are you saying that you're NOT trying to link Waco and the firing of the US attorneys?

There is NO link between Waco and the US attorneys.

There is a link between Janet Reno and a string of bad choices though. However, no one called for her to resign despite all her problems.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smashp
Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

Libby Was Lying to protect his Boss........... See Falling on sword

That?s your view through your partisan glasses.
Libby?s view is that he did not recall talking to other members of the press etc etc.

Now imagine she gets up in front of congress and says ?I don?t recall any meeting in which X X X was mentioned as a reason to remove this person from office?
And another person in the meeting shows up with notes saying that X X X was in fact talked about.

Now maybe she was lying about X X X, or more likely she just didn?t remember it because it was not important to her at the time. Either way she could be facing jail time.
She?d be stupid to put herself at risk like that.

Even you should be able to admit that.

BTW your "lying to protect the boss" statement is based on what evidence? I don't recall any evidence that points to that being the case. Did I miss that?

Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

It's not that simple because they ask you questions which reguire you to use your memory in order to provide an answer.
If your forgot something or was not paying much attention at the time you end up going to jail.

?Mrs. Gooding, in the meeting on February 15 do you recall the names of any possible replacement candidates being mentioned??
?No, I don?t recall that happening.?
?Well I have notes in front of me that state otherwise!!!!!? Lock her up for perjury.

 

[Gaard]

PJ- Good. I was hoping you wouldn't be stooping that low to try and link Waco with the firing of the US attorneys.

Also, isn't your Reno thing kind of like apples and oranges? Unless I'm wrong, nobody is calling for Gonzales's head for making 'bad choices'. They're calling for his head for 'lying'.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Gaard
PJ- Good. I was hoping you wouldn't be stooping that low to try and link Waco with the firing of the US attorneys.

Also, isn't your Reno thing kind of like apples and oranges? Unless I'm wrong, nobody is calling for Gonzales's head for making 'bad choices'. They're calling for his head for 'lying'.

I believe they were calling for his head before this 'lie' came to light.

This is more about politics and scandal mongering than anything else.

 

[Lemon law]

Well count on non-Prof John to really distort and tell another big whopper---After what happened to Libby can you blame her?
Libby did not break any laws in what he actually did, but because his statements were inconsistent he is facing jail time.

Wrong----Libby knowingly made false statements to Federal Law enforcement officials---under oath.
For the express purpose of protecting himself and others---as someone who claims to be an attorney,
you should know that obstruction of justice and perjury are serious charges---and now they are more than mere charges and Libby stands convicted---with post conviction jury interviews show was a air tight case. And even on thread, Patrick Fitzgerald proved to be an absolute poster boy for a non-Partisan U.S. Attorney---and a diametrical opposite of Ken Starr.

Libby just thought he would get away with it at the time and was rather sloppy---do we want someone that sloppy, criminal, and morally bankrupt collecting a taxpayer salary? It now sure looks like Libby is not the only sloppy, criminal, and morally bankrupt person in the GWB administration---and the more we look the more it looks like GWB&co. is totally infested with a plague of these sleezy rats---it now looks like its housecleaning time---and a new broom will sweep clean.

And jonny---you can try to white wash the outside walls----but you better have a unlimited supply, because the scandals are just starting----gonna be a lot of rats flushed out soon---and they are not made of sterner stuff of yesteryear---this new breed isn't even competent when it comes to covering their tracks.------with staff like that, its no wonder everything GWB&co. touches wilts.

 

[Phokus]

"That?s your view through your partisan glasses." - ProfJohn

Did anyone else bust a gut laughing reading that?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It's not that simple because they ask you questions which reguire you to use your memory in order to provide an answer.
If your forgot something or was not paying much attention at the time you end up going to jail.

?Mrs. Gooding, in the meeting on February 15 do you recall the names of any possible replacement candidates being mentioned??
?No, I don?t recall that happening.?
?Well I have notes in front of me that state otherwise!!!!!? Lock her up for perjury.

As has been basically noted this is simply BS. Generally for the record you are even better protected against perjury charges when you state you don't remember, and you can further protect yourself against the unlikely possibility by noting that you don't remember the details of the meeting that well at this point at all. (Which makes it clear you're not saying that you're confident that the subject wasn't discussed at the meeting.)

You can't be charged with perjury unless it can be shown that you knowingly lied under oath.

In the case of Libby, it was shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he could not have simply forgotten and his crimes were a deliberate effort at deception on multiple occasions.

 

[techs]

I feel like we are living in one of those countries we constantly make fun of and shake our heads at. You know, the ones where the government uses criminal indictments as a political tool.
Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: smashp
Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

Libby Was Lying to protect his Boss........... See Falling on sword

That?s your view through your partisan glasses.
Libby?s view is that he did not recall talking to other members of the press etc etc.

Now imagine she gets up in front of congress and says ?I don?t recall any meeting in which X X X was mentioned as a reason to remove this person from office?
And another person in the meeting shows up with notes saying that X X X was in fact talked about.

Now maybe she was lying about X X X, or more likely she just didn?t remember it because it was not important to her at the time. Either way she could be facing jail time.
She?d be stupid to put herself at risk like that.

Even you should be able to admit that.

BTW your "lying to protect the boss" statement is based on what evidence? I don't recall any evidence that points to that being the case. Did I miss that?

Then Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple

It's not that simple because they ask you questions which reguire you to use your memory in order to provide an answer.
If your forgot something or was not paying much attention at the time you end up going to jail.

?Mrs. Gooding, in the meeting on February 15 do you recall the names of any possible replacement candidates being mentioned??
?No, I don?t recall that happening.?
?Well I have notes in front of me that state otherwise!!!!!? Lock her up for perjury.

Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple


The 5th is not an option for her. Unless she has Committed a Crime or her testimony will lead to a chain of events that will lead to a conviction of the crime being investigated. She Can only claim the fifth to protect herself from being self incriminated on the matter at hand. There are not any charges criminally brought and She can only Self incriminate if she criminally acted in the situation related to the firings of the 8 Us attorneys.


Read Further Prof.

SELF-INCRIMINATION


"The obligation to testify is not relieved by this clause, if, regardless of whether incriminating answers are given, a prosecution is precluded, 199 or if the result of the answers is not incrimination, but rather harm to reputation or exposure to infamy or disgrace"

If you continue to Claim she has the Right to claim the Fifth, Then you must also admit That a Crime Has already been committed.

Let the investigation continue

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It's not that simple because they ask you questions which reguire you to use your memory in order to provide an answer.
If your forgot something or was not paying much attention at the time you end up going to jail.

?Mrs. Gooding, in the meeting on February 15 do you recall the names of any possible replacement candidates being mentioned??
?No, I don?t recall that happening.?
?Well I have notes in front of me that state otherwise!!!!!? Lock her up for perjury.

As has been basically noted this is simply BS. Generally for the record you are even better protected against perjury charges when you state you don't remember, and you can further protect yourself against the unlikely possibility by noting that you don't remember the details of the meeting that well at this point at all. (Which makes it clear you're not saying that you're confident that the subject wasn't discussed at the meeting.)

You can't be charged with perjury unless it can be shown that you knowingly lied under oath.

In the case of Libby, it was shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he could not have simply forgotten and his crimes were a deliberate effort at deception on multiple occasions.

Exactly. Libby not only Perjured lets not forget he Also was guilty of Obstruction Justice because he knowingly lied to hide the truth and Mis-lead.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
After what happened to Libby can you blame her?
Libby did not break any laws in what he actually did, but because his statements were inconsistent he is facing jail time.

Put yourself in her shoes. What would you rather do? Risk jail time, or just plead the 5th and be happy at home.

It doesn't matter what happened with Libby, if the reasons her lawyer gave were her only ones she likely has no legal right to plead the fifth. You cannot plead the fifth based on crimes you are likely to commit in the future. I repeat: You cannot plead the fifth based on crimes you are likely to commit in the future.

And if you honestly believe that Scooter was being truthful I suggest you go and re-read the case. Perjury convictions are rare, and difficult to get... Scooter's was neither because it was so obvious that he lied repeatedly under oath.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: smashp


Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple


The 5th is not an option for her. Unless she has Committed a Crime or her testimony will lead to a chain of events that will lead to a conviction of the crime being investigated. She Can only claim the fifth to protect herself from being self incriminated on the matter at hand. There are not any charges criminally brought and She can only Self incriminate if she criminally acted in the situation related to the firings of the 8 Us attorneys.


Read Further Prof.

SELF-INCRIMINATION


"The obligation to testify is not relieved by this clause, if, regardless of whether incriminating answers are given, a prosecution is precluded, 199 or if the result of the answers is not incrimination, but rather harm to reputation or exposure to infamy or disgrace"

If you continue to Claim she has the Right to claim the Fifth, Then you must also admit That a Crime Has already been committed.

Let the investigation continue

See re-bolded section of your quote. I was unaware that presecution was precluded? If it is not, then your own qoute would seem to serve as a basis for claiming the 5th.

Here's another qoute from the article you link

witness has traditionally been able to claim the privilege in any proceeding whatsoever in which testimony is legally required when his answer might be used against him in that proceeding or in a future criminal proceeding or when it might be exploited to uncover other evidence against him

The above seems to support her ability to claim the 5th.

Will her resignation preclude Congress from compelling her to testify in this matter?

I thought not, that Congress has the power to subpeana(sp?) ?

If she gets called and claims the 5th, it will be interesting to see how it works out, if she is actually able to claim it.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

I've got the perfect solution to this I believe. I'm sure others will post after making the normal rabid Bush slamming statemetns or whatever, but since that's expected, I really could care less. I think my proposal is as fair as one could arrive at:

1.) Puruse the current issue to wherever it goes. This should satisfy the crazed attack Bush at all costs masses.

2.) When whichever Dem. gets elected in '08 gets rid of all the attorneys like Clinton '93 did, thereby wasting the taxpayers money for no other reason than, I might not be able to trust them, blow it up into maganormous proportions.

3.) Whichever House and Senate members do not go on a which hunt for the President and/or their Adminstration for doing such an inefficient thing with no documented proof, automatic recusal of their jobs. These people (House and Senate) do not work for the President, they work for us. I cannot imagine any American saying, Yes, I want to have governement churn and inefficiency for something so petty as firing US Attorneys at the start of a term because the President might not like them.

This should be acceptable to All, right?

Chuck

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I've got the perfect solution to this I believe. I'm sure others will post after making the normal rabid Bush slamming statemetns or whatever, but since that's expected, I really could care less. I think my proposal is as fair as one could arrive at:

1.) Puruse the current issue to wherever it goes. This should satisfy the crazed attack Bush at all costs masses.

2.) When whichever Dem. gets elected in '08 gets rid of all the attorneys like Clinton '93 did, thereby wasting the taxpayers money for no other reason than, I might not be able to trust them, blow it up into maganormous proportions.

3.) Whichever House and Senate members do not go on a which hunt for the President and/or their Adminstration for doing such an inefficient thing with no documented proof, automatic recusal of their jobs. These people (House and Senate) do not work for the President, they work for us. I cannot imagine any American saying, Yes, I want to have governement churn and inefficiency for something so petty as firing US Attorneys at the start of a term because the President might not like them.

This should be acceptable to All, right?

Chuck

Actually, this just illustrates you have no clue about the circumstances of the situation.

You have even less of a clue on how to write.

 

[chucky2]

I see it very simply:

Clinton blanket got rid of all US Attorneys in 93, irrespective of how they were doing.
Bush waited and got rid of a few, apperantly in at least some cases with no cause.

The end result to me the taxpayer is the same: My money is being wasted in getting rid of people for no other reason than "Not sure about them, so their gone".

If that's the way we're going to run our government, then we wouldn't even have one, as no one trusts our government, from the House to the President.

This would be like me PM'ing a project or program at work and saying, Well, even though I got into this decades long project 4/8 years after you all, since I don't know if I can trust you, you're all gone. Yeah, I'm sure the company (we're the company folks) would look favorably on that.

Chuck

P.S. Why does it illustrate I have no clue on the circumstances? Why is my writing bad?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I see it very simply:

Clinton blanket got rid of all US Attorneys in 93, irrespective of how they were doing.
Bush waited and got rid of a few, apperantly in at least some cases with no cause.

The end result to me the taxpayer is the same: My money is being wasted in getting rid of people for no other reason than "Not sure about them, so their gone".

If that's the way we're going to run our government, then we wouldn't even have one, as no one trusts our government, from the House to the President.

This would be like me PM'ing a project or program at work and saying, Well, even though I got into this decades long project 4/8 years after you all, since I don't know if I can trust you, you're all gone. Yeah, I'm sure the company (we're the company folks) would look favorably on that.

Chuck

P.S. Why does it illustrate I have no clue on the circumstances? Why is my writing bad?

Isn't it a fact that Bush got rid of Clinton's appointments when the Supreme Coup originally selected him to be President and only recently got rid of a few more? And if so, can you then see this has nothing to do with Clinton. Furthermore, since all the people doing the firing all all getting paid anyway where is any of this a waste of money? And one one is fired he stops getting paid and the new person starts. Again where is the waste of money. Also, these folk were clearly not fired for no reason or else they wouldn't have been fired at all. They were fired because they didn't play Republican hard ball and go after democrats or they did go after Republicans. It's that kind of behavior that makes Bush a disease who should be impeached.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: thujone
the issue isn't THAT they were fired... or WHEN they were fired... or even HOW MANY were fired...

it's WHY they were fired.

Okay, but Aegeon just said that it is about WHEN they were fired...

I'm sorry but I thought I understood the controversy when Aegeon explained it, but now I don't anymore.

Is it illegal what happened, or just unprecedented? I mean, it seems to me there should be a law about when you can fire the attorneys...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I've got the perfect solution to this I believe. I'm sure others will post after making the normal rabid Bush slamming statemetns or whatever, but since that's expected, I really could care less. I think my proposal is as fair as one could arrive at:

1.) Puruse the current issue to wherever it goes. This should satisfy the crazed attack Bush at all costs masses.

2.) When whichever Dem. gets elected in '08 gets rid of all the attorneys like Clinton '93 did, thereby wasting the taxpayers money for no other reason than, I might not be able to trust them, blow it up into maganormous proportions.

3.) Whichever House and Senate members do not go on a which hunt for the President and/or their Adminstration for doing such an inefficient thing with no documented proof, automatic recusal of their jobs. These people (House and Senate) do not work for the President, they work for us. I cannot imagine any American saying, Yes, I want to have governement churn and inefficiency for something so petty as firing US Attorneys at the start of a term because the President might not like them.

This should be acceptable to All, right?

Chuck

2) And if we're not lied to when the attorneys are canned?

Makes a bit of difference, doesn't it?

Or, as OrByte said, don't you understand what all the hoopla is about? It's ok. Really. It's not like you're any less of a man if you're not 'up' on this issue. But you really should make an attempt to understand the issue you're commenting about.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Okay, but Aegeon just said that it is about WHEN they were fired...

I'm sorry but I thought I understood the controversy when Aegeon explained it, but now I don't anymore.

Is it illegal what happened, or just unprecedented? I mean, it seems to me there should be a law about when you can fire the attorneys...

The boundaries of what exactly is acceptable are somewhat unclear.

If it was absolutely illegal to fire the prosecutors in the middle of his term period, Bush would presumably be looking at impeachment proceedings against him right now.

Its not simply illegal to fire a prosecutor midterm because its recognized that there are times when a prosecutor engages in such shameful misconduct or such extreme incompetence while on the job that its necessary to get rid of them. Its true that federal judges are much more difficult to remove, and generally require actual impeachment to get rid of, but it has previously been understood that the ability to fire a prosecutor in the middle of a Presidential term (instead of at the start of a new President's term so the federal prosecutor job can be looked upon as effectively a four year term) was to remain restricted to these extreme cases.

For a point of comparison, in the case of Mike Nifong who is the district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina, the only way a state based agency can effectively remove him is if the State Bar Association suspends or revokes his law license. The State Governor for instance can do nothing to remove him. While we can argue if the North Carolina system goes too much in the other direction, it should help you understand why a Federal system where the President can fire a prosecutor at any time would be such a departure from this.

One thing that definitely would be illegal would be if the President fired a prosecutor with the specific intent of stopping a criminal investigation which would qualify as obstruction of justice.

Furthermore there appears to be the possibility that Bush could be in legal trouble as well if he fired a prosecutor specifically in retaliation for refusing to issue an indictment in a case where the prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence to issue an indictment at this time under US Code 1505 which stipulates.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress?
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html...ode18/usc_sec_18_00001505----000-.html

By attempting to coerce a prosecutor with the threat of being fired, or presumably the next appointed prosecutor for that position who is worried about being fired for defying the President or other Republican political official, to issue an indictment when they don't think its yet warranted, Bush could be in violation of the provision regarding "influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law", specially the influence and impede components.

Even if a political firing is technically legal, that doesn't mean that its ethical to do so and undermine the federal justice system's autonomy, nor should the American public and Congress approve of such behavior. What a President should do is refrain from firing a federal prosecutor midterm period unless they have a strong compelling reason to do so due to a serious scandal involving a prosecutor's personal actions or a case of extreme incompetence.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: smashp


Don't Lie and tell the Truth. Its that Simple


The 5th is not an option for her. Unless she has Committed a Crime or her testimony will lead to a chain of events that will lead to a conviction of the crime being investigated. She Can only claim the fifth to protect herself from being self incriminated on the matter at hand. There are not any charges criminally brought and She can only Self incriminate if she criminally acted in the situation related to the firings of the 8 Us attorneys.


Read Further Prof.

SELF-INCRIMINATION


"The obligation to testify is not relieved by this clause, if, regardless of whether incriminating answers are given, a prosecution is precluded, 199 or if the result of the answers is not incrimination, but rather harm to reputation or exposure to infamy or disgrace"

If you continue to Claim she has the Right to claim the Fifth, Then you must also admit That a Crime Has already been committed.

Let the investigation continue

See re-bolded section of your quote. I was unaware that presecution was precluded? If it is not, then your own qoute would seem to serve as a basis for claiming the 5th.

Here's another qoute from the article you link

witness has traditionally been able to claim the privilege in any proceeding whatsoever in which testimony is legally required when his answer might be used against him in that proceeding or in a future criminal proceeding or when it might be exploited to uncover other evidence against him

The above seems to support her ability to claim the 5th.

Will her resignation preclude Congress from compelling her to testify in this matter?

I thought not, that Congress has the power to subpeana(sp?) ?

If she gets called and claims the 5th, it will be interesting to see how it works out, if she is actually able to claim it.

Fern

Fern, you're wrong. I'm sorry. Again, I doubt Congress would press the issue considering they don't really need her to fry Gonzo it would seem.

But no.. no.... the fifth does not apply to future crimes, nor does it apply to fear of comitting perjury in the future.

What the parts that you bolded mean is that you can protect yourself from giving evidence that would lead the prosecutors to crimes you have comitted already. It does not mean that you are granted protection from testifying because you are planning on comitting perjury, and don't want to get busted for it.

Don't take my word for it... look it up.

 

[chucky2]

Aegeon- Thank you for that post, it was very clear and well worded.

What I don't understand - and am at odds with - is how is it any better or different to fire them all at the start of your term, rather than at some point in your term?

These attorneys don't stop working on cases when someone takes office. It's not like they have no case load when the new president comes into offfice right?

If they have no case load when a president starts, then OK, I can totlally see how it'd make sense to get rid of them then...but I can't see why they wouldn't always be working on something.

If they are, then firing them at the start of your term is just as bad as firing them at any other point in your term, as it's getting rid of someone while their in the middle of their job. Unless that person is just so bad that's necessary, then that's the inefficiency I do not ever want to see in my government, Ever.

I agree though, if they were let go because they where prosecuting someone who needed to be prosectued and someone in the Bush Admin. didn't like that so they fired them, then that's totally wrong.

I'd like your opinion on my above questios though if you could...thanks either way!

Chuck

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Aegeon- Thank you for that post, it was very clear and well worded.

What I don't understand - and am at odds with - is how is it any better or different to fire them all at the start of your term, rather than at some point in your term?

These attorneys don't stop working on cases when someone takes office. It's not like they have no case load when the new president comes into offfice right?

If they have no case load when a president starts, then OK, I can totlally see how it'd make sense to get rid of them then...but I can't see why they wouldn't always be working on something.

If they are, then firing them at the start of your term is just as bad as firing them at any other point in your term, as it's getting rid of someone while their in the middle of their job. Unless that person is just so bad that's necessary, then that's the inefficiency I do not ever want to see in my government, Ever.

I agree though, if they were let go because they where prosecuting someone who needed to be prosectued and someone in the Bush Admin. didn't like that so they fired them, then that's totally wrong.

I'd like your opinion on my above questios though if you could...thanks either way!

Chuck

Basically while its probably not an absolutely perfect system, limiting replacing prosecutors for political reasons to the start of a Presidential term greatly helps prevent abuse. The current system gives some ability for the President to handle how violators of the law are prosecuted in Federal Courts, it just that this ability is supposed to be restricted.

Among other things, at least with being replaced unless you really badly screw up being limited to every four years, the prosecutor won't have the same fear about the consequences of going after a member of the President's party or not going after a member of the opposing party in spite of a suggestion by the President or a member of his party that he should do so. In plenty of cases the prosecutor is simply going to lose his job regardless once the new President takes power, so he simply doesn't have to worry about the consequences of pursuing a particular case. A key with the new prosecutor is he knows that he doesn't have to worry so much about picking up a controversial case since he's in his position for 4 years. Another key detail is usually its not clear who is going to be elected President until right before the election or after the election. If a prosecutor doesn't even know which party will be in control for the next term, he doesn't have the same incentive to let political pressure from one party influence his decision. After the election it doesn't matter remotely as much politically if he indicts a member of the opposing political party on weak evidence, and it is clearly illegal to obstruct justice by firing or otherwise coercing a prosecutor into stopping a legitimate investigation, which puts the prosecutor in a better position to resist pressure in this area for that brief period regardless. (Another related point is that indicting a Congressman literally the week before an election is so obviously attempting to influence the election that it would be strongly commented on by the media and the action could even backfire on the party seen as coercing the prosecutor into doing this. Its understood that unless he thinks the Congressman is a serial killer who could kill again at any time, the federal prosecutor should wait until after the election to actually issue an indictment at that point.)

Mid Term firings simply leave far more room for political mischief.