How many US attorneys will Obama replace?

[XMan]

Over or under 8?

Likelihood of an investigation either way . . . 0.1%.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: XMan
Over or under 8?

Likelihood of an investigation either way . . . 0.1%.

Since you don't understand the basics of the issue, as I understand it:

It's normal for the president to replace (nearly?) all the US Attorneys upon taking office.

Having done so, presidents are very careful about getting rid of them, normally doing so for strong cases of corruption and such - precisely to avoid the appearance of politicizing.

But that's not how the Bush/Gonzales Dept. worked. They brought in highly partisan people disproportionately from a right-wing religious law school, they made illegal political litmus tests part of the selection process, and they demanded the attorneys act politically, such as filing charges shortly before an election to hurt a Democrat, or not filing them against a guilty Republican.

At some point, they decided to get rid of 8 who would not do wrong in the interests of party.

The public may have cheered the conviction of the Congressman who took more in bribes than any other in history, but the Bush administration got rid of the US Attorney who won the convictions. Others similarly had those sorts of reasons. People like Republican Senators who didn't like the Attorneys not doing as they were told complained to people like Karl Rove, who worked with the Justice Department to fix the problem. They created a phony cover reason for getting rid of the Attorneys.

Had the Republicans remained in charge of Congress, it probably wouldn't have become a big issue, but the Democrats had taken power and held hearings, exposing the wrong.

While the Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, there are rules against the politicization that occures. IMO criminal charges were justified, reform is needed.

So, your smart alec question about Obama replacing attorneys mixes up the normal replacement of all Attorneys by new US presidents with Bush's corrupt mid-term act.

The question is, do you give a crap about the correction or are you just dishonestly pursuing a partisan attack?

 

[XMan]

IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: XMan
IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

That whole firing was just a media driven firestorm. The president if he so wished could hire and fire them daily. So what? The 8 that were fired werent doing what the executive branch wanted. That is investigate and prosecute claims of voter fraud and illegal immigration. Why would you keep an employee around if they fail at their job?

 

[Thump553]

XMan, you either don't understand or choose to ignore the distinction between the normal turnover of US Attorneys (it is, after all, a political patronage job-but one that requires merit) and GWB's mid-term purging of US Attorneys who weren't politically biased enough in their actions. Fortunately, most of the rest of the world clearly saw the distinction.

I do however, hope that Fitzgerald stays around. In fact, he is the kind of person who should be moved up substantially. If we had him, or someone like him, as Attorney General during the Bush administration instead of the two cronies and one do-nothing that GWB appointed the Justice Department would not be the cesspool it has become.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Thump553
XMan, you either don't understand or choose to ignore the distinction between the normal turnover of US Attorneys (it is, after all, a political patronage job-but one that requires merit) and GWB's mid-term purging of US Attorneys who weren't politically biased enough in their actions. Fortunately, most of the rest of the world clearly saw the distinction.

I do however, hope that Fitzgerald stays around. In fact, he is the kind of person who should be moved up substantially. If we had him, or someone like him, as Attorney General during the Bush administration instead of the two cronies and one do-nothing that GWB appointed the Justice Department would not be the cesspool it has become.

And what exactly has Fitzgerald done? Isnt he the guy who spent millions and years investigating Valerie Plame only to get a pergury charge on Scooter Libby while letting the true leak (Dick Armitage) walk?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: XMan
IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

Wrong. It sounds like you get your info from right-wing liars.

Wikipedia:

By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted.[75] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[76][77][76]

A Department of Justice list noted that "in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys." Similarly, a Senate study noted that "Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years."[78]

In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[76][77] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision" (underlining original).[79] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle period of the presidential term in office.[80][81]

The few examples of forced dismissals available are based on misconduct. The Congressional Research Service investigated the precedent of dismissing U.S. Attorneys over the 25 years 1981-2006 and identified 54 attorneys who did not serve their full 4-year term. Of these, only two were documented involuntary dismissals: William Kennedy in 1982 and J. William Petro in 1984. Both were Reagan appointees. Kennedy was dismissed for "for asserting that the CIA had pressured DOJ to pressure him not to pursue a case," and Petro was dismissed for "disclosing information about an indictment."[82] [83] However, all of the U.S. Attorneys dismissed in 2006 were in office longer than four years, and appointments lasting into a President's second term were beyond the scope of the study

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

Here you cross the line to idiocy. There are no bigger hypocritical whiners than the right, ignoring almos unlimited scandal for them, and nothing too small to scream about the left.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Thump553
XMan, you either don't understand or choose to ignore the distinction between the normal turnover of US Attorneys (it is, after all, a political patronage job-but one that requires merit) and GWB's mid-term purging of US Attorneys who weren't politically biased enough in their actions. Fortunately, most of the rest of the world clearly saw the distinction.

I do however, hope that Fitzgerald stays around. In fact, he is the kind of person who should be moved up substantially. If we had him, or someone like him, as Attorney General during the Bush administration instead of the two cronies and one do-nothing that GWB appointed the Justice Department would not be the cesspool it has become.

And what exactly has Fitzgerald done? Isnt he the guy who spent millions and years investigating Valerie Plame only to get a pergury charge on Scooter Libby while letting the true leak (Dick Armitage) walk?

Fitzgerald has generally appeared to do a competent job investigating wrongdoing by both parties. Clue: Armitage did not commit a crime. Libby did (lying to investigators).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Thump553
XMan, you either don't understand or choose to ignore the distinction between the normal turnover of US Attorneys (it is, after all, a political patronage job-but one that requires merit) and GWB's mid-term purging of US Attorneys who weren't politically biased enough in their actions. Fortunately, most of the rest of the world clearly saw the distinction.

I do however, hope that Fitzgerald stays around. In fact, he is the kind of person who should be moved up substantially. If we had him, or someone like him, as Attorney General during the Bush administration instead of the two cronies and one do-nothing that GWB appointed the Justice Department would not be the cesspool it has become.

And what exactly has Fitzgerald done? Isnt he the guy who spent millions and years investigating Valerie Plame only to get a pergury charge on Scooter Libby while letting the true leak (Dick Armitage) walk?

Ask our last two governors and the people caught up in the Hired Truck/Oasis scandals.

 

[PokerGuy]

I actually agree with Craig234 with regard to the attorney issue. I don't see the problem with all the attorneys getting replaced with each incoming president, but I do have a big problem with the president/doj/administration making the US attorneys political tools to implement political hackery.

Of course, after making intelligent statements, Craig234 could not resist going into stupid partisan hackery: there are no bigger hypocritical whiners than the right, ignoring almos unlimited scandal for them, and nothing too small to scream about the left.

Riiiiight, clearly only "the right" as a group has a monopoly on hypocrisy and whining :roll:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
I actually agree with Craig234 with regard to the attorney issue. I don't see the problem with all the attorneys getting replaced with each incoming president, but I do have a big problem with the president/doj/administration making the US attorneys political tools to implement political hackery.

Of course, after making intelligent statements, Craig234 could not resist going into stupid partisan hackery: there are no bigger hypocritical whiners than the right, ignoring almos unlimited scandal for them, and nothing too small to scream about the left.

Riiiiight, clearly only "the right" as a group has a monopoly on hypocrisy and whining :roll:

I msee you got that last sentence correct,,,,,heheee

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: XMan
IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

That whole firing was just a media driven firestorm. The president if he so wished could hire and fire them daily. So what? The 8 that were fired werent doing what the executive branch wanted. That is investigate and prosecute claims of voter fraud and illegal immigration. Why would you keep an employee around if they fail at their job?

What a joke you are.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: XMan
Over or under 8?

Likelihood of an investigation either way . . . 0.1%.

For an "Elite" member I'd think if you were going to start a thread you'd at least understand the basic issue of your complaint.

Originally posted by: XMan
My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

You're right, if Obama fires individual US attorneys for not prosecuting enough republicans, we are unlikely to hear anything from the mainstream right. It would be the mainstream left who castigates him.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: XMan
IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

That whole firing was just a media driven firestorm. The president if he so wished could hire and fire them daily. So what? The 8 that were fired werent doing what the executive branch wanted. That is investigate and prosecute claims of voter fraud and illegal immigration. Why would you keep an employee around if they fail at their job?

What a joke you are.

Hahahaha the most concise response I have ever read from Moonbeam.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan
Over or under 8?

Likelihood of an investigation either way . . . 0.1%.

Since you don't understand the basics of the issue, as I understand it:

It's normal for the president to replace (nearly?) all the US Attorneys upon taking office.

Having done so, presidents are very careful about getting rid of them, normally doing so for strong cases of corruption and such - precisely to avoid the appearance of politicizing.

But that's not how the Bush/Gonzales Dept. worked. They brought in highly partisan people disproportionately from a right-wing religious law school, they made illegal political litmus tests part of the selection process, and they demanded the attorneys act politically, such as filing charges shortly before an election to hurt a Democrat, or not filing them against a guilty Republican.

At some point, they decided to get rid of 8 who would not do wrong in the interests of party.

The public may have cheered the conviction of the Congressman who took more in bribes than any other in history, but the Bush administration got rid of the US Attorney who won the convictions. Others similarly had those sorts of reasons. People like Republican Senators who didn't like the Attorneys not doing as they were told complained to people like Karl Rove, who worked with the Justice Department to fix the problem. They created a phony cover reason for getting rid of the Attorneys.

Had the Republicans remained in charge of Congress, it probably wouldn't have become a big issue, but the Democrats had taken power and held hearings, exposing the wrong.

While the Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, there are rules against the politicization that occures. IMO criminal charges were justified, reform is needed.

So, your smart alec question about Obama replacing attorneys mixes up the normal replacement of all Attorneys by new US presidents with Bush's corrupt mid-term act.

The question is, do you give a crap about the correction or are you just dishonestly pursuing a partisan attack?

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing :thumbsup:

 

[nobodyknows]

How many US attorneys will Obama replace?

All of them, I hope. Now if he starts firing them in the middle of his term then get back to me.

 

[DaveSimmons]

He has to keep the ones that participated in the birth certificate cover-up, or they might talk.

Just watch, the Hawiian attorneys will not be replaced. Copy of the Kenya certificate = job security for life.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
He has to keep the ones that participated in the birth certificate cover-up, or they might talk.

Just watch, the Hawiian attorneys will not be replaced. Copy of the Kenya certificate = job security for life.

That must be why it will never see the light of day. I am keeping his Islamic baptism records secret for the same reason.

 

[Stoneburner]

I hope he fires all of them, I want a new job

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: XMan
IIRC they didn't replace any of them immediately, and eventually only moved to replace the 8. Cue firestorm.

Clinton, OTH, fired all of them . . . including one who was investigating shady business deals in Arkansas. Cue . . . not nearly so much.

So essentially what you're saying is, it's okay if the President fires all of them, just not particular ones - even though by definition US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.

My point is, no matter what Obama does with his US attorneys, you aren't likely to hear much of anything from the mainstream right because that's just way they are. They don't pitch fits about every little thing like some of you children.

That whole firing was just a media driven firestorm. The president if he so wished could hire and fire them daily. So what? The 8 that were fired werent doing what the executive branch wanted. That is investigate and prosecute claims of voter fraud and illegal immigration. Why would you keep an employee around if they fail at their job?

Yes, just its the media, just like its the media that likes us to think we are in a recession even though we arent.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Media firestorm? Such is the consequence of such broad and intrusive Executive Office removal authority. It's the reason why, say, Clinton didn't remove Janet Reno (and subsequently others) because he probably understood the ramifications that would result, as understood in constitutional history.

Anyways, the President cannot necessarily fire and hire them daily. There can be limitations placed on his removal authority. He can fire and hire 'at his will' upper level executive officers like the Attorney General, but the same is not for inferior officers. I'd guess that these US Attorneys have congressional legislation where they can be fired 'for cause' by the Attorney General.

 

[Jhhnn]

US Attorneys have a greater obligation than political partisanship- an obligation to enforce the law fairly on behalf of the citizens. That's why they're generally appointed for the full term of the president who chooses them, and allowed wide latitude to do their jobs free of political influence.

Well, unless you were working for GWB and the Mayberry Machiavellis, in which case the protocols as practiced by previous admins simply didn't apply... Gonzales even lied to Congress in an attempt to cover up the highly political nature of the firings.

Obama will initially replace as many as he sees fit, as is traditional for incoming presidents... I thought conservatives were all about honoring traditional values, right?

Personally, I'd like for Obama to bring back the 8 That Bush fired, keep Fitzgerald and any others who've shown the mettle to resist political pressure. Make no mistake, Bush likely would have dumped Fitz, too, except that would have been entirely too obvious...

Fitz only filed charges against Libby because Libby was the only one he could build a very strong case against, because Scooter demonstrably lied to cover the rest. Somebody had to go down, even though Fitz was dealing with the most accomplished liars in the known universe. Very straightforward. It was also understood by all involved that Scooter would have rolled like a marble if he'd been made to serve his sentence- hence the immediate commutation by GWB. There's still time for a full pardon, as well.

Obama is too smart and too pragmatic to handle US Attorneys in the same arrogant, partisan and petty fashion as the Bushistas, bet on that....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Yes, just its the media, just like its the media that likes us to think we are in a recession even though we arent.