Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Fern
Finally found this thread.
Sundays paper had a story about the NM AG fired. (My paper is a NYT paper, no freind of the Admin either.)
I was surprised to see that:
(1) This AG was a Repub; and
(2) There was undisputed voter fraud, and this AG had basically done nothing, or had no progress after several years in prosecuting it.
As much fuss as many had been making it seemed that the Gonzales was firing Dems?
Since he's a Repub all this stuff about firing at the beginning of the Admin is mostly irelevant. When a Dem takes over form a Repuib or vice-versa we expect firing en mass so that the new Pres puts in AG's of his party etc.
Again, what the heck is all this fuss really about?
Fern
Because regardless of what party they came from, you can't pick and choose who to fire based mostly on what cases they choose to pursue. This is the Dept. of Justice we're talking about here and justice will NOT be served by forcing the DA's to kowtow and only work on the cases the administration wants prosecuted.
"Pick & choose" seems too ill defined for my particular tastse. Doesn't adequately decribe the sitution sufficiently to move analsys/debate forward....
Again, from the content of intial threads/discussion (even discussion on tv news) seemed Gonzales fired Dem AG's. All the discussion of "he shoulda done it at the begining of the admin like everybody else" implied to me he fired Dems.
But this case (Iglesias) he's a Repub, what of the others?
Complaining about a Repub firing a Repub strikes me as odd, The Dem party has demanding that Bush fire all kinds of other Repubs.
I see nothing wrong with firing him (them) if they're not doing their job properly. I wish the one in my (state) district would be fired for not prosecuting cases, or prosecuting them poorly. But that's another thread.
Merely because people were unhappy with him for not pursuing obvious (according to the NYT article) voter fraud b4 an election , does not prove nefarious political motivations. Could be seen as common sense. Why let it continue through several election cycles?
If it was "politically motivated" (examples: NOT prosecuting a "guilty" Repub, or pursuing false charges against Dems to harrass) someone s/b get into trouble.
In the Iglesias case, there seems no doubt there was verifed voter fraud, I have not heard it argued otherwise, anywhere. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been nefarious polital motivations, but does seem to require that intent be proven. Intent is difficult to prove, will require an investigation. That has not occured yet.
To prematurely claim, and have said claim enforced, that any AG who is fired in connection with any politically connected case is (prima facia) corruption sets a bad policy IMHO. I don't want to see such "politically" connected cases become sacred cows. That AG's must not be answerable to anyone in regards to these cases, etc.
When in power, both parties tend to wish special rights for themselves, and special restrictions upon the other. Then when the "shoe is on the other foot" scream bloody murder. It's a very poor way to make policy.
I prefer we don't make poor policy here as a result of the current political infighting. I think it very poor policy to convey divine rights upon AGs, and elevate them beyong reproach of any sort. Whether, politically conected cases or not.
Fern
Facebook
Twitter