NationStates Jolt Archive

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department's former No. 2 official testified Thursday he was unaware of plans to fire underperforming U.S. attorneys and praised all but one of the eight who were purged last year.

Jim Comey, who served as deputy attorney general from 2003 to 2005, said he had one 15-minute conversation during his tenure about prosecutors who were considered weak managers. Only one of the eight who were ultimately fired — Kevin Ryan, the former U.S. attorney in San Francisco — fit that description, Comey said.

The others were doing their jobs well, Comey told a House Judiciary subcommittee investigating the firings.
Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?

I thought they were fired for pleasuring the President. :confused:

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?

They weren't fired IN SPITE OF doing their jobs well.

They were fired FOR doing their jobs well.

Yeah but see that Comey guy is the same one who put Fitzgerald in charge of investigating Scooter Libby so can you really trust his judgment on who's doing a good job? ;)

I thought they were fired for pleasuring the President. :confused:

Moanica Blowisky doesn't work for the pres anymore!

david iglesias was fired because new mexico republican senator pete dominici wanted him to file a case before the last election. iglesias refused to rush the investigation and pete called the president and got him fired.

the case was filed last month and included quite a few powerful local democrats who are almost certainly going to be convicted. good thing iglesias stood his ground so it could be done right.

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?

Why would he want to just fire 8 attourneys? You have to remember, he comes from a small line of big oil producers (oil company owners) which means that he probably knows what he is doing when he says that they were doing nothing.

It has become kind of a way of life for us Americans, being lazy and just wanting to make a lot of cash with no effort, like Bill Gates does anymore.

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?They werem't fired for political reasons. They were fired because they were overfilling the prison system and thus causing a humanitarian crisis. Not that it's their job to manage the prison service or anything like that...

I thought they were fired for pleasuring the President. :confused:

Some would have you think that they were fired because they actually were not pleasuring him, but a reliable link to an obscure website has shown me that...handcuffs...were involved...

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

Hi Kat ;)

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

In the basement with Dr. Dre.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

It's common practice for an incoming president to summarily fire all US attorneys. In fact I think it's been pointed out several times in several other threads that at least Bush Sr., and Reagen did the exact same thing. What's unusual is a specific set of attorneys being fired for "performance reasons" when many of them were either engaged in legal actions against members of the Republican Party, or failing to act in a way that pleased the Republican Party (the fellow that I think Nazz referred to. The one who didn't file papers before the election).

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?
I would hazard a guess that they were waiting the several years between that occurence and there being enough tubes in the world wide interweb for people to use.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

People have been bringing this up as though it's a minor quibble that Clinton did it at the beginning of his term and Bush did it in the middle. It isn't. It has to do with control.

Bush brought his own people in at the beginning of his presidency too. That's standard. He comes into office with his own goals and priorities. He brings in the people that he thinks will do a good job. But how good a job can they be expected to do if they keep getting replaced every time the President's office is unhappy about something. Remember, US attorneys cases take a long time. Long standing law enforcement projects that represent a significant investment of our nations resources get flushed down the toilet if an attorney is pulled off the job in the middle of it.

Look at it this way. You hire a programmer to code your companies database. In fact, you hired him because he's your sister's finance, but it turns out that there's a job for him to do nonetheless. But then your sister dumps him, so you fire him and hire a new guy. Then you find out that the new guy thinks the RIAA went too far, so you fire him lest he deprive a record executive of a tenth of a cent in his bonus, and you bring in another new programmer. New guy writes his own code, so he starts from scratch, meaning all the money you paid the first two programmers is a loss. But then you see that the new guy is wearing a knock-off designer clothes. You don't care so much about designer royalties, but that's just gauche. So you fire him too. And the next guy because he brings fast-food to work, and the guy after him because he has an ugly haircut. And so on.

Yes, as CEO it's your decision to make. You've been given that authority, and the last CEO probably fired bunches of people. But how long do you think it will take before the board decides to replace you for being a wasteful idiot?

The above may sound like an absurd list of stupid choices, but that list only included five guys. The President fired eight. And they were responsible for a whole lot more than a single software project. What the hell will it take for the board to replace him for being an idiot?

It's common practice for an incoming president to summarily fire all US attorneys. In fact I think it's been pointed out several times in several other threads that at least Bush Sr., and Reagen did the exact same thing. What's unusual is a specific set of attorneys being fired for "performance reasons" when many of them were either engaged in legal actions against members of the Republican Party, or failing to act in a way that pleased the Republican Party (the fellow that I think Nazz referred to. The one who didn't file papers before the election).

Actually, if I recall correctly, the incoming President doesn't even have to bother summarily firing all the US attorneys anymore, as it's become common practice for all US attorneys to summarily hand in their resignations when a new President comes into office.

[/nitpick]

It's common practice for an incoming president to summarily fire all US attorneys. In fact I think it's been pointed out several times in several other threads that at least Bush Sr., and Reagen did the exact same thing. What's unusual is a specific set of attorneys being fired for "performance reasons" when many of them were either engaged in legal actions against members of the Republican Party, or failing to act in a way that pleased the Republican Party (the fellow that I think Nazz referred to. The one who didn't file papers before the election).
Well, my quibble would be that it's not all that unusual -- for the Bush admin. They seem to think it's a happy-fun-time bonus if they can manage to be a shit for no reason to the person they are already screwing over. So, the supposed "performance problems" that were falsely claimed about these 8 attorneys were nothing more than the JD's inability to refrain from taking the cheap shot. The funny part of it is, that Bush was within his rights to fire them for any reason or no reason, and if they had just kept their mouths shut about it, and written those 8 some nice reference letters, none of this scandal would have happened. It only blew up because the 8 are trying to protect their reputations and careers.

Now, in the bigger picture, what matters more than why the 8 were fired, is the question of why their replacements were hired. It's one thing to say you fired a guy because you didn't like the way he was handling a case -- and we can argue forever whether your dislike was political or not. But if their replacements can be shown to be political lackeys to the president rather than politically independent prosecutors serving the law, then we have a problem. If the 8 attorneys take their self-defense-style revenge by exposing such political corruption of the criminal justice system, then their victory will be complete.

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?


All presidents fire these people..No big deal really. Just drop it, this isn't news but just another BS way of attacking Bush. Don't you have anything valid to cry about? Are people getting sick of the Iraq war line so you need a new one? Give me one good reason why I should give a shit about this?

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well
How can you say that? They were slavishly following Karl Rove's dictums.
Thus they weren't doing their jobs well.
/sarcasm in case you missed it

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.



Very well said Kat. The difference? Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a republican. Hence the majority of people attacking him over this are indeed....wait for it...Democrats and liberals. This is no big deal and common place.

I thought they were fired for pleasuring the President. :confused:
No they were fired him for pleasuring him in the wrong way. I won't go into the details of who did what with the President's genitals, but let's just say there is a reason why Bush's underwear has become "soiled and bloodsoaked." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DuUFI78D6c&mode=related&search=)

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.I would hazard a guess that I was only 7 at the time...

IMO, if you fire all of a group, it's nothing personal, and it doesn't reflect poorly on any of the ones who got fired.

"Why did you get fired?"

"Oh, Clinton wanted a fresh slate of attorneys, so he fired all of us. Mass layoff. Wasn't anything about the job I was doing."

Pick only eight, and people will ask why - and if you say it was for quality control, you can bet those eight will feel threatened, particularly if they were doing a good job.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

You should feel dirty, for comparing apples to oranges that way. For a president to change out the entire US attorney staff when coming into office is not unusual. For a president to change out 8 attorneys in a midterm period, when some of those attorneys are working on cases of government corruption involving members of the President's party is another matter entirely.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

Well, the difference is this: right or wrong, Clinton did it for purely political reasons. Right or wrong, he never pretended it was for any other reason. Right or wrong, it's a presidential tradition.

The difference here is that the Bush Administration lied about the reasons. THey lied about their lies. Then, just to be safe, they lost the evidence that they lied about their lies. :p

ANd that makes people want to know why. *nod*

Let us say I am a CEO. Every four years, I fire everyone in the accounting department and hire new people, because the usual profile of corporate thieves is people who have worked with the economics section for six years.

However, two years into the situation, I decide to fire three of my accountants, saying they weren't doing their job. The real reason is that they were doing their job - I just didn't like them.

Not only would I get sued for firing them and would probably have to pay substantial compensation, but whomever I am CEOing for would have to seriously doubt my own integrity. After all, why did I fire them? If I've been working twenty years in the company with the accounting department, how does the board know that I haven't become the new corporate thief that has been skimming their profits?

So it's two reasons really:
1) The accountants (yes, still sticking to my example) deserve good references. Calling it quality control when it's really just political hurts their future career and it is within their full right to do something about it. If it's political, their future career doesn't suffer.
2) Whoever hired me in the first place will have to investigate whatever it was the accountants were investigating, because chances are they were on to something.

So here's one excuse the White House can't use any more. Seems most of the attorneys they fired were doing their jobs well, according to a former deputy attorney general:

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Now that we've shot down that excuse, does anyone care to argue that they weren't fired for purely political reasons?

While I do believe they were fired for political reasons, US attorneys are Schedule C employees - that is, they serve "at the pleasure" of the President.

They can be fired for absolutely no reason. If you're going to fire a Schedule C, it pays not to articulate any reason.

Schedule C people are let go almost every day - and there's never a whisper about why. It happens in every administration - in every Department.

The mistake that Gonzales made was to articulate the reasons.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?



QFT

I hope everyone realizes that in reality, he doesn't even NEED an excuse. That's his perogative to hire/fire as he seees fit. Even if the reasons ARE political, so what? Nowhere is it written that such a decision isn't allowed.

The problem here is that you have a bunch of people both in Congress and in the media that are looking to find fault with Bush NO MATTER WHAT he does, even when there isn't anything actually wrong with it. Yes, I included the media because they too were running with this story and sensationalizing it but also failed to mention that Clinton also exercised his own right to do this back in the 90s and nobody complained then, and aren't mentioning it now. (Limbaugh talked about that too. NOW who is telling the truth?)

If you don't like Bush, fine. if you hate his guts, that's fine too. I hate the Patriot act and I hate the way he's been handling PR with the war as well as a few other gripes, but people... Pick your battles. This kind of non-issue wailing only damages your credibility and goes a long way to proving that you have no claim to the term "objective."

EDIT: And yeah I agree that Gonzalez screwed up by making excuses. That's one of my big complaints about the Administration is they're wasting way too much time on bad PR schemes rather than just ignoring the critricism or being open about it. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes a non-issue APPEAR to be a valid gripe.

Very well said Kat. The difference? Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a republican. Hence the majority of people attacking him over this are indeed....wait for it...Democrats and liberals. This is no big deal and common place.

No, don't you read anything? Quite frankly, if Clinton did this, under the same circumstances, you'd see the same exact reaction.

There IS a difference, however, as stated oh-so-many times before, and it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, but with when, and how, they were fired.

As stated, it is customary for a President to replace all US attorneys when he gains office. They do that. No big whoop, it happens all the time.

It is extremely rare, however, to fire a large batch of attorneys, who appear to have been doing their job well, in the middle of your term. Not only that, but the apparent political reasons that seem to be at play in this case only seems to make the situation far dirtier than it could have been.

So, just face it: You're a political hack, you can't put things in perspective, you ignore the facts, the circumstances, you ignore reality, and you lack reason and logic in this particular situation.

QFT

I hope everyone realizes that in reality, he doesn't even NEED an excuse. That's his perogative to hire/fire as he seees fit. Even if the reasons ARE political, so what? Nowhere is it written that such a decision isn't allowed.

The problem here is that you have a bunch of people both in Congress and in the media that are looking to find fault with Bush NO MATTER WHAT he does, even when there isn't anything actually wrong with it. Yes, I included the media because they too were running with this story and sensationalizing it but also failed to mention that Clinton also exercised his own right to do this back in the 90s and nobody complained then, and aren't mentioning it now. (Limbaugh talked about that too. NOW who is telling the truth?)

If you don't like Bush, fine. if you hate his guts, that's fine too. I hate the Patriot act and I hate the way he's been handling PR with the war as well as a few other gripes, but people... Pick your battles. This kind of non-issue wailing only damages your credibility and goes a long way to proving that you have no claim to the term "objective."

EDIT: And yeah I agree that Gonzalez screwed up by making excuses. That's one of my big complaints about the Administration is they're wasting way too much time on bad PR schemes rather than just ignoring the critricism or being open about it. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes a non-issue APPEAR to be a valid gripe.

Oh, indeed. Really, I'm not faulting Bush for the firing itself, really. He's well within his right to do so. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to like the fact that he's playing politics with the justice system.

QFT

I hope everyone realizes that in reality, he doesn't even NEED an excuse. That's his perogative to hire/fire as he seees fit. Even if the reasons ARE political, so what? Nowhere is it written that such a decision isn't allowed.

Actually...that's just not true. Even schedual C employees have some protection. It's still discriminatory to fire them because they're black, or women, or jewis, or democrats.

It's also illegal to fire them if doing so was an attempt to obstruct justice.

Despite what some neocon bush felaters want to believe, the power of the president is not absolute. Even those that serve "at the pleasure of the president" still have some degree of protection.

Actually...that's just not true. Even schedual C employees have some protection. It's still discriminatory to fire them because they're black, or women, or jewis, or democrats.

It's also illegal to fire them if doing so was an attempt to obstruct justice.

Despite what some neocon bush felaters want to believe, the power of the president is not absolute. Even those that serve "at the pleasure of the president" still have some degree of protection.

If I don't put a reason down, you can't say I was being discriminatory.

I've seen Schedule C people let go at changes of administration more times than I'd care to count. And since no reason was given, no one was able to complain, even though we all KNEW that it was political.

Like the time the Clinton Admin fired ALL of the US Attorneys when they came into office - you're going to tell me that's not political?

They didn't enjoy any protection then, did they? The answer is No.

If I don't put a reason down, you can't say I was being discriminatory.

I've seen Schedule C people let go at changes of administration more times than I'd care to count. And since no reason was given, no one was able to complain, even though we all KNEW that it was political.

Like the time the Clinton Admin fired ALL of the US Attorneys when they came into office - you're going to tell me that's not political?

They didn't enjoy any protection then, did they? The answer is No.

Except that they weren't discriminated against either. Every single one of them was laid off for largely political reasons.

However, what Arthais was saying was that US Attorneys are protected from summary firing on grounds of race, religion, political leaning, etc.

Except that they weren't discriminated against either. Every single one of them was laid off for largely political reasons.

However, what Arthais was saying was that US Attorneys are protected from summary firing on grounds of race, religion, political leaning, etc.

Yes, that last part is true.

But I've seen individual firings of Schedule C - with no reason given.

And, since the people firing them didn't articulate a reason on paper, or hold a meeting with notes, no reason was discoverable.

So no one could protest.

If I don't put a reason down, you can't say I was being discriminatory.

I've seen Schedule C people let go at changes of administration more times than I'd care to count. And since no reason was given, no one was able to complain, even though we all KNEW that it was political.

Like the time the Clinton Admin fired ALL of the US Attorneys when they came into office - you're going to tell me that's not political?

They didn't enjoy any protection then, did they? The answer is No.

This isn't about the rights of the attorneys, so let's not pretend that it is. This is about justice, and the political obstruction thereof. These attorneys were fired because they were investigating people the White House didn't want investigated for political reasons, or not investigating people the White House did want investigated for political reasons, or for otherwise failing to conduct their investigations in ways that would politically benefit Republicans. That's the issue here. Not that they were fired, but the reasons why.

Justice should be apolitical - a crook is a crook whether they are Republican or Democrat. But the White House wanted to politicize the pursuit of justice for the benefit of the Republican party. And then they tried to cover it up - they lied about it, made false and misleading statements to Congress about it, and deliberately evaded electronic record-keeping requirements to hide it. It's the cover-up that always gets people, remember?

And remember that old line that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" that you right-wingers are so fond of quoting? They were hiding this, so obviously they did fear the consequences if their misdeeds were discovered. As they should.

They weren't fired IN SPITE OF doing their jobs well.

They were fired FOR doing their jobs well.

Hell, they were fired for being appointed by someone other than Bush, man. Job performance had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Point.

If Dear Leader had sacked the attorneys at the beginning of the first 100 days in office, a few people might have raised a bitchfest about it but overall it would have died off as a news issue.

On the other hand, doing it in his second term, especially when said attorneys were either investigation Republican corruption or refusing to doctor up any stories of Democratic corruption in timing with the November congressional races?

Especially when one of the claims used was "Poor Performance" and this guy said they were among the best?

Can you say Il Douche Strikes Again?

Yes, that last part is true.

But I've seen individual firings of Schedule C - with no reason given.

And, since the people firing them didn't articulate a reason on paper, or hold a meeting with notes, no reason was discoverable.

So no one could protest.

And wouldn't ya know it? Looks like congress is holding hearings to determine exactly that, if there was a reason given at some point, and if so, what.

If I don't put a reason down, you can't say I was being discriminatory.

I've seen Schedule C people let go at changes of administration more times than I'd care to count. And since no reason was given, no one was able to complain, even though we all KNEW that it was political.

Like the time the Clinton Admin fired ALL of the US Attorneys when they came into office - you're going to tell me that's not political?

They didn't enjoy any protection then, did they? The answer is No.

I was responding to the point where a poster said that there was nothing preventing the president for firing US attorneys on political grounds.

That is not true, some political grounds are improper reasons. You can't fire them because they are democrats, for example, no matter how much they serve by "pleasure of the president"

Hell, they were fired for being appointed by someone other than Bush, man. Job performance had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Actually, no. They were Bush appointees. They just didn't follow the White House political agenda closely enough.

Actually, no. They were Bush appointees. They just didn't follow the White House political agenda closely enough.

My bad. But not nearly as bad as Mr. Bush.

No, don't you read anything? Quite frankly, if Clinton did this, under the same circumstances, you'd see the same exact reaction.

There IS a difference, however, as stated oh-so-many times before, and it has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, but with when, and how, they were fired.

As stated, it is customary for a President to replace all US attorneys when he gains office. They do that. No big whoop, it happens all the time.

It is extremely rare, however, to fire a large batch of attorneys, who appear to have been doing their job well, in the middle of your term. Not only that, but the apparent political reasons that seem to be at play in this case only seems to make the situation far dirtier than it could have been.

So, just face it: You're a political hack, you can't put things in perspective, you ignore the facts, the circumstances, you ignore reality, and you lack reason and logic in this particular situation.Actually, had Clinton done it, or if the next Democratic president does it, you'll see (or would have seen) howls of outrage from the right from the very beginning and calls for impeachment for obstruction of justice.

You know, Bush ain't hardly my favorite person in the world, but where was all this righteous indignation when Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 US ATTORNEYS IN ONE DAY?

God, I feel dirty.

He did that in the middle of his term? Or was it at the beginning like had been past precedent for years? Firing all leads you to believe there was some sort of political agenda or was it a clean sweep? Think about these questions logically and therein you will find the difference. BTW, I have all the Republican and Democratic talking points emailed to me too and it helps to research a bit. Firing US attorneys at the beginning of your shift is common practice. Firing 8 with great performance reviews in your 6th year, not so much.

Very well said Kat. The difference? Clinton was a Democrat and Bush is a republican. Hence the majority of people attacking him over this are indeed....wait for it...Democrats and liberals. This is no big deal and common place.

uhh, I pointed out a few more you might want to check you. And firing someone because they have dirt on you or your friends usually turns out to eb pretty bad for even corporate guys.