Heritage In Focus: Showdown Over U.S. Attorneys

[phoogoo]

Heritage/Rightwing M.O. or debate: Ignore the real issue and reframe the debate on more favorable terms. This isn't about the "power to hire and fire attorneys". The firing of the attorneys was the tip off that led to the knowledge that WhiteHouse and the Justice Dept. were picking firing attorneys who either WERE investigating republicans or WOULDN'T submit to pressure to investigate democrats before an election. Then they lied over and over about it.

[BDizzle66]

According to CRS, "54 U.S. attorneys who were appointed between 1981 and 2006, left office before completing their four-year terms, and whose terms did not extend beyond one President's tenure in office." This situation is has precedent.

[nrsaint]

Everyone in the free world understands the fact there is precedent on a Prez replacing these positions. That's not even news. The problem is the circumstances. The fact you are satisfied with "half-truth" reporting is the real crime.

[nrsaint]

This does as much for the education of the American public as a Rush Limbaugh commentary. And as usual, contains a "Bill Clinton did it" phrase.

[BDizzle66]

As for Clinton firing all 93 U.S. Attys in '93, "(a)t the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: 'All those people are routinely replaced,' he told reporters, 'and I have not done anything differently.' In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired." WSJ, March '07.

[Tallulahland]

Face it, Bush could disembowel a kitten on the steps of the Capitol, and the Heritage Foundation would leap to his defense. Bush has absolutely no respect for the rule of law, or any of this country's democratic institutions, and this is just another example of that.

[iheartanncoulter]

You're missing the point. U.S. Attorneys are appointed - that means that can be let go at any time. Bush appointed them to these positions and he decided they weren't performing to his liking so he let them go. No laws were broken. That's what happens when you're in an appointed position - tough shit. If Gonzales lied under oath then he is guilty of breaking the law but Bush isn't. Don't feel sorry for those rich kids in appointed positions anyhow, they had cush jobs and screwed up.

[BDizzle66]

Bush likes kittens for all I know and there is no evidence that he harms cats. The Heritage Foundation is not leaping to the defense of Bush - we try to explain the fact that U.S. Attorneys have no recourse when they are asked to resign and they comply.

[de52]

Then why compare Clinton replacing all 93 to the Gonzales firings. W replaced 91 US A's in 2001, you used a bogus argument just to say Clinton did it.

[nrsaint]

Isn't that the standard response, "Clinton did it!" I swear, it's ridiculous.

[iheartanncoulter]

That's right - Not only did Clinton do it BUT he was well with within the boundaries of the law just like Bush is. This is a legitimate presidential power. Being in an appointed position means you better keep the person who put you there happy or face the consequences...

[nrsaint]

"The Heritage Foundation is not leaping to the defense of Bush" -BDizzle66

LMAO!!!

[opiate69]

Clinton did it too!!! I don't let my 4 year old get away with that excuse. Not to mention, Clinton followed established procedure in replacing the USAs at the beginning of his first term, (as did Reagan and Bush Sr before him) while Dumbya fired these 8 in the middle of his second term. Further, the evidence is mounting that these firings were a concerted effort to stop investigations into Republican Corruption cases which quite possibly reach all the way up to the White House.

[BDizzle66]

There is no evidence that this firing was done to "stop investigations."

[opiate69]

Sorry, but you are simply flat-out wrong.. there is plenty of evidence "pointing in that direction" as it were, hence the need to get Gonzales, Rove,Miers et. al under oath. Carol Lam, for one, was closing in on connecting Dick Cheny and $140,000 to former Republican congressman and current convicted felon Duke Cunningham and his co-conspriators.

[BDizzle66]

I don't believe there is any evidence that U.S. Atty Lam was "closing in on connecting Dick Cheny (Learn how to spell the Vice President's name - Cheney) and $140,000 to former Republican congressman....Duke Cunningham" That accusation is a leap and you need to provide some actual evidence of such a link before the Congress calls all of the President's close advisors to testify under oath. This appears to me to be more of a partian fishing expedition than a true investigation.

[opiate69]

Of course you "don't believe" there is any evidence re: Lam/Cheney.. that's because you are a well paid republi-con, anti-American apologist. And, if you're going to faceitiously attempt to slam me about my spelling (typo really), maybe you should make sure your post is free of any errors. (it's "Partisan" for the record.)

[de52]

Good old Heritage Foundation, when you don't have a defense just say, "Clinton did it first."

How Many Presidents have not replaced all US Attorneys? How many have made changes of this magnitude at this point? But that isn't the argument and you people know it. Then again why talk about real issues when you think you can trot out a Boogeyman every time your side screws up!

The vast majority of Americans aren't listening to your screed anymore, hang onto your 34% if you can.

[BDizzle66]

"Magnitude"? We are talking about a handful of U.S. Attorneys. They are essentially at will employees and the President does not need a reason to fire.

[de52]

US Attorneys like the Attorney General are supposed to be above the political fray. As the news is coming out from DOJ emails and other sources, it appears as most of the firings were because they (the US A's) were not poiliticl enough.

[ryananderson555]

nice look at my videos