Heritage In Focus: Showdown Over U.S. Attorneys

Brian Darling talks about the President's choice to hire or fire U.S. Attorneys.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Heritage
• Foundation
• Focus
• Brian
• Darling
• Molly
• Stark
• 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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[BDizzle66]

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