House sues ex-White House staffers

[CrimsonWhite]

MOre Golem bullshit.

The right screamed at the left when they were in control about filibustering. Now go look and see how many times they have filibustered since they lost control.

Please don't make your side the one of the gods. The right would do the same shit if it were reversed.

Thus is the nature of US politics.

 

[Dr Grump]

Thus is the nature of US politics.

And why your system is broke. Why oh why are you guys even making this a left and right issue. This is a right and wrong issue. There is no way in the world:
1) Your attorneys should be political appointments
2) The president should have so much power to do such a thing - whether it be Clinton or Bush.

 

[jillian]

That is what the law says. Ask Clinton his reasonings for firing "ALL" of his US Attorneys.

He fired all of them because traditionally, all US Attorneys hand in their resignations to the incoming president. In Clinton's case, they weren't handed in, so he had to fire them.

Like anything else, you can fire them for any reason, or no reason at all.. but not for an illegal reason. Firing a US Attorney because he/she wouldn't misuse his position to advance the GOP's political agenda is an illegal reason.

 

[Dr Grump]

He fired all of them because traditionally, all US Attorneys hand in their resignations to the incoming president. In Clinton's case, they weren't handed in, so he had to fire them.

I would be interested to know if the above was a precedent (ie: was that the first time the US attorneys had NOT resigned, or had it happened before too?)

 

[CrimsonWhite]

He fired all of them because traditionally, all US Attorneys hand in their resignations to the incoming president. In Clinton's case, they weren't handed in, so he had to fire them.

Like anything else, you can fire them for any reason, or no reason at all.. but not for an illegal reason. Firing a US Attorney because he/she wouldn't misuse his position to advance the GOP's political agenda is an illegal reason.

So Clinton had to fire them because of tradition or the to follow tradition? Bush's reason is just as valid. You and I agree on alot of things, but don't get where you are coming from here. By your argument, failure to prosecute s not a valid reason to fire a prosecutor, but you fire them if they didn't quit? Come on. By the US Code, the President has sole discretion on their dismissal. That is the only issue here. The reasons are not important.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And why your system is broke. Why oh why are you guys even making this a left and right issue. This is a right and wrong issue. There is no way in the world:
1) Your attorneys should be political appointments
2) The president should have so much power to do such a thing - whether it be Clinton or Bush.

You and several others are making HUGE assumptions that simply are NOT TRUE. A specific Attorney does not mean much anyway, except as a face and name to point to. NONE of the staff, none of the clerks, none of the investigators and none of the law enforcement people in the Justice Department are political appointtees. The reason no one made a big stink when Clinton FIRED attorneys days before they were to rule on bring suit or charges against democrats was because the INFORMATION was all in the offices, the new guy whether a temp appointment or permanent would have the same staff and clerks and investigators and the same case files, briefs and decision.Just as the supposed charge that removing these 8 attorneys changed anything is true. It meant nothing and STILL means nothing. It is simply a game the democrats play to divert attention and try to drum up scandel where there is NONE.

Go ahead, provide an example of a case brought because one of these attorneys was fired that wouldn't have been brought, or a case that was NOT brought because one of these attorneys was removed.

They are POLITICAL positions. ALWAYS have been and ALWAYS will be. If the dems had any real charges they wouldn't need to play the games they are now. Each of the 8 Attorneys 4 year term was up and they were due to be either replaced or kept on. They were not kept. It is really that simple. In fact the suggestion originally was to replace all the Attorneys across the board. That was not approved by the President. Instead only 8 were replaced.... completely within the scope and power of the law and the rights and powers of the President and his appointees.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He fired all of them because traditionally, all US Attorneys hand in their resignations to the incoming president. In Clinton's case, they weren't handed in, so he had to fire them.

Like anything else, you can fire them for any reason, or no reason at all.. but not for an illegal reason. Firing a US Attorney because he/she wouldn't misuse his position to advance the GOP's political agenda is an illegal reason.

Which did not happen, each of the 8 attorneys had completed their 4 year assignment and were replaced. Simple as that.

There is NO evidence to suggest other wise. Further there is NO evidence to suggest their removal caused cases to be brought illegally or for cases not to be brought that would have been brought.