Meirs supoenaed

[red states rule]

Makes sense to me. I mean, why cant the president hire and fire who he wants, that would not make sense to me, if he had to beg congress, for their permission to fire or hire a prosecutor, then nothing would get done.

He can

Dems have invented another non issue to waste time and try to score political points

 

[CockySOB]

Makes sense to me. I mean, why cant the president hire and fire who he wants, that would not make sense to me, if he had to beg congress, for their permission to fire or hire a prosecutor, then nothing would get done.

More to the point, such a requirement would place a portion of the Executive Branch under the direct authority of the Legislative Branch which would violate the Separation of Powers.

POTUS nominates who he wants, but appointment to a full-time position as US Attorney still requires confirmation via Congress. This provides for the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branches in filling vacancies.

That said, POTUS has every bit of the authority necessary to remove one of his US Attorneys at will. The standard practice is to ask the US Attorney to resign, although in some instances the sitting POTUS has deemed it necessary to actually fire the US Attorney (some of 'em just don't want to face the "removal at will" part of the laws governing their post).

What I find truly puzzling is how some people can claim that it's not a political move when an incoming POTUS removes US Attorneys and appoints his own US Attorneys, yet it is somehow political for a sitting POTUS to remove US Attorneys during his tenure in office (especially some he appointed himself!)

Talk about weak moral relativism....

 

[red states rule]

More to the point, such a requirement would place a portion of the Executive Branch under the direct authority of the Legislative Branch which would violate the Separation of Powers.

POTUS nominates who he wants, but appointment to a full-time position as US Attorney still requires confirmation via Congress. This provides for the checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branches in filling vacancies.

That said, POTUS has every bit of the authority necessary to remove one of his US Attorneys at will. The standard practice is to ask the US Attorney to resign, although in some instances the sitting POTUS has deemed it necessary to actually fire the US Attorney (some of 'em just don't want to face the "removal at will" part of the laws governing their post).

What I find truly puzzling is how some people can claim that it's not a political move when an incoming POTUS removes US Attorneys and appoints his own US Attorneys, yet it is somehow political for a sitting POTUS to remove US Attorneys during his tenure in office (especially some he appointed himself!)

Talk about weak moral relativism....

If Dems cannot find a real issue to attack Pres Bush on - they will invent one

 

[Care4all]

Do you have any specific information regarding that testimony? Date and time? I'd like to check CSPAN's archives for it. I don't recall Lam testifying, but I could have missed it.

ADDED: Never mind, I think I found the information. That was when Gonzales showed himself to be either corrupt or inept in from of Congress, wasn't it? Yeah, I think I found it.

Gotta say, if she didn't know that her performance was under review and that the consequence of not pursuing more illegal immigration cases would be a definite removal, then either Gonzales or his assignees were totally inept. But it remains that Lam served at her post as US Attorney at the will of POTUS, and if GWB wanted he gone, she would be gone anyway.

ANOTHER ADD:

I do remember now and your recollection of her testimony is correct.

Thank you for looking in to it, been real busy around home trying to get an overgrown garden tilled, so I haven't been able to be online and respond as quickly as I would have liked.

Yes, the President can fire them at his own discretion, WITHIN the boundaries of the Law.

This is why it caused suspicion when the White House (Justice dept team) came out and said all of the 8 were fired because of not doing their jobs and then later when researched this was NOT TRUE, Gonzalez's team came out and said that, well ok, they were competant, we didn't fire them because they were incompetent, we just fired them.....

But THIS was too late, they already caused the suspicion by lying before Congress regarding the firings. This is why it was pursued. That and the fact that the replacements were not vetted by the Senate....and I think this made them a tad huffy puffy!

I think it was Edward that mentioned several reasons when the Law does NOT permit the President to fire people at will, such as discriminatory reasons.

And TM gave scenarios of when the President can not replace them, like interfering with a case they are working on....expecially if the legal case can hurt the whitehouse itself. That would be a form of obstruction of Justice.

I personally believe that these 8 deserve the right to CLEAR their names from the Bush Administration's disparaging of them.

I think that the Congress should pursue this, to figure out what they were hiding if anything and why they lied before Congress about a simple matter that the President can "just do", (under certain limits)?

And good morning Cocky!

 

[red states rule]

Thank you for looking in to it, been real busy around home trying to get an overgrown garden tilled, so I haven't been able to be online and respond as quickly as I would have liked.

Yes, the President can fire them at his own discretion, WITHIN the boundaries of the Law.

This is why it caused suspicion when the White House (Justice dept team) came out and said all of the 8 were fired because of not doing their jobs and then later when researched this was NOT TRUE, Gonzalez's team came out and said that, well ok, they were competant, we didn't fire them because they were incompetent, we just fired them.....

But THIS was too late, they already caused the suspicion by lying before Congress regarding the firings. This is why it was pursued. That and the fact that the replacements were not vetted by the Senate....and I think this made them a tad huffy puffy!

I think it was Edward that mentioned several reasons when the Law does NOT permit the President to fire people at will, such as discriminatory reasons.

And TM gave scenarios of when the President can not replace them, like interfering with a case they are working on....expecially if the legal case can hurt the whitehouse itself. That would be a form of obstruction of Justice.

I personally believe that these 8 deserve the right to CLEAR their names from the Bush Administration's disparaging of them.

I think that the Congress should pursue this, to figure out what they were hiding if anything and why they lied before Congress about a simple matter that the President can "just do", (under certain limits)?

And good morning Cocky!

Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton fired 96 attorneys?

Oh, Bill was a Dem - pass given, no issue there

 

[Care4all]

Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton fired 96 attorneys?

Oh, Bill was a Dem - pass given, no issue there

Rsr, this HAS BEEN explained a thousand times over but I will do it again for YOU, because I like you!


Attorney generals are appointed by the President, they serve a 4 year term or contract.

When President Clinton became President, The prosecutors that had already served their 4 year term under President ghw bush, and for some strange reason unbenounced to me refused to follow protocol and did not resign? so Clinton fired them and replaced them.

Under President gw bush, the prosecutors from Clinton who had served their 4 years all resigned, so Bush replaced 88 of them and kept 5. I believe with Clinton it was 89 that were replaced by him.


So Clinton replaced 89
And Bush replaced 88

(or something like this)

What's the difference on this? nothing imo.

These 8 that were fired were 8 prosecutors that Bush had already replaced Clintn's prosecutors with, and I am uncertain if they had already completed their 4 year contract, term?

It was OUTSIDE the norm. The replacement of the 93 or 89 of the 93 by Clinton when he first came on board as pres, was considered normal, with the exception of the fact that these prosecutors did not give him their resignation when asked?

And a top of the morning to you also RSR.

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

It was Unpresidented to replace attorneys Midterm like the Bush team did.

That menas folks it had Never been done before.

If this isnt true Please go get the Information which proves that we are incorrect about this?

 

[red states rule]

Rsr, this HAS BEEN explained a thousand times over but I will do it again for YOU, because I like you!


Attorney generals are appointed by the President, they serve a 4 year term or contract.

When President Clinton became President, The prosecutors that had already served their 4 year term under President ghw bush, and for some strange reason unbenounced to me refused to follow protocol and did not resign? so Clinton fired them and replaced them.

Under President gw bush, the prosecutors from Clinton who had served their 4 years all resigned, so Bush replaced 88 of them and kept 5. I believe with Clinton it was 89 that were replaced by him.


So Clinton replaced 89
And Bush replaced 88

(or something like this)

What's the difference on this? nothing imo.

These 8 that were fired were 8 prosecutors that Bush had already replaced Clintn's prosecutors with, and I am uncertain if they had already completed their 4 year contract, term?

It was OUTSIDE the norm. The replacement of the 93 or 89 of the 93 by Clinton when he first came on board as pres, was considered normal, with the exception of the fact that these prosecutors did not give him their resignation when asked?

And a top of the morning to you also RSR.

Care

They do NOT serve four year terms Care - they serve at the pleasure of the President

Much like you serve at the p;easure of your boss. If you do not do your job, you will be fired

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[red states rule]

It was Unpresidented to replace attorneys Midterm like the Bush team did.

That menas folks it had Never been done before.

If this isnt true Please go get the Information which proves that we are incorrect about this?

So?

Pres Bush hired them - he can fire them

 

[mattskramer]

So?

Pres Bush hired them - he can fire them

Yes, but thanks to a little education I received, I understand that congress can vote out people who don’t behave well (the impeachment process). If the firings were too political and unethical, then if enough congressmen want it done, they can remove the employer from office.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, but thanks to a little education I received, I understand that congress can vote out people who don’t behave well (the impeachment process). If the firings were too political and unethical, then if enough congressmen want it done, they can remove the employer from office.

Again, what a shock if you don't do your job the boss fires you

 

[mattskramer]

Again, what a shock if you don't do your job the boss fires you

Yes and you can get fired if you do your job.

 

[red states rule]

Yes and you can get fired if you do your job.

and that is what it happend

No scandal - just a created one by the left

 

[mattskramer]

and that is what it happend

No scandal - just a created one by the left

The attorneys may have been fired for purely political reasons. Perhaps Gonzales had them fired because they were looking into possible bad things done by Republicans and Bush does not like for people to question Republicans. If that is the case, then it seems that Gonzales behaved poorly. Some congressmen might even think that such activity, if it happened, warrants impeachment. Such firings might not be illegal but behavior does not have to be illegal for people to be impeached.

 

[red states rule]

The attorneys may have been fired for purely political reasons. Perhaps Gonzales had them fired because they were looking into possible bad things done by Republicans and Bush does not like for people to question Republicans. If that is the case, then it seems that Gonzales behaved poorly. Some congressmen might even think that such activity, if it happened, warrants impeachment. Such firings might not be illegal but behavior does not have to be illegal for people to be impeached.

Any proof yet

No

That is why the Dems must keep the hearings going - they have to find something - real or not

 

[Avatar4321]

come on Gunny you know facts have a liberal bias.

I have already shown you how this has never been done before.

Now I could go through every firing and present the facts to you but you would just say it wasnt facts and it menas nothing.

It becomes very tiring to hear Nu uh and an arguement.

I know you guys get very creative in the ways you say it but in the end that is all it is.

If facts had a liberal bias, you would think you guys would actually cite them sometimes.

You're right its never been done. no one has ever questioned the Presidents power to appoint and fire employees that serve at his pleasure.

 

[Edward]

Where was the liberal outrage when Clinton fired 96 attorneys?

Oh, Bill was a Dem - pass given, no issue there

There wasn't any outrage because it was a tradition for incoming Presidents to remove U.S. Attorney's and replace them with new ones. When something is a tradition then there is no reason to single out Bill Clinton for doing what others have done in the past and what George Bush did when he assumed the Presidency. The liberal outrage was lacking both when Clinton removed the U.S. Attorney's and appointed new ones and when Bush did so when he assumed the Presidency. Liberals didn't feign outrage that Bush removed the sitting U.S. Attorney's and replaced them with Bush appointees because it was tradition for new Presidents to do so. I find it interesting that you bring up the lack of liberal outrage over what Clinton did but fail to mention that the outrage was lacking when Bush did the same thing. This issue is different because Bush isn't a new President and he isn't simply removing the U.S. Attorney's of a previous administration.

 

[Edward]

They do NOT serve four year terms Care - they serve at the pleasure of the President

WTF? Are you really this fucking ignorant? The U.S. Code states in no uncertain terms, "Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies." That you are so ignorant that you did not even know this and then makes a point to Care that he is wrong on something that he is actually correct about proves you are truly ignorant. If you are going to make such claims you should at least have the intelligence to know that they are correct but apparently you lack that intelligence. Now to the issue of the U.S. Attorney's serving at the pleasure of the President. This isn't true. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law that grants the President this authority. The only support for your position that they serve at his pleasure is the law that states, "Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."

The problem with your argument that they serve at his pleasure is that this isn't an authority of the President but an authority of Congress which is delegated to the President by law. He doesn't appoint U.S. Attorney's instead he nominates or in other words recommends to the Senate those who would be appointed or in other words hired by the Senate. The Congress is the only department of government with the constitutional right to appoint and remove U.S. Attorney's while the President possesses the right to nominate them. The right to remove them is a delegated Congressional authority and it does have its limits and there is no law that says that this right to remove them is for any reason instead the law states otherwise and even protects the Attorney General from being removed in certain circumstances (i.e., he is black).

Much like you serve at the p;easure of your boss. If you do not do your job, you will be fired

The only problem with that is that Bush isn't their boss, instead the American people are their boss and I know that you and Bush both think it is HIS government but it isn't instead shocking enough it is "OUR" government and they work for us and we are their boss and not Bush. Bush only exercises the authority he does to remove U.S. Attorney's because Congress has chosen to delegate this general right to him.

SHOCKER!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right, it is a shocker to learn how stupid and ignorant you really are of the Constitution and law but I already suspected as much or in other words I suspected you talked out of your ass.

 

[Edward]

So?

Pres Bush hired them - he can fire them

The only problem with your assertion is that Bush didn't hire them instead he interviewed them and recommended their names to the Congress who hired them. Neither the Constitution nor the law gives the President the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's for any reason he sees fit. In fact, it doesn't give him this authority at all and it is only by an act of Congress that he holds the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's. If his decision or the decision of the Attorney General or others is in violation of the law or if Congress deems the action inappropriate they can take action including changing the law itself. U.S. Attorney's have clear duties to perform as laid out in statute and their responsibilities are clearly set forth and they answer to the law and not to the President and their duties are not capricious or otherwise arbitrary. They act as federal prosecutors and their duties are similar to that of local and state prosecutors and Attorneys General. You need to provide some evidence for your claim that they serve at the pleasure of the President other than that the President can remove them but Congress can do so too so do they serve at the pleasure of Congress? I don't think so because even Congress must abide by the law and by the Constitution just like the President does.

 

[Edward]

The attorneys may have been fired for purely political reasons.

Neither the Constitution nor the law grants the President the authority to fire U.S. Attorney's for political reasons. This isn't to say that he cannot but the President's actions are still under review. Also, the question would be one of whether the President was the one who ordered the removal of these U.S. Attorney's or if the Attorney General or some other person made the decision to remove them and if that is the case it was a violation of the law for the Attorney General or one of his staff to do so. It would be interesting to see whether the President signed any document that terminated them because if he did not then it is questionable whether the terminations were legal.

Perhaps Gonzales had them fired because they were looking into possible bad things done by Republicans and Bush does not like for people to question Republicans. If that is the case, then it seems that Gonzales behaved poorly.

If Gonzales fired them than he broke the law as he doesn't by statute have the authority to remove U.S. Attorney's. So, if Gonzales did so and Bush did not directly sign an order terminating their service than Gonzales acted outside of the the law. I have not been privy to how the decision was made or who made it but if the President didn't make it than anyone who did broke the law since only he has the authority under statute to remove U.S. Attorney's.

Some congressmen might even think that such activity, if it happened, warrants impeachment. Such firings might not be illegal but behavior does not have to be illegal for people to be impeached.

The Constitution is clear that all civil officers including the President can be impeached for misconduct and I am inclined to believe that this took place but the question is whether Congress would want to impeach but I am more inclined to believe that they will if it comes out that the President didn't make the decision to terminate the U.S. Attorney's and that the Attorney General's office acted outside of its legal and constitutional authority.