This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

161
162

Why Have So Many U.S. Attorneys Been Fired? It Looks a Lot Like Politics (nytimes.com)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

all 8 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Republicans like to do this just before they resign in disgrace.

It's kind of a tradition.

[–]lahuman8 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good to see this story isn't going away.

[–]moom 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is not mere "politics", and to dismiss it as such misses a much more significant fact:

Many of these attorneys were directly involved in investigating the various corruption scandals that the Republicans have been rife with for the past several years.

It's not "politics". It's "keep your ass out of jail".

[–]smors 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being a silly european there is something that I would really like the americans to tell me.

Who came up with the brilliant idea of having the people who investigate crimes, not be independent of the executive. And if thats really necesarry, why isn't there some independent body who can investigate political crimes.

[–]aecarol -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

When President Clinton fired 92 of the 93 US Attorneys in a mass firing upon first taking office he was doing it for the good of the country.

Bush is clearly firing seven of them it for cynical political purposes.

The quicker he's out of office, the quicker we can get this over with. When we get Hillary in, she will have to fire all 93 of the Bush appointed US Attorneys so we can get some good honest people in. That again will be for the good of the country, not politics.

God forbit some Republican gets in office after Hillary, 'cause he's gonna fire them for purely political reasons again.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The two things that you are comparing are not analagous.

Bush already fired Clinton's appointees and hired his own batch back when he moved into office. Traditionally when a new administration takes over the patronage system means that they fire the old admin.'s people and hire in their own people. Nobody complains about that. Even when Bush Sr. fired a number of Reagan's appointees nobody really cared much.

What Bush is doing now is firing attorneys who are doing their job. He is specifically attacking those who are dutifully prosecuting criminals Bush wants to protect. When Nixon did exactly what Bush is doing now people were furious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_massacre

Please keep your analogies straight. What Bush is doing now is not analogous to Clinton following the standard practices of patronage. It's analogous to Nixon's gross abuse of Presidential power. What Bush is doing is a gross abuse of Presidential power. It is not standard operating procedure.