Oh it's nothing...Clinton fired 93 of them!

Cancel7

Banned
Well, look at this. Fitzgerald, who is pretty much a legend in NY due to his work on terrorism (he is after all, widely considered an expert on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and drew up the first indictment of Bin laden when no one knew who the hell Bin Laden was) was ranked as "not distinguishing" himself by our so-called "justice" department. This just happened to have occured while he was investigating the Plame leak.

How anyone can continue to support these shit-bags, who put anything and everything over the safety and security of the American people, is beyond me. I seriously consider supporters of this adminstration to be apologists for traitors at this point.

Jesus Christ the whole load of them should be in prison.

Fitzgerald Ranked During Leak Case
Justice Dept. Fired 2 With Same Rating

By Dan Eggen and John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; A01



U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

The chart was the first step in an effort to identify U.S. attorneys who should be removed. Two prosecutors who received the same ranking as Fitzgerald were later fired, documents show.

Fitzgerald's ranking adds another dimension to the prosecutor firings, which began as a White House proposal to remove all 93 U.S. attorneys after the 2004 elections and evolved into the coordinated dismissal of eight last year, a move that has infuriated lawmakers and led to calls for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to resign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031902036_pf.html
 
Actually removing all of them would have been a normal action during a cleanup election year. Many Presidents as they take office, or as they win re-election will do such things.
 
Actually removing all of them would have been a normal action during a cleanup election year. Many Presidents as they take office, or as they win re-election will do such things.

Yes, they do it upon their first election. George W did also. These were his boys.

I don't believe it's been done at the start of the second term though.

But be that as it may, this is clearly something completely different. I've said before, it's common practice to replace the Attorney General upon entering office. Of course. I would do it too. However, if your Attorney General, two years later, starts an investigation that you don't like, and you tell him to end it (obstruction of justice right there, no need to go further), and he says no, and you then fire him...well, impeachment would not be off the table.
 
Had Bush fired all of em... He would have been better off. Instead it looks like he picked 8 that would not be pushed around and fired only them!
 
Had Bush fired all of em... He would have been better off. Instead it looks like he picked 8 that would not be pushed around and fired only them!

Yep. There might have been suspicions, but it would have really been pretty much impossible to wade through all 93 and figure out who they were really targeting.

This was sloppy. They left their fingerprints (not to mention emails) all over it.
 
Yep. There might have been suspicions, but it would have really been pretty much impossible to wade through all 93 and figure out who they were really targeting.

This was sloppy. They left their fingerprints (not to mention emails) all over it.
Ironically, it seems that it's when he's careful to take aim before pulling the trigger that he's most likely to shoot himself in the foot.
 
These people serve 4 year terms. They serve at the discretion of the President. There is NOTHING that says the President cannot replace those he doesn't like/respect/whatever. It is his discretion. Congress then has the power to approve his/her replacements. This is nothing more than partisian bullshit.
 
Phew. Have you ever saved Congress a lot of trouble. I emailed them your post superfreak, and they emailed me back this pesky law

United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

But then they said, hey, as long as this guy Superfreak, posting on a message board, says that there's nothing here and it's all partisan bullshit, we're going to call the whole thing off!

So that's the last you'll be hearing about it. Good work.
 
Phew. Have you ever saved Congress a lot of trouble. I emailed them your post superfreak, and they emailed me back this pesky law

United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.

But then they said, hey, as long as this guy Superfreak, posting on a message board, says that there's nothing here and it's all partisan bullshit, we're going to call the whole thing off!

So that's the last you'll be hearing about it. Good work.

:readit: :tongout:
 
Back
Top