Attorneys were fired for more than president’s displeasure
Ron Jones recently wrote a letter about the fired U.S. attorneys. Here’s my response:
Yes, Mr. Jones, the U.S. attorneys serve “at the president’s pleasure,” and he needs no excuse nor reason to replace them. However, when asked by the press why the U.S. attorneys were replaced, instead of simply stating the “president’s pleasure” line, like all presidents before him, his simpleton talking-heads felt the need to disparage these U.S. attorneys by stating, in the national press, that they were replaced because they were incompetent. Would you stand by and allow your employer to do that to you, Mr. Jones? Once they did that, they crossed the line and opened themselves up to all the legal scrutiny that has ensued. The “president’s pleasure” does not extend to slander. These men have every right to defend their reputation and honor, and tell what they believe to be the truth, which is that they were replaced because they refused the president’s direct orders to break the law by committing prosecutorial misconduct in manufacturing criminal cases against people the president didn’t like and wanted out of the way. The Bush administration has always considered themselves above the law, and have, in my opinion, spit on the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. It didn’t work for Nixon, and let us hope this equally criminal administration doesn’t get away with it, either.
Ramona Burden
O’Fallon, Missouri
Harumph! Harumph!
Bush, like McCain, is too ignorant to be President!
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/08/04/15-reasons-john-mccain-is-too-ignorant-to-be-president/
Karl Rove started the spin with a “Clinton did it too” defense. Or you could call it the “two wrongs make a right” defense.
Timbo, like John Edward is to ignorant to post comments.
Congratulations Ramona,
You get it! With everyone else comparing the results (Bush fired eight, Clinton fired ninety-three), you have managed to get to the real point. Any president has the authority and the privilege to dismiss any or all US attorneys, because they serve “at the president’s pleasure,” the same as most Missouri employees can be fired for almost any reason at all by their employers, because Missouri is an “employment at will” state. However a certain protocol must be followed in both cases. The Missouri employer can say he fired the employee because he wore shirts and slacks that clashed, he took my favorite parking space, he had bad breath… just about any reason is acceptable. The employer may NOT say he fired the employee because he was black, Jewish, gay, a woman… Likewise a president may dismiss the US attorneys because the no longer pleased him. However, if he says they were fired for incompetence, the claim must be backed up with facts, so as not to besmirch the reputations of the attorneys. You can say the attorney is a louse, but not an incompetent louse. Bush administration members admitted candidly, yet astonishingly publicly, the attorneys were fired for not pursuing key Democratic targets. That was the Bush administration’s example of incompetence.
Here we have another left wing idiot in Burden who doesn’t know anything about history. President Bush did not put himself above the law moron when every president has done I don’t hear you libs say that about Clinton. That’s right, Cltinon did the sam,e thing when he fired all 93 attorneys. So shut up already.
You shut up too Hogan and that goes for the rest of you hypocrits. The jackass is the perfect symbol for your party because that is exactly what liberals are, two-faced idiots.
Screw you on Commander Barkass, where is the criticism of Bill Clinton on this?