Firing US Attorneys

@bobmnu (8160)
United States
March 14, 2007 6:41am CST
On the news Tuesday was a peice that President Bush discussed firing all the US Attorneys and replacingthem. The media was very upset and ws calling for the resignation of the Attorny General and theDemocratics were going to hold Congressional Hearings aboutit. What disturbed me was no actionwas taken by the Bush Administration except to remove 8 US Attorneys. I have served on the inner circle of several School Districts and very often the Superintendent will come to a meeting with the building administrators and Central Office Administrators, similar to the Presidents Cabinet or the White House Senior members, to discuss a problem. At these meetings we are expected to throw out ALL IDEAS for discussion. I may put forth an idea that I do not agree with just to have it on the table. What you want to do is discuss all possible ideas so that when questioned by the board or others you can say we talked about it and these are the problems or concerns with that idea. This is a healthy discussion and should be encouraged not looked at as somthing evil. The discussion might have come about by some one presenting a concern that the US Attorneys Office was not invesgating and procuting Federal Corruption and Influence Peddling because they were too busy looking into the small time drug dealers to build up thier conviction rate. The drug crimes should be handled by the local Police. One of the people present might respond then fire them all. The discussion would then eventurally come around to lets fire only those who are spendig their time on crimes that local police should be dealing with and lets get rid of those and state that our efforts should be spent looking into corruption that involvedthe Federal Government and Government Contracts. I am afraid what will happen is no one is going to want to float ideas for fear of being fired because the media makesit amajor issue. The media does this every day by meeting to decide what stories to cover and what to ignore and no one wants them fired for covering the wrong story. Should the free flow of ideas be encouraged even if it means that BadIdeas are discussed and dismissed or should we only have one thought be acceptical?
1 person likes this
2 responses
• United States
14 Mar 07
My, my how short our memories are. Less than a year ago there were calls to fire more for alledged not following up on possible voting fraud. During the Clinton years first thing that was done was fire all 93 appointed US attorney generals. Now we get 8 out of 93 that get fired and everyone seems to be up in a roar over it. My thoughts are more than 8 need to get fired. Far to many aren't doing the Dept. of Justice any good anyway. My own experience in recent years , less than a year ago was response from USDJ over a civil rights violation was even though I had a case with merit they didn't have time at the US Attorney Generals office to persure this case.
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
15 Mar 07
You had better check with the New York Times and see if they approved of it. Remember President Bush was praised for cutting funds for the leves in New Orleans before Katrina and the NYT turned around and after Kartina critizedthe President for not approving the money. It is OK for them to change because President Bush is thinking about it
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
14 Mar 07
Somebody correct me if I am wrong... but does anyone remember this sort of uproar when President Clinton fired ALL 93 Prosecutors while there was an active investigation of his close friend and ally?
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
15 Mar 07
You have got it wrong. President Clinton was excersising his Constituntial powers. President Bush is playing politics by discussing the idea. Give Sandy - the burgler - Burger a chance to go back into the arcives and you will find that you are wrong. He will correct the record for history now that we know it was wrong.