Join The Debate!

Doubly Wrong

Since 1980 there have only been 10 US Attorneys replaced. That's a fact. The reasons in those past examples were mostly uncontroversial--including cases where one USA attempted to strangled a TV news reporter after a tough day in court.

These 8 firings ARE unprecedented. There have never been mid-term firings like this.

It's possible that there are legitimate reasonings for the firings, but this administration has not provided any evidence. We got a 3,000 page document dump from the DOJ which states reasons for why these people MIGHT have been fired. But none of these documents from before Dec. 7th say: "We are going to fire these attorneys for these reasons. Here is the standard that we have applied." We haven't heard straight answers from one of the principals Gonzales. In fact, he lied when he was in front of Congress. The White House Counsel was also involved, but she hasn't said anything yet.

The fact is that at least 4 of these attorneys--Bogden in Nevada, Charlton in Arizona, and Cummins in Arkansas were involved in investigating public corruption scandals. The one in San Diego involving Carol Lam involved a major corruption scandal. The circumstances for these firings are highly unusual. So it's fair to ask for the reasons and the evidence.

This idea that this is some "lib" idea is nonsense. If a person is a conservative, or at least THINKS he or she is a conservative then you tend to get a little ticked off when your representatives or your president start screwing around with the Constitution.

Our first House of Representatives spent 4 days debating ONE sentence in a law concerning the president's authority, because they took their jobs seriously (concerning the creation of the Dept. of Foreign Affairs and whether the president had the right to fire subordinates). This past Senate jettisoned a provision of the law that had been in place for over 200 years without any debate. That's just wrong.

Perhaps you haven't read Alexander Hamilton. But I'd recommend that you check out Federalist #76. Maybe you'll understand why it's kind of important for the Senate to have an "advice and consent" role in some federal executive appointees. It just defies reason to appoint a bunch of amateur attorneys with limited to no prosecutorial experience as this administration has without Senate approval using this emergency appointment authority. There was a case just past week where some amateur attorney cost U.S. taxpayers over 100 million dollars in a D.C. District Court decision because his office didn't apply the appropriate law to a complaint. That is NOT serving the public interest in my view.

In another two years we may have a Democrat as a president, and I don't want that president to have unchecked authorities to do whatever he or she wants with may tax dollars and my country's Constitution.

These are big issue that we are dealing with. And it ticks me off that so many people, who think they're Conservative, seems so incredibly clueless about these issues.

As far as a "perjury trap" goes this is nonsense. If a person is under oath you tell the truth. It's not that complicated. Clinton lied about sex and was censured. That was appropriate. Libby lied about a case involving a CIA operative, and a jury of his peers found him guilty. That's how our legal system works. When you're under oath you don't lie. Not complicated.