Uh Oh, Obama Wanted To Fire US Attorney To Get Own Guy
by Big Dog on Mar 13, 2009 at 18:53 Political
Let me start off by saying that George Bush was well within his right to fire US attorneys and replace them with whom he wanted. They serve at his discretion. I know there are people who claim he fired them for political reasons and that might be true but Clinton fired all of them to get one out who was investigating a Democratic friend. That is as political as it gets. The key point is that the attorneys serve at the discretion of the president, no matter who that president is.
The left went bonkers over the firing of the attorneys by Bush. They are still fighting that battle and calling witnesses in order to determine if the firings were illegal. I imagine there are some instances where firing them would be illegal like if they were homosexual or because of color but lacking very defined things such as those, I can’t imagine that it was illegal to fire people who served at his discretion. That has not stopped the howling from the moonbats. How much howling will they do now?
Barack Obama wanted to replace Catherine Hanaway, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and replace her with St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch. Hanaway is a Republican and McCulloch is a Democrat.
McCulloch turned down the job offer from Obama because he wants to stay where he is. However, this begs the question; will the moonbats investigate Obama over this? Hanaway has done nothing wrong but Obama wanted to fire her and replace her with McCulloch who just happens to be one of the Nazis who wanted to prosecute anyone who spoke out negatively about Obama.
This was obviously politically motivated. It is obvious that this is payback for McCulloch’s support and SS tactics on behalf of The Won. Poor Hanaway is a civil servant trying to do the best job she can and is not accused of any wrong doing. Why would they get rid of her?
I say it is because she serves at the discretion of the president and I will bet the liberals will say the same thing.
But that is not how they felt when it was Bush doing the firing.
Karl Rove is going to testify over the Bush firings. Obama could not have given him a better gift.
SENATOR: Mr. Rove, what gave President Bush the authority to fire these attorneys? Don’t you think that was wrong and what part did you play?
ROVE: I don’t think it was wrong because they serve at his discretion. It was no more wrong than Obama trying to fire Hanaway and replace her with McCulloch which recently happened and I want to thank Barack Obama for doing that. She serves at his discretion and he can replace her if he wants. As for what I had to do with it, I gave my opinion when asked.
Source:
KSDK St. Louis
Big Dog Salute to Stop the ACLU
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: attorney, Bush, firing, moonbats, Obama, politics, rove
The investigation is about more than simply the letting go of the US attorneys in 2006. What is trying to be determined is if the Bush administration was having those attorneys abuse their office by maliciously prosecuting people for political purposes, and at the same time stymieing efforts to investigate corruption withing the administration. It is suspected that the US attorneys were fired for not playing ball.
Well of course that is the claim to continue the investigation. Now that it is all political it will never be clear but they and the attorneys fired can make any claim about why they were fired. Was it political, did they view it as political, who knows?
Bush should have asked all of them for their resignations and then hired back only the ones he wanted to stay. Clinton was smart that way. He fired them all to ensure one would be gone and unable to continue an investigation into a Democrat.
I never heard about investigations and such into that. Oh, Clinton is a Democrat…
Right. The attorneys fired by Bush in 2006 were all Bush appointees. That’s what raised eyebrows. Firing the attorneys in itself was certainly not illegal. It’s the suspicion that they were fired for not participating in illegal activities that is the reason for the questions.
Maybe they were investigating Republicans and he did not like it. No different than what Clinton did. Bush should have fired them all and he would have no problem.
It still boils down to Obama can do anything he darn well pleases, but poor Bush is torn apart about everything, true or not true. I’m waiting to see when the news, etc. are going start tearing Obama and Michele apart. That will probably never happen because they are afraid of him.
I don’t know about the media being afraid of him. It is more like they all get tingles up and down their legs for him or as Bernie Goldberg puts it they have a slobbering love affair with him.
Ok, you lost me. Clinton fired his own appointees? Should Bush have fired ALL of HIS own appointees? What does this have to do with Obama?
Depending upon who you listen to Bush fired them because they would not play political games he wanted, or as the administration maintains, they would not carry out the things he wanted with regard to voter fraud investigations etc.
What I am saying is, if he fired everyone then there could be no claim that he did something wrong or targeted a certain few. Fire them all to get who you want out, that is what Clinton did to keep Rostenkowski from being indicted.
They all belong to the president no matter who it is. Clinton fired all the attorneys and little was said. Bush fired a handful and committed a horrible breach of etiquette.
The media went ga ga when Bush fired people seemingly for political reasons. Obama’s tact was designed to pay back a supporter. That makes it political. Press ignores it.
Just to be clear, the president can fire them for any reason or no reason at all and I am good with that so long as all presidents are given that benefit. In the case of Clinton/Bush/Obama, that would not appear to be the case.
“Depending upon who you listen to Bush fired them because they would not play political games he wanted”
Political games that were quite possibly illegal. If Obama were suspected of firing a US attorney that he himself appointed for not playing illegal political games, I can see where your comparison might work. Obama didn’t and hasn’t fired the US attorney in question though. Only asked if another would be willing to take the position. If Obama fired the republican US attorney in question anyway, only to replace them with who knows, it might look suspicious. I don’t need any clarification on the fact that the firings by the Bush administration weren’t illegal. They were suspicious. Hence the calling for an investigation.