Now let me get this straight. Unless you have a contract of employment, you work at the pleasure of the boss, right? So where is the problem. If you're not doing the job the way the boss wants it done, you get fired.
Lets forget the fact the Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys as soon as he took office for what remains as "undisclosed reasons". I don't remember Congress making an issue then like they are now.
I just don't get it. Wait, I know why.
It's because it was done by George Bush.
How silly of me to forget.

Karl Rove, aka "The Blossom", certainly is the personification of everything the Bush Administration stands for and will be remembered for.

To "ME"...you obviously have not watched the hearings, or kept yourself informed. These firings were not about "serving at the pleasure of the President". In each case, which is documented if you take the time to actually read and not just listen to Rush or Fox News, each of these AG's were let go for a) not prosecuting alleged voter fraud cases prior to the election (which their manual prevents them from doing) or b) were involved in a prosecutions for Republican law makers, i.e. Duke Cunningham. It's obvious what went on here, but you sadly are so loyal to a party and not your country, or our Constitution that you can't see it.

It is typical, perhaps even traditional for ALL 93 US Attorneys to resign or be summarily terminated at the start of a new presidency - this is indeed a political office held at the pleasure of the Pres.
Usually some of these are rehired and some are replaced directly - at the beginning of the term. For example, Clinton replaced 80 of 93, Reagan 71 of 93.
What is NOT typical is for the White House to fire attorneys that IT hired in mid-term, and to have this purging coordinated by the White House political office, as a opposed to changes at the AG's office.
Also complicating the situation is the Patriot Act, which gave the AG's office more clout in hiring and firing than even the President, and cut Congress out of the loop.
I think this issue is deeper than most of us (and our superficial media) have an ability to track and be aware of. Ultimately, I think this is a balance of power dispute - Congress sees itself getting cut out of more and more crucial decision making.

Do you remember how many Clinton hired back or doesn't that matter.
How about it's standard practice when a new Party takes over.

Hi Me. Thanks for joining us. I am sorry to hear that you have a hard time understanding the problem.

You see, for over 200 years, the Justice Department has refrained from using political motivations in determining who to charge with crimes. Unfortunately, under George Bush, this has become standard practice, to the extent that US attorneys who were insufficiently political in their prosecution decisions were fired.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Silly Me.

I think you've got is mostly right; The President is free to hire and fire US Attorneys, but he is not free to influence ongoing or potential prosecutions.

So say, Alberto Gonzales calls a US Attorney in San Diego and says "Back off your investigation of Congressman Cunningham or I'm gonna fire you", that would be "obstruction of Justice" which is a felony.

This issue becomes even cloudier if the order to prosecute or not prosecute comes from a political party that is accepting contributions from a person or entity under investigation or otherwise has a "dog in the fight". i.e., Senator Domenici (R) New Mexico, who was in a reelection campaign calls the US Attorney and demands that he open an (unfounded)public corruption investigation against his opponent two weeks before the election. And when the US Attorney tells the Senator that there is no evidence to support the charges, Domenici calls Karl Rove, who calls Alberto Gonzales, who threatens to fire the NM US Attorney unless he opens the public investigation (which he didn't, and he was fired for it). It's not really obstruction of justice because it didn't seek to end an ongoing investigation into a real crime. But it certainly would be considered unethical behavior on the part of both Rove and Gonzales (both lawyers who should know better).

Good point though. Just hiring and firing without trying to influence ongoing cases is legal and expected of the President.

The issue is not really the firings, but the fact that the AG either rpeatedly lied to Congress,or revealed himself to be an out of touch dimwit. If the AG had simply come clean from the outset, this issue would have died a long time ago. Instead, the AG lied, feigned ignorance and put the Senate Judiciary Committee in the position where it had to continue to investigate this issue. This is no longer partisian. Senators from both parties have come out and said that Gonzales lied and ought to quit. He should because it is clear he is not up to the job.

Are we talking about the attorney firings that happened when Bill Clinton came into office and fired every single US attorney? Is that the 'scandal' we are talking about here?

Let me set you straight. The President is the head of the executive branch. As such he can fire anybody he wants anytime he wants for whatever reason he wants within that branch of government. That is his constitutional right. The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It does not answer to congress or the supreme court directly. It answers to the President of the United States. It just so happens that said President is George Bush. Therefore, George Bush can fire whatever attorneys he wants to. And you all here at 'the blotter' know that.

When ever Cheney's corruption is brought to light , Bill Clinton will be the Bush's neocon battle cry forever. Anyone that covers their eyes on the BS , corruption , deceit and destruction of our nation as this administration has and continuals to do just doesn't give a d....
They are either unconcern with our constitution and laws or they ready fall in the same bucket as this administrations and don't give a d... and believe the constitution is nothing but a ....... piece of paper and stands in their way of control and power.
The current acitons from this administration shows how a government can change a democracy into whatever it wishes with the use of fear , lies , propaganda and control of the news media.
Our forefather could forsee the problems we face today and had checks and balances (impeachement). They never thought the House of Representatives would be scared to inforce it and the news media would be dominated by a political party where they suppress and twist the news they report....

Hate to break the news to MB... no I don't, really I don't....... you are lost. Wait for it. You're gonna love it. Oh. No you won't. Oh. I don't care. But I can wait.

I see the chicken hawks are still pulling out the canard that Clinton fired 93 prosecutors.

I can't tell if the chickadees are willfully ignorant or just stupid.

Bush boy also fired the 93 prosecutors and THEN later fired his own guys later who were investigating republicans or refused to trump up investigations on democrats.

Your talking points aren't working. Try again with a little less b.s.

The story on the surface is that federal attorneys were fired for political reasons. The story beneath the surface is that the attorneys selected for termination were investigating highly explosive matters pertaining to Bush administration criminality, including complicity in 9/11.

FLASHBACK:

Bush/Gonzales fired 9 out of 93 federal prosecutors.

Clinton/Reno fired 93 out of 93 federal prosecutors.

What Bush did is completely different from Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and all the others. Presidents nearly always lay off the attorneys when they come in. You are correct there. But this is about firing attorneys before their terms were up. Know how often that happens?

From about 1981-2005, only FIVE attorneys got fired before the end of their terms. One of 'em bit a stripper. One leaked information. You get the picture. The people pushing the "they all did it" argument know better, or they don't read enough.

Again: 9 fired by Bush mid-term
5 fired by all other presidents in the 25 years prior to this incident. Turn off the radio and pick up a book.

Bush fired 93 when he assumed the Residency.
Larry

I remember Watergate and was involved in the impeachment movement against Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice, and using the FBI and the justice system for his own political ends. Bush's actions with the fired attorneys, corrupt AG and overall contempt shown to Congress shows he has a lot to hide. Or, he really believes he is above the law.

I never thought I would miss Richard Nixon. Compared to George W. Bush, he was a great president. At least he had an IQ over 92, and did not believe himself to be the agent of God. He also did not work so blatently against all the interests of the American middle class.

If Bush & Cheney and Gonzales are not impeached (they need to be to save our constitution), the balance of powers will be forever destroyed and it will be the end of our republic. It is up to we, the people, to let our representatives know what we expect of them. It is now or never.

The U.S. Attorney office firings by Gonzales/Bush were instituted to impact elections. There were two geneeral issues: 1. Prosecution of elected officials based on party affiliation and 2. Prosecution of "voter fraud" cases. The first is obvious-- selective prosecution of office holders of the opposing party undercuts the purpose of U.S. Attorneys. The "voter fraud" issue is a little less obvious, but actually far more insidious. The voter fraud cases were instituted with the little or no evidence. The shameful purpose of the voter fraud cases was to selectively intimidate and disenfrachise minority voters.

I think that deserves impeachment.

Bush fired 93 prosecutors in 2001 when he came to office - he fired all the ones appointed by Clinton. IN 2006 he fired 9 or more that he had hired to replace those he fired in 2001.

Those he fired were not cooperating by prosecuting "voter fraud" or by prosecuting republicans. Clearly, they had to go. Clinton had competent people and didn't engage in using our prosecutors as political henchmen.

Note to "Me" and any others out there who believe what they have been told uncritically. Most presidents since Eisenhower have requested and received the resignations of all US Attorneys, and in fact, all cabinet Secretaries, and many others, at the beginning of a new administration. So did President G. W. Bush. Check it out. He did. Seriously. The question is simply why these 9 (or more) at this time, midway through his last term. "Why" is the question, not 'could'.

All these Bush traitors sicken me. They should be thrown out of the country along with Bush himself. Politics isn't a game. People live and die by these policies. At this point, with all the information available, they're either with America, or their with Bush.

It is obvious that no one in the Bush administartion believes in the Constitution or the American system of justice. They have refused to testify before congress or even to appear. They send "suspected terrorists" to other countries to be tortured in order to avoid United States Law. They should all have their citizenship revoked. They obviously believe in some kind of dictatorship where democracy and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does not exist. Ship 'em out. As they used to say to me "America. Love it or Leave It". I am the patriot. They are traitors.

It's not just bad because Bush did it. Bush didn't do it. Rove did it, and he did it to fix elections. That's why it's a big issue, and that's why they are willing to lie to Congress about it. Rove wanted election year prosecutions of Democrats, whether the cases legally held water or not. I believe the term for that is 'Abuse of Office'.

Some folks ask why the Democrats keep hammering away on this, but I ask, why doesn't Gonzalez just tell the darn truth? If memory failure is such a problem for him, how is he qualified to do his job? If I had an employee who was that forgetful when questioned, he wouldn't last long.

i believe that Gonzalez is guilty of contempt of Congress, and that he has disgraced the Dept. of Justice, by showing the world that a bozo is in charge of it.

We turn purple with rage and sputter helplessly at each example of the Bush regime's defiance of the Constitution, the Congress, the will of the people -- whatever. Fact is, the creeps running the show do as they please, with impunity, because the Democrats are about as effective against Bush & Co, as a spitball against a bulldozer. The reason for the mess we are in isis not only the result of the machinations of this horrendous regime but also of our alleged Democratic leaders, the most ineffectual bunch of politicos I have ever experienced (and it's been a long life). These guys need a massive infusion of plain, old-fashioned guts and courage and a swift kick in the pants. But don't hold your breath: they ain't gonna do nothin', folks, while the rest of us, let's face it, lack the will to deliver that kick. (Seen any mass popular demonstrations in DC lately?) Looks like all we will be doing from now until January, 2009, is whining.
Captain Midnight

Said it once - I'll say it again.

Any American who would prefer to live / speak / vote freely, must read Mein Komph.

Rove was no Genius - he had read the book and followed the instructions, verbatim, as outlined by a sociopath who led his Nation to destruction. Control of the Judiciary is covered as a key component to leverage. This is nothing new, please educate yourselves.

Back up to ME on top of this page:

Mister ME: ALL incoming Presidents 'fire' the US Atty's. It is a normal, political succession (Check WIKI and beyond! Try the footnotes...)

BUT RARELY have US Presidents fired US Atty's AFTER a mid-term election, and RARELY because of 'political reasons': they're of their same party, for louding outcry!

Alors, so think a bit, study a bit, and then traipse in here with your RepubliCAN apologistas...

ZENmud

I am amazed that folks posting here are trying to reason with a Republican.

The Bush supporters here don't care what is true, what's good for the country or the Constitution, what's traditional, what's reasonable, what's legal, what's moral, or what's ethical.

They care about Republican - nothing else!

Dear, as you call yourself, me:

Thank you for the digest of the bestest talking points of Rush and FOX all in one. All presidents, at least modern ones, have accepted the resignations of US Attorneys at the beginning of their terms. Apart from that, the only ones fired have been those caught doing something improper, like biting a reporter -- Clinton fired him, with no protests from anyone.

This is different. Are you not aware that there was an insertion of a special little clause into the Patriot Act renewal that allowed US Attorneys to be fired and their successors not confirmed by the Senate? That was the first tipoff that something very unusual was going on. Then, the attorneys that were being let go were among the most competent, like Carol Lam, whose investigation of Duke Cunningham's bribers led to a search of Dusty Foggo, once the third man in charge of the CIA.

The consistent pattern that emerges is that these attorneys were being fired because they were doing their jobs in a non-partisan way, and especially in time for the 2008 elections, it seems like Rove, at least, wanted to do a number of "investigations" that would play out just before the 2008 elections. Just in time to influence voters and keep others away from the polls.

Dear ZENmud. I'm afraid you're right. They get the points, memorize them, get them repeated to each other , and then spout them off in public, over and over. But no, you say, trying to reason with them, the Constitution says this, the evidence says this is different. And without a pause, you get the "Clinton fired the 93, blah, blah." It's like trying to reason with a wombat. Really pointless. They're hooked on a drug.

Any others? Sure there were.

The US Attorney from Guam investigating a man named Jack Abramoff was not just fired, but replaced by a cousin of one of the targets of his investigation.

If I am sitting here knowing this, why doesn't ABC seem to have a clue ?

Why didn't ABC care when it happened?

A number of comments above feature the
"Clinton did it too" trope. I have a standard answer to this:

"I'll be more than happy to hang Clinton along with Bush and Cheney."

If Bush fired US attys because they were investigating republicans he is guilty of obstruction of justice. This is supposed to be a felony, last I heard. If he fired them for refusing to start politically motivated prosecutions of democrats then it is perfectly reasonable for me and others to consider this to be unacceptable and sufficient reason of impeachment.

For their own good, the "Clinton did it too" crowd needs to answer these questions:

What would you have said if Clinton had fired US attys for prosecuting democrats or for refusing to start prosecutions of repubs? What would you have said if members of his administration pleaded the 5th or claimed executive privilege or refused to answer subpoenas generated by this issue?

An honest answer to these questions leaves you in ruins.

How many comments on this article are devoted to trying to convince some Bush loyalist that revisionism and propaganda are not the same as reality and truth? This is a perfect summary of what our national dialog has degenerated into.

'Me' says, "Lets forget the fact the Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys as soon as he took office for what remains as "undisclosed reasons". I don't remember Congress making an issue then like they are now."

Now come on, Me! You know that this is common practice when a new president takes office. These firings did NOT occur when Bush was a new president, but during his SECOND term. There IS a difference, NO? Aren't you being just a bit disingenuous?

And since when is it okay to use the justice department for political purposes? Will we ever know what really happened, though we may have suspicions? And are you an American or a Republican? Do you support the constitution or your party? There IS a difference! NO? (If people raising questions about war can be labeled 'traitors' and 'terrorists,' perhpas it's time to start using similar labels for the apologists out there?!!

It's too bad Bush doesn't jump off a cliff, because of he did 25% of this country who still support his nefarious ways would jump with him, and we'd be far the better for it.
Reasoning with a Republican is like trying to reason with a broken record, they just go round and round with the same old song.
That_SOB

Bush and Cheney should be in prison awaiting sentencing for treason, war crimes, torture, murder, violations of the U.S. Constitution, and lying the country into an illegal war.

Bottom line: if any other President was proven to have forced USA's to base their charging decisions on what is best for the party rather than the Country, he/she would have been impeached that afternoon. We are governed by liars, cowards, and ill-tempered people who care nothing about the Nation they supposedly serve. That is as un-American as it gets.

Someone told me yesterday that the only reason impeachment isn't back on the table is because Nancy Pelosi doesn't want the job of Pres... doesn't want to jump into such a hellhole right now. Ya think?

Larry - let's put this is terms you might understand. Let's say President Hilary Clinton appoints a federal prosecutor. During her term, Chelsea, her daughter, is arrested on terrorism charges. Hilary fires the prosecutor and appoints one who immediately drops the charges against her daughter. Is this legal? Would you still be arguing that the President has total authority to hire and fire prosecutors?
The point being that while the President has the right to appoint prosecutors this right is not absolute. The privilege can not be used to commit a crime like obstructing justice. The same principle applies to executive privilege. The courts have upheld the President's right to executive privilege but the forced Nixon to turn over the tapes because there was evidence that a crime had been committed. No one, not even a President is above the law and they can not obstruct justice.

I wish people would open your eyes and stop listening to propoganda broadcast like Rush Bimbo And False News.

So, the White House is signaling to Congress, "Don’t bother with contempt citations. You’re not going anywhere. We control the judges; we control the prosecutors; and we control the Department of Justice."

Those who argue that calling the Busheviks totalitarian is extremist haven’t yet awakened to the radical anti-Constitutional actions of the White House.

The only remedy for the obstruction of justice on such a grand scale is impeachment.

Otherwise, Congress will continue to be rendered impotent at every turn because the Busheviks control the federal justice system.

Sean anomie touched on it, here's a bit more clarity:

If, as ME and the other Bush-suckers have said, Bush has the right to fire these guys (and gals), then WHY HAVE HE AND HIS THUGS SO STEADFASTLY ASSERTED THAT HE DIDN'T FIRE THEM?

If the USA's serve at the pleasure of the Preznit, and he can fire them any time he wishes, then why did someone else fire them?

Bush has said repeatedly that he had nothing to do with the firings. So someone has taken the power of the preznit unto themselves, is the only other explanation. Someone, who refuses to ID themselves, has violated the US Constitution and numerous laws and statutes, and taken on a power that is given only to the Preznit.

Either that, or...Bush LIED.

Now which is it, ?

Never mind, I don't want your poor little Rush-listening heads to explode, so we who know the answer will just go on knowing it.

And Stephen: it's Mein Kampf, and you're right, Rove has been using it as his playbook for at least 20 YEARS.

But nooooo, we must never acknowledge what every educated person in the country already knows:

Oops...one fewer. Karl Rove has resigned.

Our founding fathers gave us a remedy for the crisis we now find ourselves in. It's called IMPEACHMENT. Yes, the attorney's do serve at the "pleasure of the president", but when you appoint all of these attorney's and then a few years later decide to fire them because they have been doing their jobs, it makes people wonder. We all know the evil of Karl Rove and how secretive this administration is. Bush has continued to use executive privilege to hide his crimes. Gonzo has been less than forthcoming and has lied under oath to congress. What amazes people is that congress will not get a backbone and impeach him. He is inept and does soley what his boss asks of him, not what his responsiblites to the American people are. He has lied under oath to cover the crimes of this administration that he gave the go ahead to do. (the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Illegal Spying on Americans have all been with the blessing of the Justice Dept and Gonzo) He has violated his oath of office. They all have and deserve nothing less than impeachment. We are in a Constitutional crisis in this country which the likes of have never been seen in our short history. People need to wake up to this fact. Stop being so gullible. Shut off the idiot box and Fox noise and do some research on your own.

Mark-NC you are so right, but they just don't want to understand.
These 9 attorneys were the only ones ever fired whose replacements did not get Congressional approval.
Apples meet oranges.

This is very simple, if your boss or his boss tells you to commit a crime and you refuse to, you are in the right just like these US Attorneys. If your boss or his boss fires you for not committing that crime such as Bush and Gonzo did to these attorneys, the bosses are not only wrong but they have violated the law.

Bush and Gonzo are criminals

To all those who seems to be confused about US attornies when a new president is elected. The customary standard is that everyone who has been appointed by the previous president, are to submit their resignations to the new president. In most cases that is done. Even cabinet secretaries are in that group. The new president then is in a position to ask those that he wants to retain to remain and to let all others to resign. In the Bill Clinton case, very few of the US attornies submitted their resignations. Janet Reno finally sent out a memo to all that had not resigned and informed them that if their resignation was not forth coming they would be terminated in June of 1993. since most were republicans they had decided that this would be more to their advantage to get fired and so they were!

Well, well, ABC News FINALLY comes around to reporting exactly what the blogs have enunciated for months.

Could it be that 70% of Americans now supporting anti-war, anti-Bush mendacity is part of that decision?

Well well, Blotter. Better late than never.

To the first commentor "me."

This isn't a Fox, Limbaugh or Hannity thread. This is ABC news. You can't come in here and spread BS propaganda. These posters are thinking and researching people. They are well read and informed. They know what's going on. Yes, many personnel serve at the pleasure of the president. WHEN A NEW AND OPPOSITE PARTY PRESIDENT comes in, it is standard to let people go who served under the previous opposite party president. GW Bush let Clinton's people go from the Justice Dept and put his own people in. However, it is unprecedented for a president to fire his own Justice people in his second term. Yes, that is the red flag in this controversy. Strange how the ones fired refused to investigate democrats, huh? And just a tip... Bush never does anything where there isn't an ulterior motive.

Every President, Dumbya included, get rid of all (or most of them, Clinton and Dumbya each both left 1 from the previous administration) the U.S. Attorneys in their first year when they come into office.

What separates this from what Presidents traditionally do is that these guys were let go because they would not prosecute bogus “voter fraud” cases and/or they also procecuted corrupt Republicans.

Comments from "Me" are a perfect example of what is wrong in our country. Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter and all of Faux News has so dumbed down so many people and have spread so much propaganda that we can no longer have a sensible national dialogue. Me and his ilk are all about being a republican and not about being American or being truthful and thoughtful. Having a dialogue with them hoping they will see reason and grasp truth is an impossibility. These people have a mental illness.

"Nancy Pelosi doesn't want the job of Pres..." I'm surprised that ANYONE wants to be President, given the mess they're going to inherit.

if your boss or his boss tells you to commit a crime and you refuse to, you are in the right just like these US Attorneys. If your boss or his boss fires you for not committing that crime such as Bush and Gonzo did to these attorneys, the bosses are not only wrong but they have violated the law.

To: WD Russell- It's sort of like that but not quite. Even though the President appoints the US attorneys, he cannot "boss" them in the usual sense because they must act independently of political influence. The attorney general, as the highest law officer in the nation, is not supposed to be directed by the president either. He is more answerable to Congress. We also should be paying more attention to the actions of attorneys who were not forced out. There have been some egregious prosecutions for political purposes. Prosecutors have tremendous power. Who would want to run for an office if he/she thought that it might end up with costly legal fees and possible imprisonment as has happened to former governor of Alabama Don Siegelman?

Me,

Although, fundamentally, you are correct that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of King George. They are political appointees sworn to uphold the laws and constitution of the US. I.e. after appointment they must still walk within the bounds of the laws of the United States, regardless of whether the "Boss" and his cronies agree. I, as an American citizen, want a level of continuity in my legal system. Not a legal system operating at the whims of the executive (Liberal or Conservative). Just as our soldiers are expected to support and defend the constitution, using their moral compass t odetermine if the orders they are executing are "legal", our US Attorneys must also be answerable to the constitution and their moral compass.

Please ponder this. Blind obedience is very un-American. Serving your country does not mean serving the leaders.

ME said:
"Now let me get this straight. Unless you have a contract of employment, you work at the pleasure of the boss, right? So where is the problem. If you're not doing the job the way the boss wants it done, you get fired."

It may escape you (ME), we are the boss! In that context, of course the spineless Congress has been standing in the way of us firing a REAL porblem employee, even though we have asked them to file the papers, on many occasions. He had these attorneys fired BECAUSE they were doing their job properly.

What about the US attornies they didn't want to fire? What did they have to do to keep their jobs? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mr. Obvious:
Look up the Georgia Thompson case in Wisconsin and the Don Siegelman case in Louisiana. Those guys were not fired - but probably promoted and give medals. They don't seem to care whose lives they ruin.
Also, while we're kicking "Me's" collective butt, let's also NOT forget that ABC News refused to report Comey's testimoney that Gonzales and Andy Card ran up to Ashcroft's hotel room after his surgery to make him sign the papers so Bush could spy on us. Thanks ABC. You're also the reason this country is in deep, deep trouble. I hope you all feel better when "W" has declared Martial Law. It's easier to believe the lies of the King than the truths of the peasants.

Thank you to all who corrected Me. It makes me so angry when they bring up the firings that Bill Clinton did as if it justified the bush administration's neferious acts. You are correct, they only see what is good for party, rather than what is good for the country.

The firings of the U.S. Attorneys is just the tip of the iceberg, as regarding the overall game plan that is emerging of the neo-con Republicans in the White House and the RNC.

You see, the "unitary executive" concept is all about control. Unfortunately, "control" is an aspect of a totalitarian regime, not of a democracy. And as those with an un-American "unitary executive" mentality seek more and more "control," more and more secrecy is required as well as more and more lying. Thus, what we are literally seeing amounts to nothing more than a Republican coup attempt.

And what are some of the tools used by totalitarian "control" regimes? Secret surveillance. Martial Law. Secret prisons. Secret courts. Sham/rigged elections. Media propaganda. Suspension of rights. Enemies lists. Crushing of any dissent.

To those who are sniping that "Clinton fired 93 attorneys, blah blah blah," this was totally different. Customarily, when the opposition party wins election, the president puts in his own attorneys. This is customary for Democrats as well as Republicans. It is expected and most US Attorneys will begin packing their bags as soon as they learn that their party has lost the White House.

This was totally different! These US Attorneys were REPUBLICANS! It is unprecedented for a sitting president to fire US Attorneys that he himself hired! They were obviously fired because they would not "play ball" with Karl Rove's crooked schemes---which is why HE is getting out of Dodge, he hopes, before the full nature of all his crimes against the Republic can be discovered.

Press on, Democrats. Don't cut Rove a pass just because he resigned.

if bill clinton had done half the crap these crooks have done they would have hung him in year one. gop hypocrisy and double standards - i'm sick of it.

Nice to see that ABC is FINALLY beginning to ask questions on the politicalization of the DOJ by the Bush administration. Must be they've been reading the blogs which are miles ahead of the slow witted coverage by the traditional media.

If I understand correctly currently there are prosecutor positions which are still open. That is an ongoing crime. Tell us about the unfilled positions. Also if Clinton rehired 80 of them and Reagan rehired 71 of them that should be reported.

Its a matter of allegiance. All state/federal personnel are employees of the people sworn to protect the constitution and the "rule of law". The firings serve the purposes of another political agenda, namely - the enslavement of the American people by using the law and apparatus of state for criminal purposes, contrary to the interests of the real masters - the people, who must soon retaliate.

The "rule of law" is a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:

“the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking”

“all are treated equally by the law”. This means ALL, including king and judges

“absolute property rights”

This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.

"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitimizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.

When Federal Prosecutors are fired because they refuse to turn justice into a political arm of the Republican party, it is a very dangerous assault on all Americans - including those who now are proclaiming a boss has the right to "fire anybody they want". The boss does NOT have the right to pervert the guidelines of the job itself.

OMG! A year ago, this reader's response board would have been all Limbaugh propaganda! I have renewed optimism that the sheeple are now awake. On the other hand, it's concerning as wounded dogs attack when cornered and the Bush cabal is there. What ONE THING will make all their dreams come true? It's coming....

Firing the attorneys is part of the complete take over of Justice. They took the Administration, the Supreme Court, DOD, CIA, JUSTICE, ....

Well what they did was strip each and every Democrat they could identify from federal jobs of each and every kind down to the smallest county government in the nation. This way they will take years to rout out.

Unless we understand that no republican should receive a vote even for dog catcher and all of us need to pack the polls and drive them out.

Before all the smoke on this settles, we will find out that Bush also fired Karl Rove. My guess here is that Rove's use of the RNC's e-mail system to direct official business, a felony, no matter which Federal prosecutor or AG looks into it, has left him defenseless on it's face regarding his exemption from subpoena under Executive Privledge. That claim is dubious at best, even without the violations of the Archives statutes. It's simple Before all the smoke on this settles, we will find out that Bush also fired Karl Rove. My guess here is that Rove's use of the RNC's e-mail system to direct official business, a felony, no matter which Federal prosecutor or AG looks into it, has left him defenseless on it's face regarding his exemption from subpoena under Executive Privilege. That claim is dubious at best, even without the violations of the National Records statutes. It's simple - he can't have it both ways. If Bush claims Privilege in that case, then Rove broke the law. If he isn't claiming Privilege, then Rove broke the law by not showing up for the subpoena. I see him being prosecuted for this, and soon.

Bush needed him out of the White House because he (Bush) desperately wants to finish his term and try and salvage a legacy for himself. His arrogance knows no bounds; a self-appointed messianic figure that gets his marching orders from God and no one else. He should be impeached, imprisoned, or held in a mental institution for the rest of his life…preferably in New Orleans or Baghdad.
- he can't have it both ways...if Bush claims Privelidge in that case, then Rove broke the law. If he isn't claiming Privledge, then Rove broke the law by not showing up for the supoena. I see him being prosecuted for this, and soon.

What is all the whining about - at least as Shakespeare advocated - they weren't killed.

The Attorney firings are, indeed, the tip of the iceberg. The question is WHY were they fired? And the answer, in simple terms, is: in order to MANIPULATE THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS to favor one party. This is criminal, and goes to the heart of our Constitutional form of government. So whether or not you are a Bush supporter, it ought to concern you A LOT. Imagine if a Queen Hillary played fast and loose with Justice the way King George has done ...? NOW DO YOU GET WHY THIS IS SUCH A BIG DEAL?

"Early claims by Gonzales and other Justice officials that the attorneys were underperforming were later contradicted by evidence obtained by Congress, including glowing performance reviews for those prosecutors."

Nonsense! Only a few of the Attorneys got "glowing performance reviews". One of them was the US Attorney in Seattle, WA. ABC and the rest of the media held him up as proof that he was unfairly fired because he wouldnt investigate vote fraud claims. Since then, the liberal group ACORN was found guilty in court of the biggest case of vote fraud in Washington State history.

THOUSANDS of fraudulent voter registrations--committed by the very liberal ACORN--and Democrats and their shills at ABC and the liberal media are trying to pass it off as BUSH being corrupt for firing the guy who wouldnt investigate it! The only corruption is the Democrat party and news outfits like ABC that push the Democrat lies and false accusations off as news.

AmericanElephant unfortunately has a memory which belies his or her nickname. Rather than "thousands of fraudulent voter registrations......the biggest case of vote fraud in Washington State history", ACORN, themselves, notified the proper authorities that they had illegally registered four voters. There was no prosecution for this world-shaking infraction. The AG of California got canned for prosecuting the Republican representative and was going forward with additional information. Every one of the canned AGs was doing a good job, and not pursuing Rove's agenda of scaring minority voters with allegations of fraud.