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'.