Thanks.
If their performance reviews count, they were doing very good work. I would like to see the people who fired them testify in public., under oath without predetermined questions. They ran a fishing expedition for years on Clinton ,a couple days of questioning should not be protested.
I don’t think anyone thinks the firings themselves, per se, were illegal. “The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president” as we’ve all heard ad nauseam. But the reasons for the firings may well be illegal. There’s an interesting bit of theater going on with two strangely identical $40,000 expenditures, a yacht and some vice-presidential furniture that seems to be at least tangentially connected to the Duke Cunningham case, for instance, and the word is that Lam was all set to go down that road, which may very well have led directly to Cheney, before the purge.
I’m not saying that all of the fired USA’s were fired for unethical/illegal reasons, but at least some were. On top of that, you have apparent lying to Congress from Gonzales, which is a charge that can’t go higher than him, I don’t think, but definitely would be illegal if proved true.
Well, they fired Lam to prevent her from looking into Dick Cheney’s contribution to Mitchell Wade’s yacht fund*. That seems a tad obstructive of them.
*Sure that claim’s a little speculative, but given the number of different stories the admin’s put out to explain the firing, there surely must be a more interesting truth which they are unwilling to state.
Thanks, Squink, for providing the link. That’s the Lam case I was talking about in my last post, Stratocaster.
An interesting tidbit from that article:
Rats? Sinking ship? What next?
Dubya’s ultimate victory, of course.
-Joe
I haven’t been following this one closely so I’m not up on all the facts. What little I do know confuses me.
I don’t understand why they need to take an oath and testify, because I don’t understand what potential crime has been committed.
My understanding is that these AGs serve at will, and can be fired with no cause, that in past administrations this kind of thing has occured albeit with the Clintons it was at the beginning of Clinton’s term not in the middle (and I don’t understand why that makes a difference.)
I also kinda sorta agree with the idea of executive privilege in that the Pres is entitled to candid and confidential advice. I say “kinda sorta” because I guess it wouldn’t apply towards planning a crime.
So, if they can be fired for whatever reason the Pres decides and no crime has occured, why must they testify at all much less under oath?
To me this has the look of a fishing expedition, or trying to set up a perjury trap, or adjust another sensationalist gambit.
Does Congress have the right to supboena anybody to testify under oath about whatever they want just because they want to, or does a crime need to be in question first?
Obstruction of Justice (that’s the potential crime- I’m just relaying info rather than arguing for or against it). Krauthammer’s piece on why Gonzales must go and New York Times Op Ed on possible crimes.
Not just with Clinton: there have only been two involuntary dismissals of US Attys in 25 years (both under Reagan wikicite).
That Krauthammer piece is a joke, and The New Republic does a good job explaining why (excerpted):
Sampiro:
Thanks. Those do shed some light on the issue for me.
If the attorneys serve at will though why was Gonzalez or anybody else needing to explain why they were fired in the first place?
It seems to me they could have just said “none of your business.” If they could, I wonder why they didn’t?
It’s mainly about not believing a word they say otherwise.
As is true of every federal appointee. But that isn’t the point; the *reasons * are the point. It isn’t about the firings violating any law; it’s about the WH’s intention to use them for partisan harassment and election-season point-scoring against the other party’s guys.
Any change in party results in a change of appointees, usually en masse, just like Bush did at the start of his administration. It makes a difference because (A) you don’t hear that from the excusers, and (B) the reasons do matter. It’s about the reasons, ya know. And the lying about them we already know about.
You don’t know that no crime has occurred, or that any noncriminal violation of the public trust has occurred. That’s what investigations are for.
For someone who hasn’t paid attention except to supportive commentators, it might well look that way. To someone aware of the evidence that has already come out, and the lies and stonewallings and daily shiftings of excuses that have been offered instead of actual testimony, um, no it doesn’t.
The first. It does take a majority vote of a committee to approve the issuance of subpoenas, but that’s already taken place.
Nixon had every right under the law to use the FBI and IRS to harass his political enemies, too, by that reasoning. Was “none of your business” an adequate response to questions about it?
Essentially, the dismissal of so many U.S. attorneys before their terms were over was so unusual, so unprecedented, that the administration knew some scrutiny would come on that decision. The fact that they either lied about the reason (“poor performance”) or were evasive about the reasons, even to the U.S. attorneys in question, meant that the firees felt obliged to take other circumstances around their dismissal (phone calls or communication that appeared pressuring, intimidating, or otherwise unethical) public.
Archiveguy:
Thank you for the answers. I think I understand now.
Furthermore, it appears one purpose of the purge was to facilitate suppression of Dem votes in key states in 2008.
Always happy to help (especially if it gives me an excuse to put off working…) 
: posting from the office on the weekend : 
Of course, it is a crime to mislead Congress even if you’re not under oath – as Stephen Griles just found out.
You got a little overexcited there and posted the wrong link, BrainGlutton.
I think this is what you wanted: