CNN

Don't let Doug Degroat fool you. I know that he has voted Republican across the board in several elections and he is actually quite fond of Bush!

Rick ~ Chicago

"And every single time you and your “28-percenter” followers post that baseless argument, you look like fools.

Thanks for posting and allowing me to correct you"

LOL – you're a crack up Rick. I think the only person that can compete with such a self-grandized view of themselves is Rush Limbaugh!

Rick – answer this question... whether or not it was unprecedented.. was it illegal?

(using a rick-ism)
Was it??

Answer: NO!

And WHY NOT?

Because current laws provide these US Attorneys are at-will employees (see Tom – Dedham, Mass 2:55)

Every single time you (rick) post – you look like a ranting looney without command of facts, laws, or reason.

Thanks for posting and exposing who you are.

I second every word of this....

"Where is the outrage in this country? Let me make sure I understand this correctly. President Bill Clinton demonized by the EXTREME right for “what he did in the oval office” voted for impeachement and yet BUSH under this adminstration is directly responsible for the deaths of over 3600 of our American soldiers. He lied to get us in the war in the first place by cherry picking intelligence, refuses to allow his SR. staff to attend supoenas and he acts ABOVE the LAW…and no one is talking about impeachment!!!! What hypocrisy!! But then again we are talking about Repulicans! IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL (KARL ROVE) AND HIS CRONIES, THE CRIMINALS (BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE, GONZALEZ AND MIERS) !!!!"

When you start looking at the obstruction of how this administration reacted to the whole 911 commission you wonder if the number of deaths they are responsible for isn't far greater than 3600. I would have to agree that is a topic way too uncomfortable to get into, so it remains ignored. But given present circumstances, Valerie Plame, Libby, judges, executive privelege, national security, etc, there comes a time when we have to look at what is going on in our government. This administration has the lowest approval rating since ratings were researched. Isn't it obvious why? People are tired of all of the secrecy and wondering what on earth is going on since it appears to be constantly covered up.

Our ELECTED officials want to question a non-elected political appointee.
And some people posing as Americans don't like the idea.
Oh no, Mr Bill.

Don't tell me we are finally taking our government back from the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. It's about frigging time we stood up to these nincompoops and took them to task. What arrogance. So unwarranted. Made a donation to Leahy today. Good man. Need to keep him around.

James, Phoenix AZ .. Can you tell us when Clinton took the UNPRECEDENTED step of: 1) removing selected attorneys; 2) in mid-term; 3) for “performance issues” – after they received favorable reviews; and 4) just so he could use a buried provision in the renewed Patriot Act (that republicans promised they'd never use) to slip cronies and toadies into the vacant positions without Senate confirmation?

Can ya?

Answer: NO!

And WHY NOT?

Because there IS NO COMPARISON.

And every single time you and your "28-percenter" followers post that baseless argument, you look like fools.

Thanks for posting and allowing me to correct you.

Douglas, Tony, Eugene – those who are offended because President Bush is using Executive Privilege....

Does the use of EP cause suspicion? Sure.

Does the use of EP mean something was done incorrectly? No.

I'll share a secret... President Bush WANTS this show-down. He instructed Harriet Miers not to show up. He will instruct Karl Rove not to show.

WHY?

Because the President wants to determine the hard boundaries of EP. For all we know the President could be sandbagging this issue just to whip the democrats into a frenzy and then provide all the documentation to show it's a non-issue...just in time to embarrass those running for his office.

However, I doubt it's such a creative move on his part. I suspect President Bush is tired of the incessant calls for testimony, document disclosures, etc. – just as Clinton did when pursued by Republicans. Which means the legitimacy of EP will be decided in Federal court. And here are the two outcomes: 1) If EP is upheld by Federal Court – game over for Dems doing any more interrogating. 2) If EP is rejected by federal courts – Bush and his attorneys will drag out the process so it becomes a non-issue at the next election.

The censures, subpoenas, etc – all show for the Democrats so they can increase fund raising. When the base is furious – they'll give lots more money than when they're asleep.

Tot Tom and James, it is not uncommon for a president to ask for acrss the board resignations of these officals. I W and his band had done that it would be a non-issue as you claim. There is important principle at stake here. That is a word that this administration does not junderstand, along with honesty, integrity or Constitutional responsibility. The issue is this, if 9 of the best were fired for being honest, how many were retained for not being true to their duty? What deals did they make, corners cut, false charges entered, good cases dumped & who did those deals, if any, sell out? The investigatyion will not end until these are answered, nor should they. And there is a jail on Capitolhill. Congress can have culprits arrested for contempt with their own law officers and cool their heels there for years while the cases go through the courts. A fitting retirement plan for a corrupt politician I think and beyond Presdential interference or obstruction.

While political consideration for government positions is nothing new, if there was inappropriate termination then they should have to answer for it. And especially now I think it is important to make the republican realize they do have to answer to the American people. If Carla Rove doesn’t want to answer for, or explain why or what the circum stances of those firings where drag him in kicking and screaming in hand cuffs!!! we pay there salary your dam right are government answers to us!!!!

So we all know that Bush will order Rove to NOT tesitfy on the basis of "national security". - How many times will the American public stand quietly by while Bush abuses the power of his office in order to cover up his politically motivated agenda? It's time we put a stop to it.

Stee,

I'm not questioning that the President can fire them US Attorneys at will, you are correct, as I have stated, there is no clear and concise reason. Some of the US Attorneys fired made alligations that they were under pressure to speed up or hamper investigations for poitical reasons, that is the heart of this investigation, Why were they fired and are these alligations true? This has become a huge controvesy for several reasons. Two big ones are: 1: The AG appears to have lied in his testimony, he has stated he was not present at the meetings were this issue was discussed, yet many people and documents have testified and show he was at these meetings. 2: The White House refuses to release documents related to these meetings, yes many have been turned over, but not all. The White House refuses to turn over all the emails related to this issue, they claim to have been erased. The White House refuses to allow people to testify under oath and in public with transcripts Why??? This just gives the appearance the White House is hiding something. Given past lies by this White House, the trust me line is no longer working.

To use the words of the White House, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Why is hypocrisy so prevalent in our American perspective of what is right and what is wrong? It is wrong to allow political partisanship to govern the actions of law. We should stop this from happening no matter the political affiliation of the abuser.

Folks, no one can dispute that the President can fire an US Attorney at will. However, it is illegal to do it to affect active or pending investigations. It is not that the fact that he fired them, it is reason he fired him that is being investigated. There are illegal reasons for such action. We do not know what his intent was, because he will not allow the witnesses to speak. It is like a drug dealer executing every witness to a drive-by to prevent prosecution.

James,

It seems that at least someone has read wht I posted and not tried to change the subject, so hear it goes.

The controversy start when these 8 or 9 US Attorneys were fired for not acting fast enough in investigating alledged voter fraud in heavy Democratic districts or slow enough to hamper investigations into heavily republican districts. These US Attorneys were contacted either directly by Senators Offices or Offices of members of the House of Representatives, Note I say offices and not Senators or House of Representatives themselves. Once appointed these US Attorneys act independantly of the Executive and Legislative branches or our Government and are not subject to politcal pressure once appointed.

Now that's only part of the controversy. Another part is that a clear and concise reason for firing these attorneys remains elusive, most, not all but most of the fired attorneys had just recently received positive job performance evaluations and there was no need to fire them. Once fired I believe one or two of them came out and said they had been pressured to speed up investigations that would damage the Democrats and this is why they were fired and political influence from the White House on these attorneys to pressure them to selectively prosecute certain cases and hamper others is illegal. Since these Attorneys appear to have actually done thier job and ignored this pressure caused them to be labeled "Not loyal Bushies" and they were fired.

PS Tom, this President Bush also fired all the attorneys when he took power also, Care to address that?

Douglas,

You said "It is UNPRECIDENTED to selectively fire US Attorneys during the thier appointed term unless they are negligent in thier jobs!"

1) Whether at the end of their term or during their term... WHY were 93 US attorneys fired by Janet Reno?

2) Please cite for us the specific code which prohibits a US Attorney (that serves at the will of the President) from being fired mid-term.

The FACT is – a US Attorney is an at-will employee and can be terminated for whatever reason the President or AG decides. All the barking at this time is simply democratic partisans grasping at straws – or should I say subpoenas hoping something sticks against the wall.

Nice to know witch-hunts still exist in the northeast.

Tom,

Seems yet again a Conservative Half-Truth here, You change the subject and refuse to acknowledge that both the 1st Bush and Reagan, probably even Carter, Ford and Nixon have all fired the entire US Attorney staff. The madia didn't question any of them either!

Stop telling Half Truths, changing the subjects and adress EXACTLY what I stated. It's people like you who 70% of the American public have grown tired of and are seeing right through you tactics. I'm just surprised you havn't called me unpatriotic or a terrorist.

Where is the outrage in this country? Let me make sure I understand this correctly. President Bill Clinton demonized by the EXTREME right for "what he did in the oval office" voted for impeachement and yet BUSH under this adminstration is directly responsible for the deaths of over 3600 of our American soldiers. He lied to get us in the war in the first place by cherry picking intelligence, refuses to allow his SR. staff to attend supoenas and he acts ABOVE the LAW...and no one is talking about impeachment!!!! What hypocrisy!! But then again we are talking about Repulicans! IMPEACH THE CRIMINAL (KARL ROVE) AND HIS CRONIES, THE CRIMINALS (BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE, GONZALEZ AND MIERS) !!!!

Hi Doug and you fellow Clintonista's:

Did the media or anyone question Clinton when he fired them, nope, we realized it is his right and for the record his firings had some real bad ramifications (see the excellent posting above on WHY he did what he did, basically for money, power and to save his ass).

The rule of law concerning the firing of U.S. Attorneys is set
(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney for each judicial district.
(b) Each United States attorney shall be appointed for a term of four years. On the expiration of his term, a United States attorney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

(c) Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.
Update: To be clear, the president has the authority to remove a U.S. Attorney - per § 541 and Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)

[...] And this only moments before Senator Leahy sent out the Subpoena for Turdblossom himself. [...]

Seems a few people have a bit of "Selective Memory" here!!! Yes President Bill Clinton "fired" all 93 US Attorney's as did the first President Bush and Ronald Reagan before him. It is NOT uncommon when a new President comes to office. It is UNPRECIDENTED to selectively fire US Attorneys during the thier appointed term unless they are negligent in thier jobs!

When presenting what you call facts, DON'T BE SLECTIVE ABOUT IT!!

Although Tony Snow will call this "pathetic", it should be noted that he and the manipulated sheep who buy into the administration's corruption are the ones who are pathetic. Having these snails receive some consequential actions will do wonders for the millions of us who have lost faith in their country.

[...] investigation into Alberto Gonzales' involvement in the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys continues: "We’ve now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political [...]

Note to Leahy this is not "unprecedented" as you say, Clinton fired all of them because they did not believe in his political philosophy. Next liberal lie that goes unquestioned by the media.

All of this posturing by both sides will result in nothing substantive happening when all the dust settles. Just a lot of blah, blah, blah like always. We really need to throw all of them out in '08 and start all over again.

I-M-P-E-A-C-H R-O-V-E N-O-W!

–before he designs anymore damage to our democracy.

We already know that Bush will order Rove to ignore Congress. What else is new? Can't these crooks be arrested!!

Senator Obama, you should be careful you're beginning to sound negative. Senator Clinton made her point with one comment, and since then you have taken three or four shots.

Senator Clinton did call your response naive and inresponsible. However, you have reinforced everyones belief of your inexperience by the way you have responded. Remind yourself of this phrase: "A hit dog will holla."

Do not stop until each an every one of them is in jail. then fill the history books so this does not happen to our country again.

About time!

The Criminal behind the criminals.

The more we see and hear about thios White House, the more I am reminded of another "great proponent of executive privilege" – Richard Nixon.

He said:
"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal."

And, we all know where that got him . . .

This administration will learn they are NOT above the law. Go get 'um Mr. Leahy.

Lets ask Sen.Leahy if political considerations are ever factored into the hiring/firing of his Senate and Committee Staff.

Let it go Senator and move on to something important.

About time.

Another subpoena that will go unanswered. But hey – it looks good, Pat! Why don't you just subpoena the President, Vice President, the entire Cabinet, the president's father, his school teachers, ......

At least your efforts are inconsistent and purely partisan. Compare this administration firing 8 US attorneys to the last administration:

March 1993 Janet Reno (AG for President Bill Clinton) fires 93 US Attorneys. Those attorneys fired include:

Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

Where there hearings for these? No. Presidents can/have dismissed US attorneys – for whatever reason they choose (political, job performance, etc)

This panel is nothing more than a fishing expedition.