Dear Mallika

The outrage is due to political interference by the executive branch of our government, towards a branch of the government that is supposed to be immune from party-based pressures and manipulations -- the judicial branch. The firings mock one of the underlying principles of US government. The president and his staff are not supposed to be intimately and persistently involved in who gets fired in the judicial branch. Firings are not unusual, but some of those fired had recently received outstanding job performance reviews, and there was no apparent reason to justify the firings. People looked deeper into what was going on, and uncovered too much executive-branch involvement in the process.

love, Heath

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

So far,

Attorney Carol Lam(San Diago)was heading investigations that put Republicans at risk.

Attorney Mr. Iglesias(New Mexico) refused to persue charges against Democrats for voter fraud.

Attorney Mr. McKay also refused to persue voter fraud allegations against Democrats in Washington State when the Democratic Governor won after a two time recount.

Arkansas attorney(don't know name) replaced to make room for a friend of Karl Rove.

Republicans said they were fired because of poor performance ratings but all had very good ratings.

Other than this being an opportunity for the Democrats to expose how this Administration and the Republican Party uses the Justice system to further it's cause by using lawsuits, aggressively, to distract and deter their opponents, I am not sure there is anything legally wrong with what they are doing.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes.

have a great day everyone, ruth

ps, Norm it is good to see you back, was worried that the Libby conviction did you in!

correction

Carol Lam (San Diego)

ruth

Mallika,

I think it is about the use of police powers to destroy political opponents and support those of your inner circle.

It seems to be what the firings of federal prosecutors and politcal pressure put on them is all about. That is what the issue. I don't think it is legal to do this, it might even be a high crime.

It also implies that many of the Laws implemented in response to terrorism are actually a threat to National Security and allow the takeover of the United States by a small group of people using fear, police powers, and secrecy.

We have now seen what appears to be a proof that this indeed is what happens and has happened.

I think these laws need to be changed in that they are claimed to be protecting but are actually a threat to freedom and National Security. They create a CENTRALIZATION OF POWER, where our government is designed to distribute and separate the powers so that a small group cannot take over the country.

Sounds like the stuff the "evil empires" were always accused of.

US Attorneys are not in the Judicial Branch. They are in the Executive Branch. The President can fire them anytime he wants and for any reason.
I could see how a citizen wouldn’t think that the way this story is being covered. We all can be so easily deceived sometimes.

The only law that may be broken is going to be after the firings. Someone committing perjury trying to 'cover up' a political move so as to appease the Congress and the Media. If nobody lies during the (I love the sound of my own voice) hearings then no law will be broken. Circus Circus.

A legit complaint that Congress might have is that some of these attorneys were prosecuting cases in manners that were not in line with the policies of the current Executive Branch. Although no law was broken (except for the up coming perjury), the Congress might use this to examine the system and perhaps weaken the power of the Presidency in this area.

The Democrats have their scandal of the month, and they are always after Rove. (The two Republican Senators calling for resignation of the Attorney General are up for re-election in states where, I imagine, the citizens are perceived to be easily deceived. )

The Media has it's story for the week. (Does the Media get to up advertising rates if they have a big story for the week? If they don't have a big story do they lose money?)

al-Qaeda hasn’t found a way to spin this to their advantage yet.

Dear Mallika.. I see updated improvements to IB layout today!! Lovely changes.. and congrats, and thankyou; for constantly working to make your blog... easily accessed, and a place to come back to.. again and again!! You have done a lot of work on IB's improvements this past year and a half... I just wanted you to know.. that I for one appreciate your dedication.. and I am sure, all visitors.. regular or new.. will/do as well!!

with loving kindness,
North

Bobby,

The media has been very outspoken about the fact the president can fire them at will, so I am not sure where you are coming from about citizens being deceived. The story is about putting political pressure on them with the veiled threat of dismissal. Could this be obstruction of justice? Perhaps not technically but it may be a perversion of justice.

Is it okay for a prosecutor to be biased (or manipulated) based on the political affiliation of the potential defendant? Do we want a system where this can be used as a political tool to maintain power?

We are reminded that the president is not paying the salary of the prosecutors we the citizens are. The president is also our servant, the project manager for our country.

Dear Richard

Well said, well said. The last sentence of #7 is awesome: brilliant in its perception and simple expression.

love, Heath

The dragging in of Rove is an attempt to expose how he uses secret backroom tactics to maneuver for political advantage (OK, lots of them do that, but Rove is the acknowledged master of the art among both parties).

While US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, it is powerful blowback against the President if he appears to the public to be abusing that privilege in order to subvert the principle of separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution.

This also kind of combines in the public eye with Rove's "just off-camera" hand in the Valerie Plame case. The idea is to start stacking up negative impressions in the public's mind about Rove. We all know what happens to politicians whose "likeability" factor plummets.

And this is the kind of thing that can be brought forth in impeachment proceedings. Remember that to be impeached, the President does not necessarily have to break a law, but if it is shown that he is violating his oath to protect the Constitution and serve the people, that is also grounds for impeachment.

This is another piece that the Dems would like to lump together with all the other scandals and instances where the Administration appears to be working against the public good, and to be actively trying to destroy the safeguards against a President acquiring absolute power.

As has been said, remember that nothing Hitler did to consolidate power in Germany was illegal. Still, it would have been nice to stop him before he caused a World War.

I think the same applies to Bushco. They will acquire absolute power, abuse that power against our citizens, and start a World War if we let them do it.

There is no question in my mind that World War is where these guys are headed. Unchecked, they would simply bomb and invade whatever country they deemed insubordinate to their demands.

They would also destroy the economy by making the law completely inapplicable against corporations. We'd see a lot more of this kind of product of Bush’s beloved “Guestworker” programs, for example:

Indian Guestworker Slits Wrists After Being Fired for Complaining About Squalid Work Conditions
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/15/1352225

So I don't mind folks digging up the dirt on Bush, Rove, Cheney and their cronies one bit.

"Is it okay for a prosecutor to be biased (or manipulated) based on the political affiliation of the potential defendant? Do we want a system where this can be used as a political tool to maintain power?"

No we don't. Maybe that's why they were fired.

hee hee

Hey Mallika,

I had this thought last week that old blog posting were hard to find, and I thought that perhaps you could do something about this like a list of all of them.

Now I notice the "categories" section which then lists them all.

I never had to say a thing, how magical is that...

Bobby,

Yes, I guess it could work both ways.

I think the outrage has absolutely nothing with the issue. I think there's a general frustration and powerlessness concerning the 2000 coup and what has happened since.

So rather than doing the sort of thing you'd (a person) do if you or your son got drafted, you're gonna respond "sideways".

Reno did the same thing. I think it's stupid since it is a public administration aparatus that works for the executive branch. Bush is their boss.

So we snort and dig at the ground with our hooves and hope that if we act enough like George Bush himself, he'll sacrifice one of his pawns.

Voters declared "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and thought that the swearing-in of the 110th Congress marked the end of major combat operations.

So who's stupid now?

Mallika.. suggestions to the updates at IB.. if categories are to be used. which I think is convenient for time-constraint reasons on everyone... to implore contributors, to "use" the apply labels feature.. and attribute their specific posts.. to the category system..

As per is.. I found it very hard to find posts I responded too, as not memorizing titles per se; and not knowing "now" where they might be, is time consuming..

Just suggesting more work, for you and your one, tireless right-hand mand, commanding the tech of IB.. because I hope to help via suggestions.. to improve IB's functionality....

having rebuilt my blog, deleting the other... to categorise from "scratch"... and NO rants on it.. lol

I "know" of the hard work, editing and processing can be... hope this helps the great improvements!!

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

An interesting note, it seems CBS News, last night and this AM, is reporting that sources tell them that Gonzales will be going, very soon. Since other stations are reporting, only, that Gonzales has the President's full support, I wonder? And the drama just keeps coming..

ruth

Dear Mallika

An update, from the NYTimes at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20documents.htm (or click my name)...

"WASHINGTON, March 19 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was “extremely upset” that his deputy told Congress last month that a federal prosecutor had been fired for no reason, according to e-mail released Monday by the Justice Department. Mr. Gonzales believed that the prosecutor, H. E. Cummins III, the United States attorney for Arkansas, was dismissed for performance reasons, the e-mail suggested. But his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, testified that Mr. Cummins had been replaced to create a vacancy for J. Timothy Griffin, a political ally of the White House political adviser Karl Rove..."

More interesting details in the article. Also, under "Related", the bottom link, entitled "Documents Regarding the Department of Justice Firings From the House Judiciary Committee Web Site", takes you to the government site that has the actual emails that are being posted.

love, Heath