22 percent:
By on Mar 30th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
22 percent:
Number of Americans who believe that the Bush administration dismissed U.S. attorneys for “for proper reasons,” compared to 48 percent who believe they were fired because they “refused to be pressured by politics.” Additionally, 55 percent of “Americans believe Bush is refusing to allow top aide Karl Rove and other White House aides to testify under oath ‘because he’s trying to cover up the reasons for the firings,’ not because he ‘wants to preserve the Constitution’s separation of powers’” (33 percent).
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I could care less if it was just Bush, Barney and me ; )
March 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pmDoes this mean that Bush’s consistent 30 percent “no matter what” following has dwindled? Or was there an error in the polling method?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmWait for it……
“It’s all the media’s fault!!!”
Come on Jake…
March 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmUp yours, BushCo.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmRep. Issa (R-CA) believes Carol Lam was fired for legitimate reasons — the L.A. Times yesterday said even if Lam was lax on immigration enforcement, THAT would be a political reason for firing her too — see what Sampson meant about these “artificial” constructs?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:31 pm#1 Jake
I could care less if it was just Bush, Barney and me ; )
But, the president is so persuasive. He gets on TV and tells the country that there was nothing wrong with it. He’s got Fox Noise on his side and all the right-wing talk show hosts. What’s the deal? Why don’t people believe him? Why do you believe him?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmJake,
So by that logic though, is it not also safe to say that you would feel it justified that they were fired for not “prioritizing” cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Repubs? That is the logic right? That too would be political decision right?
If you think that’s the case, then answer if you think that is ok… where do we draw the line?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm#1. I’m with you, Barney and Bush Jake. I don’t care if I’m Bush’s last supporter. He’s one of the best presidents ever.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pmBut, the president is so persuasive. He gets on TV and tells the country that there was nothing wrong with it. Comment by chimpeach
That’s funny, peachy. The Republicans hate to admit that Bush has lost all credibility. We might as well put a monkey behind the podium. Oh, wait . . .
March 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pmJake,
According to James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” if a President were to order or allow the “wanton removal of meritorious officers” such as US attorneys, such an action “would subject the President to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”
March 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm#5 Jake
Apparently, one loudmouth ethically-challenged GOP congressman is all the DoJ needs to hear from before they decide to shitcan somebody. It doesn’t matter what her peers say. It doesn’t matter what her actually stats show. It doesn’t matter tha violent crime is way down and that law enforcement in San Diego is praising her for it. It doesn’t matter that she successfully prosecuted the biggest corruption case in years and put a rotten, thieving GOP congressman behind bars. It doesn’t matter that she’s got a case and an indictment against the former #3 at CIA.
All that matters to Kyle Sampson is that Issa doesn’t want her there. And that’s it. He doesn’t need to know anything more about her.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm#9 And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
That’s funny, peachy. The Republicans hate to admit that Bush has lost all credibility. We might as well put a monkey behind the podium. Oh, wait . . .
I just don’t understand it. You’d think that when he throws a temper tantrum in front of the whole country they’d realize he’s serious and they’d run to his side to support him. What part of whining and scowling don’t they understand?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pmLow 20’s… Them there are NIXON Percentages! Nixon had 24% approval on the day he left office. 1/5 of the population is immune to facts and logic.
Bush will go down as the Worst President Ever.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pmFor the record, David Marston was replaced by President Carter based on the phone call of ONE Democratic Representative as well — however, that Representative was the TARGET of Marston’s investigation — which one is worse? I do, however, agree that Bush’s firings subject him to Impeachment — FDR thought his lies about the lead-up to Pearl Harbor subjected him to Impeachment too — then again, for those Bush-haters here, he should have been Impeached for not choking to death on a pretzel, right?
March 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pmJake, could you please address the substance of my earlier posts. I don’t actaully advocate impeachment, although it seems that James Madison would have. The last thing I want is Cheney running anything. But I’m curious where you stand on my earlier posts.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pmWow Jake – stretching back to a “FDR did it too”. Lame.
Jake, you are one pathetic Bush lover.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm#14 Jake
then again, for those Bush-haters here, he should have been Impeached for not choking to death on a pretzel, right?
Can a president be impeached for not choking to death on a pretzel?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pmCrump’s Brother:
I have you on the “Ignore Lost” so are you sure you’ve answered all my past questions to you and never resorted to personal attacks against me?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pmJake,
For an “Independent” (Or is that ‘In Dependsâ„¢’), why don’t you ever offer a “But Republican X did it too” as an excuse? Your excuses always involve Democrats. Peculiar how that works.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pmFor the record, Jake, you still don’t seem to get it…
Of the administrations in question, which one attempted to sidestep Senate confirmation in filling the vacancies created?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pmJake sez:
…or asked Shakey a question he couldn’t answer? That’s the main reason. Funny how Shakey doesn’t mention that one…
March 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pmEveryone knows who comprises this ongoing 22%, don’t they? They’re the ones benefitting financially from Bush’s horrendous domestic and foreign policies: Big Pharma, Big Insurance, BIG OIL as well as the obvious Rethugs involved with organized crime, racketeering, vote hacking, and the moronic thirty-somethings used by Bush et al as “stoolies” who don’t have enough sense to realize that they’re being used as “fall guys”. It was clear in the global warming situation where a wet-behind-the-ears ditz with no experience was attemting to tell seasoned, experienced scientists what to do….we saw the same syndrome with Sampson yesterday…..”duh….no, I never checked the veracity or validity of the complaints being made before putting these guys on the “hit list”…..of course, I took everyone’s word about it….of course, I did – because I’m nothing more than a BushBot – a dishtowel so Bush can wipe himself on them when the $hit hits the fan. These young kids are getting Bush’s fecal matter all over their faces.
Did they really believe the lie about themselves being qualified for the jobs they held. AHAHAHAHA! Guess the joke’s on them for being too ignorant to recognize the truth. Oh well…..they’ll learn.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pmI see Shakey’s doing his part in keeping these threads hopping, as per usual.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pmYou know what Jake, I’m not sure about you list or how anyone gets on it…. However I’m laughing at the thought that I’ve asked you substantive questions, and instead of answering them, you want to ask me about your cute ignore list, which honestly, I know nothing about, nor care anything about.
I would like a discussion about what I feel is the substantive issue here. I no longer want to debate the legality of the situation. Or who else did it in the past.
What I would like to debate is whether or not it is safe to say that you would feel it justified that they were fired for not “prioritizing†cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Repubs? That is the logic right? That too would be political decision right?
If you think that’s the case, then answer if you think that is ok… where do we draw the line?
Is that not a legitimate question to ask in this discussion? It seems to me to be THE question.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThe big chance that the media doesn’t understand is that the Bush Administration has lost all credibility. Permanently. He may (or may not) be able to hold onto power. But he’s lost support of the people.
Nearly everyone knows that his administration is based on lies.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:26 pmYou didn’t answer my question, but I guess I’ll have to take your word for it.
#1 I’ve never said: “It’s all the media’s fault!!!â€
#2 Yes, I think it’s O.K. to fire them for not “prioritizing†cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Republicans — that’s all within prosecutorial discretion anyways — I haven’t seen a case where I draw the line yet. I guess if Bush fired one because she refused to sleep with him (no other legitimate reason), that would be grounds for a sexual harrassment suit. But, if it LEGAL to dismiss them, I’m not sure where (or why) you are inserted some higher standard than that. Is that what you are asking?
#3 There are no other reasons for getting on my “Ignore List” but maybe I missed your answer somewhere along the line and thought you were ignoring some question I had asked — you don’t seem to be insulting me, so that’s probably not the reason, but I do type these responses so quickly here single-handedly I could have very well missed that too — was there any other question you asked that I missed? As long as you answer my questions in a civil manner, I will always return the same Common Courtesy.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pmThat 22% are certified brain-dead, so they need to get the dunce word stamped on their foreheads > lol.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pmYes, I think it’s O.K. to fire them for not “prioritizing†cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Republicans — that’s all within prosecutorial discretion anyways — I haven’t seen a case where I draw the line yet.
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Okay, I think we’re done here.
Anyone still convinced Jake has anything to contribute?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pmJake,
First of all, to the issue of your ignore list. Please excuse me if I don’t answer every question you ask of me. I will certainly make an attempt to do so. But my time is limited (even if it may not seem so all the time) so I can’t surf these posts constantly looking to see if you’ve asked….
That being said, now to the issue at hand. So you are fine with political prosecutions. You think that justice has no need to be blind. If a prosecutor decided to try cases excusively against Republicans, regardless of the level of evidence, you are ok with that. Or vice versa. I guess I find that a little disturbing. Or if a prosecutor wanted to try cases against only those with a particular color of skin. You call this prosecutorial discretion?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:35 pmIf some U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute African-Americans, yes, I think the President could fire him for political reasons.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pmBeing a “Civil Officer” of the United States, they are also subject to Impeachment if the President refused to fire such a U.S. Attorney.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:43 pmOh, to answer your question, though, refusing to prosecute someone based on the color of their skin is NOT within prosecutorial discretion. I haven’t heard that allegation as to U.S. Attorneys in this case.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm[...] a new poll shows that only 22% of Americans think the US Attorneys who were fired were fired for proper [...]
March 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI think your missing the point Jake.
Let me rephrase. If the President wants an attorney to try a case, which that attorney feels there simply isn’t the evidence to try, you feel the President should feel justified in firing that attorney, and replacing that person with one who will try the case regardless of the evidence?
Is that your position?
March 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmCrump’s Brother, I see your heart is in the right place. You think you can help Jake see an issue in a way he hasn’t before, and so perhaps change his mind. It’s a noble effort.
It’s also a waste of time. Jake is here to amuse himself and piss off libruls. Nothing more. You will reach no satisfying meeting of the minds, and will become progressively more frustrated with Jake’s act. You will soon see that it’s not even a very convincing act, this desire to debate with those not on his Ignore Listâ„¢. He may go silent on this thread, only to pop up on another, repeating the exact same talking points that you worked so hard to disprove.
Don’t waste your energy on him.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pmNo case is tried “regardless of the evidence”, Crump’s Brother. It won’t even get to a jury if there’s literally “no evidence” — if the President thinks the evidence there is justifies a trial, then yes, he (or she) has every right to replace said U.S. Attorney — I guess the President even has the right to install a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute a case with ZERO evidence too, if that’s what you are really asking. That opens up the government to a malicious prosecution lawsuit though.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJake,
Don’t we ask our justice system to avoid taking a political stand? IS it not the job of the DOJ to represent the People not the President.
While not trying to put words in your mouth, I hear you saying that the President ought to be able to tell the DOJ to prioritize cases against an opposing political party for the sole purpose of political gain. I would argue that to be obviously un-American. This was the tactic of the Former Soviet Union. To use the court system to support single party rule.
That being said, I’m sad to say that I think the way the law is written, that the President does have this power. I just happen to think that it is wrong.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pmif the President thinks the evidence there is justifies a trial, then yes, he (or she) has every right to replace said U.S. Attorney — I guess the President even has the right to install a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute a case with ZERO evidence too, if that’s what you are really asking. That opens up the government to a malicious prosecution lawsuit though. Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
And if it’s shown that the president did this, it isn’t just a *malicious-lawsuit* – I know the *fear* of all of you Federalist fools. It opens the president up to an *obstruction-of-justice* impeachment, like that of Nixon. You really should have *read* that Time article I sent you, because it talked about how the Carter incident had been *investigated* for just such a possibility.
You’re really a st*pid little child, aren’t you JakeOff? Maybe when your b*lls drop down into your sack, your brain will start working at a more *adult* level.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:14 pmCrump’s Brother:
No, we don’t “ask our justice system to avoid taking a political stand” — you do know that FEDERAL JUDGES are predominatly from the President’s own party, right? The way it “balances” out (in theory) is that each side appoints their own judges — it is indeed the job of the DOJ to represent the People — at the same time, the President (again, elected via POLITICS) is the Chief Executive and Law Enforcement Official.
Prioritizing cases against an opposing political party for the sole purpose of political gain is not un-American — that’s how it’s been done for 200 plus years — if the President gets too blatant about it, he will be Impeached obviously. The key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties. Now, is it perfect, no. That’s why I am registered with a THIRD PARTY ; )
March 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pmCrump’s Brother:
See what I mean? Waste of frickin’ time.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmPrioritizing cases against an opposing political party for the sole purpose of political gain is not un-American — that’s how it’s been done for 200 plus years — if the President gets too blatant about it, he will be Impeached obviously. The key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties. Now, is it perfect, no. That’s why I am registered with a THIRD PARTY ; ) Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
It is most *definitely* unamerican – as are you, you nationalistic, fascist, authoritarian loving piece of nazi sh*t.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThe key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties. Now, is it perfect, no. That’s why I am registered with a THIRD PARTY ; ) Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
You only have TWO parties, if one the parties doesn’t rig the elections – dum bass! At that point your *independent* vote is only useful for show. You’re a stupid child, aren’t you JakeOff?
March 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pmJake,
you said… “The key difference, obviously, with the Former Soviet Union is that we have TWO parties.”
Your getting close to my point. I see what is happening with the firing of these attorneys is the attempt to establish single party rule. Even through the use of the Justice system. I find that to be wrong. You obviously don’t. Rove has made no qualms about his desire to turn our country into a country ruled by one ideology. I see this as merely part of that agenda. This is the return of the prolitburo.
When James Madison debated this on the floor of the 1st Congress The essence of the debate was over whether Congress or the President would have the power to fire people employed below the level of a Cabinet officer in the George Washington and future administrations. The conclusion of the majority – and thus the way the law is today – is that Congress felt that the Senate’s approval of the hiring of federal officers was critical (a power the Patriot Act took away, and the Senate and house voted last week to restore), and that when it comes to firing them, the President has the power. However, if the President were to abuse that power to fire federal officials through the “wanton removal of meritorious officers,” he should be immediately impeached.
After Madison ackowledged that Congress could impeach such officers whether or not the President approved he said…
“The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.”
March 30th, 2007 at 2:42 pmCrump’s Brother – thanks for that good info
March 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pmCrump’s Brother:
As I said, I have no problem with the system in place — including Impeachment if the Congress so decides — but you didn’t answer my question: you do know that FEDERAL JUDGES are predominantly from the President’s own party, right?
As you pointed out, they have to get Senate confirmation, so that’s a check and balance right there. Even if the Senate is the same party as any given President — how long has the White House stayed in the hands of one party in modern times? 12 years? There are two-term limits now on Presidents. I think that right there is enough of a check and balance too. Of course, our very first President lamented the rise of political parties — I wish we could all just be “Americans” too — there’s no way to unring that bell now though.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pmJake,
Of course I’m aware that federal judges are appointed mainly due to their judicial philosophy. Again though, but that’s a different thing altogether, because the President can’t fire if he doesn’t like their decisions. Only Congress can impeach them. And that can only happen for “bad behavior”. This was done specifically to keep politics out of that process as much as possible. The prosecutor purge is obviously different than that.
As far as your term limit argument. I understand you think that is a check on Presidential ability to turn a country into one ran by a single philosophy. But it isn’t. If you go back to the Nixon Presidency, Democrats (Once we get to 2008) will only have had nominating power for 12 of the last 40 years. Hardly equitable. The courts have been well stacked by those on the right.
Again though. I would hold that the prosecutor situation is substantively different than federal judgeships.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pmPerhaps the Democrats should have thought about the long-term impact of losing Vietnam for us then?
March 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pmNice Jake,
That’s your retort. I guess your done being substatntive.
Again, judges aren’t the issue.
March 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pmI never said it had to be numerically even — just because the Democrats were in the Oval Office 12 years doesn’t mean that much — some judges were holding on to the beach seats way past when they should have retired hoping a Democrat was elected in 1992, for instance. It balances out though, and if it doesn’t, that’s why they say “Elections have consequences” : )
March 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pmI’m just using judges as one example.
March 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmI never said it had to be numerically even — just because the Democrats were in the Oval Office 12 years doesn’t mean that much — some judges were holding on to the beach seats way past when they should have retired hoping a Democrat was elected in 1992, for instance. It balances out though, and if it doesn’t, that’s why they say “Elections have consequences†: )
Comment by Jake on March 30, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
George H W Bush was a Democrat? Or perhaps George W Bush was a Democrat for his first four years in office? Either way, there’re a lot of history books and national records that will require revision.
I think that I am on Jake’s ignore list for reasons that still elude me. I have responded to each of his points at least ten times each and I have never issued a disparaging remark against his persona.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:37 pmI think I have it! Jake is admiting that Gore won the 2000 election. So while W sat in the White House, the administration was actually democratic.
March 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pmLOL “Democrat” should be “Republican” above.
For the record, however, calling me a crash-test dummy is, in fact, a personal attack.
March 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pmTO ECHO FDR:
March 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“Yesterday, January 20, 2001 —- a date which will live in INFAMY — George Walker Bush was inaugurated as President of the United
States of America…..” THE REST WE KNOW, EXCEPT FOR THE FATE
AWAITING CHIMPya and Bushland Uber Allies, THOSE NAZI-FASCIST
CREEPS!!!!!
#26 Jake (and sorry, folks for trashing the troll, but I couldn’t resist):
#2 Yes, I think it’s O.K. to fire them for not “prioritizing†cases against Democrats or ignoring cases against Republicans — that’s all within prosecutorial discretion anyways — I haven’t seen a case where I draw the line yet. I guess if Bush fired one because she refused to sleep with him (no other legitimate reason), that would be grounds for a sexual harrassment suit. But, if it LEGAL to dismiss them, I’m not sure where (or why) you are inserted some higher standard than that. Is that what you are asking?
“As long as law doesn’t explicitly and unabiguously forbid it, it’s OK.” Some “higher standard[s]“. Guess we know where Jake sets the bar for morality (and legality). But to give him his due, he’s just mediocre in that respect within the Republican cadres….
Cheers,
March 30th, 2007 at 9:57 pmJake, It is in your resume. You merely embellished it by claiming that you evaluated rocket sleds as they were slammed into concrete barriers. I worked in personnel and know how to decipher those upscale terms. I also appear to be off your ignore list.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:04 pmThat opens up the government to a malicious prosecution lawsuit though.
yeah jake, lucky for them they have this funky thing called “sovereign immunity”…
March 31st, 2007 at 3:25 amValiant:
The federal government has specifically waived “sovereign immunity” for malicious prosecution. Of course, in the hypothetical above, Bush would be immune from suit PERSONALLY. Maybe that’s what you meant?
Crump’s Brother:
You may be interested in this “The President’s Right to Fire”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec31mar31,0,3822929.story?coll=la-opinion-center
March 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm