jstein wrote: > As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly > elected president to ask for the resignations of > political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, > especially if they were appointed by the other party. > So, where's the scandal?
> What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys > a president has appointed before the president's term > is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. > According to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment and morale problems in Ryan's office. What do you think? > In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that > the "cause" in question was these attorneys' > unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by > the White House and Justice Department for political > purposes. The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- > are supposed to be independent of political influence. > So the fired U.S. Attorneys were political appointees. Where's the scandal? > The even more important question here is, how many > of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their > jobs because they *did* submit to political influence? > Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations.
