--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > 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? Try reading what I wrote: The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- are supposed to be independent of political influence. > > > 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. >
