"at the President's pleasure" ?!

[DeadElephant_ORG]

So the Republican "talking-point" attempting to stem the tide of public outrage about the political firings of the Attorneys General is that the AGs "serve at the pleasure of the President". That statement is not just incorrect. It's treasonous.

The Attorneys General, like all constitutional officers, are sworn to defend the constitution - not to defend the President, or Karl Rove, or Alberto Gonzales, or Randall Duke Cunningham, or Tom Delay, or "Kenny boy" Lay, or Mark Foley, or Jack Abramoff, or the Republican Party. In other words, they serve us - the people - not the President. This is precisely what is meant by "a government of laws, not of men". And no man is above the law.

On no other issue - not even the policies of torture, and rampant spying - have the neoconservatives made their contempt for the rule of law, and for the citizens of this democracy, more overt than this. Unless you are among the very few who are glad to see the entire apparatus of American Justice subverted to be used as a weapon against "enemies" of the Ruling Party, the time to resist is NOW.

Impeach!

[yellerpup]

1. Couldn' agree with your outrage more.

The phrase has lately come to set my teeth on edge. Welcome to DU. :hi:

[KT2000]

2. Impeach is right

Using the federal work force to work for the repub party instead of the US IS treasonous.
How many does that make? Enough to impeach

[rwenos]

3. "Like all Constitutional Officers"

Am I missing something? I didn't find any mention of the Attorney General in the Constitution or amendments. I think the office was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The AG is for sure sworn to uphold the Constitution, and I'm not defending Alberto Gonzalez, who has given us a clear image of the face of latent American Fascism.

But the AG and all the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. The only way they'll ever turn Attorneygate into something is if Congress finds some secondary crime -- i.e., perjury, obstruction, bribery.

PLEASE correct me if I've missed something obvious.

[petronius]

4. I don't think you've missed anything

I doubt there is anything criminal here - presidents do have the right to remove political appointees at anytime. However, the key issue here is the extreme scumminess of the Bushies in firing holders of non-partisan offices for refusing to be sufficuently partisan, and the unprecedented nature of that act. The obvious conclusion is that Bushies believe that justice and law enforcement should be politically partisan - an idea which should terrify any American who isn't a freeper or a fool...

[datadiva]

7. I thnk the oath of office might be involved here

Any public servant takes the same oath. Even Notary Publics. I was one at one time and the one thing that sticks in my mind is the oath to defend the constitution was the first part of the oath. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me being attorney general he'd be sworn in.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

9. criminal or not, it's impeachable

I think you ARE missing something. One of the Articles of Impeachment Nixon faced was abuse of power. Specifically he had directed agencies of the government, such as the IRS, to carry out politically motivated vendetta against Democratic opponents.

[Kikosexy2]

5. What's this...

about presidential pleasures?....doesn't the First Lady give him pleasure all the time...not that kind of pleasure Emily...oh, that's very different...nevermind....

[dopplerEffect]

10. where's Monica when we NEED her ???

...sigh.

[dweller]

6. today's SMW 'toon ...

dp

[Dr Fate]

8. DEMS should allow them to offer than explanation while under oath. n/t

n/t

[fuzzyball]

11. This issue is beating a dead horse...

it won't yield anything. Janet Reno fired ALL
Attorney generals. The precedent has been set.
Let's not waste energy on dead end issues.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

12. sorry -- NOT the same

Besides the mis-use of the Patriot Act, which allowed Bush to circumvent the "advice and consent" of Congress, there is a much more important difference between what Clinton and other past presidents have done, and what Bush did here.

These AGs were Bush appointees - Republicans. But the ones selected to be fired and smeared in this way either wouldn't speed up the harassment of Democratic office holders just prior to the election, or wouldn't drop charges against Republican crooks such as the convicted felon Duke Cunningham.

The claim that "Clinton did it too" is a Republican talking point, and is deliberately misleading. Apples don't equal oranges. It is standard practice, and appropriate for any President, when taking office, to bring in new AGs who share that President's values, so long as he then allows those AGs to execute their duties to the constitution independently. On the other hand, it is a criminal abuse of power to hold a gun to those AGs heads and say "you better stall for republican crooks and go after democrats hard, or we'll kick you out and smear you."