So according to Gonzales US Attorneys are "Political Appointees"

[Bandit]

"Of course they'd be involved. These are political appointees." Gonzales said about the Administration. Is this correct? Are US Prosecutors now "political" appointees and does that mean that Democrats can never expect a fair and impartial trial? Just because the President makes the appointments does that necessarily mean they are "political" appointees? US Prosecutors should be as removed from politics as possible but apparently that is not the case any more..

[rox63]

1. They may be political appointees

But they are usually subject to Senate approval. The change they slipped into the Patriot Act (gawd, I hate that name) makes it legal for them to avoid that.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Subject to Senate approval and usually recommended or approved by home Senators

[Warpy]

2. They serve at the pleasure of the White House

However, as Nixon found out, firing prosecutors in an attempt to shut down sensitive investigations a year or two into a lame duck term is not a good idea. It gets people asking just what he's trying to dodge.

In this case, he's trying to dodge Carol Lam's investigation into the money laundering activities of Brent Wilkes.

This is the Saturday Night Massacre, part II. Nixon got away with his. Stupid will probably get away with this one.

Nixon wasn't able to shut down the Watergate investigation. Let's hope Congress takes over Lam's work.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Democrats in Congress need to take Bush and his cronies down in public

They can't make any deals in private. To do so will allow the Republicans to recover from the setback. It must be engrained in the minds of the public that Republicans can't be trusted.

[napi21]

4. USA'S have always been political appointees. It's the same

as DA'S are political appointees at the State level. HOWEVER, those positions have usually been kept at arms length from politics AFTER their appointment and confirmation. I've known several DA'S & USA'S in my career, and ALL of them KNEW if the opposite Party candidate won election of President, or Governor, their job was history. Rarely though, were any of them bothered during a political term. THAT is why this firing incident has made such a splash. It was done during the middle of a Pub term, and conspicuously done to punish/reward political favors.

[onenote]

5. technically yes

What distinguishes political appointees from "career" appointees, is that the former serve at the pleasure of the President.

While US attorneys have four year terms by law, the law also provides that they can be removed by the President, with no provision requiring any particular reason be given for removal. Thus, technially, US Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President and are political appointees.

The fact that they are political appointees manifests itself in the common practice of presidents in appointing their own slate of US Attorneys upon taking office.

That being said, it also is true that once appointed, the practice has been not to subject US Attorneys to political pressure in the performance of their jobs.

[POAS]

7. Yes they are with a BIG BUT

When a change of administration occurs, especially from one party to another but even after the re-election ona President to a second term, it is not unusual for a number or even all US attorneys to be asked for their resignations. Then the replacement are vetted and approved by the Senate.

The big BUT is that once the USAs are in place they are expected to be independent of political influence and are free to operate their offices as would best serve justice and the needs of the local communities they are serving in.

It is never proper for politicians to attempt to influnce ongoing investigations by USAs and there is at least circumstantial evidence that this is what happened here, especially in teh case of Carol Lam who brought down Cunningham and was in the process of investigating further into the circumstances surrounding the Cunningham case.