Obama Keeping All 93 US Attorneys??
From today's press gaggle aboard Air Force One:
Q There are reports that President Obama is going to keep all 93 U.S. attorneys; he's not going to fire any of them. Can you comment on that at all?
MR. GIBBS: Let me check on that report. I don't remember if that's quite right, so before I get out there I will -- I'll check when we land.
Excuse me?? I thought one of the driving considerations behind getting Obama in office was to mitigate the flagrantly illegal damage inflicted upon the DOJ under his predecessor. I really want to know just what the hell this is about.
Advertisement
My question to you. What what is all about? Are you saying he should fire them all, not fire them all. fire some? What? In other words what is the point you are trying to make?
February 17, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is customary for a new administration to ask for resignations across the board from those serving his predecessor. Remember all the rightwing histrionics that Clinton "fired all 93 US Attorneys!!" - despite it being standard practice?
My point, jsfox, is why on earth would Obama even think of keeping any of Bush's crop of 93 onboard - given the many instances of judicial impropriety & political machinations attributed to them?
February 17, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's firing all the US attorneys wasn't standard practice. He had to fire them all because he couldn't just fire the ones who were investigating him!!!!!! Standard democrat sleaze!!!
February 17, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely ridiculous assertion, unfounded upon reality. It is standard procedure for an incoming President to ask all U.S. Attorneys to tender the resignations. It is then up to the President whether to accept them. What was unusual about the Bush Administration's firing of U.S. Attorneys, was that it came after a reelection.
Clinton asked for all U.S. attorneys to tender their resignations in 1992, not in 1996. Are you duped by Republican talking points, or a willful respewer of lies?
February 17, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see keeping Fitzgerald. Beyond that, who knows? I don't even profess to know who the US Attorneys in most states are.
February 17, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'll check when we land"
Does the white house communications director really have to wait to land before he can make calls? We are so F'd
February 18, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want them all fired. They can hand in their resignations. Then a few can be left on although I really do not care if they all go, even Fitz.
February 18, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another day, another bunch of "progressives"
Only 54 out of 93 in office now are Senate confirmed appointees. The rest are interim or acting appointments who will have to be replaced in due course regardless. In the meantime, firing U.S. attorneys before you have someone ready to nominate as a replacement, firing them is bad form.
February 18, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Reboot.
Another day, another bunch of "progressives" getting their panties in a bunch over nothing and me screwing up my html tags.
Only 54 out of 93 in office now are Senate confirmed appointees. The rest are interim or acting appointments who will have to be replaced in due course regardless. In the meantime, firing U.S. attorneys before you have someone ready to nominate as a replacement, firing them is bad form.
February 18, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink