Gonzalez and the 8 US attorneys

[migirl]

Does anyone else not get why this is being made into such a big deal?

I'm as Democratic as they come, but I still don't really understand why this is a political issue. Maybe I haven't been following it closely enough, but my understanding is that these US attorneys were all appointed (i.e., "at will" and NOT elected) officials. So doesn't anyone (even the evil Karl Rove!) have the authority to fire any one of them at any time for any reason? It seems to me that it's a personnel issue, not a political one.

[PrincessFiona]

I *think* (and I've paid almost no attention because I just can't summon the interest lately ) that it is because all of the individuals who were terminated were working on politically *hot* cases...in some cases they were warned not to prosecute, etc and chose to anyway and then were let go....

Someone step in and correct me if I'm wrong...

kris

Yes - they were appointed and can be tanked at any time, and no one disputes that. It seems that this group was targeted b/c they weren't following the party line, even though as a US atty they're supposed to stay impartial. There were "threatening" phone calls made, and the attempts to smear their names post-firing were sleazy. If they were truly fired to make room for different folks, just say that ... "a change" ... don't say it was for performance reasons when they (I believe) all had quality reviews.

Most of them stayed quiet until their names were publicly being smeared.

[Sheherezade]

From the analysis I've heard:

1) There is some question about the reasons for the firings being politically motivated made more obvious and glaring because of White House emails and what have you. I did hear an AG say that "threatening" phone calls from legislators were the norm in his office under any administration. He said you have to get used to telling them to go stick it....

2) Patriot act section being used to re-hire people without Congressional oversight. Apparently there was a clause that allowed hirings w/o Congress because they thought it might be necessary to streamline in the event of a terrorist attack. Somewhere along the way, it was decided that you shouldn't have a power if you couldn't use it. That - or the alternate theory - that the clause was put in for exactly these types of situations and only argued as a terrorist thing.

I agree it's a mountain out of a molehill. I still like reading all the White House emails because it's pure gossip. Political soap opera....