Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
In an unusual and almost unprecedented move, the Justice Department is replacing competent US Attorneys (who they originally appointed) with politcally subservient hacks.
"Two months after the firings first began to make waves on Capitol Hill, it has also become clear that most of the prosecutors were overseeing significant public-corruption investigations at the time they were asked to leave. Four of the probes target Republican politicians or their supporters, prosecutors and other officials said"
http://tinyurl.com/ywp7lz
"But the Feb. 20 ruling vacating the sentence and the possibility of Trenkler receiving a lighter sentence prompted US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan to issue a public apology yesterday."
http://tinyurl.com/2cgcuw
Posts: 2,302
Threads: 140
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
Just wait and check the extensive list of folks on the pardon list when Bush sneaks out of town at the end of his term.
Posts: 48
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2021
Reputation:
0
I believe that one of the first things Clinton did in ofiice was summarily replace ALL U.S.
Attorneys, without a cause, of course. Including one in Kansas who was investigating
Whitewater/Madison-related matter.
Posts: 137
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation:
0
He did, but it was hardly the first thing -
A.G. Janet Reno (for Clinton) demanded the resignation of all US Attorneys in March 1993. They were all Reagan/Bush appointees...
Posts: 31,261
Threads: 2,348
Joined: Feb 2025
You two either missed something or are being intentionally misleading.
All new administrations appoint new US Attorneys and this administration did as well. These are their own appointees who are now being fired because they are conducting corruption investigations involving Republicans, while the incompetent US Attorney for Massachusetts (a loyal fellow) is being retained.
But thanks for the comments, it shows how much interest you have in government ethics....zero!
Posts: 24,926
Threads: 4,391
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
Maybe Reno and Clinton did that, but the Senate had to confirm the new ones. WTF does this bypassing Senate confirmation have to do with national security, that it was put in the Patriot Act.
Posts: 27,843
Threads: 757
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
[quote Dennis S] WTF does this bypassing Senate confirmation have to do with national security, that it was put in the Patriot Act.
That is not a question a patriotic American would ask.
Please report to the nearest detention center. Do not bring your lawyer.
Posts: 2,302
Threads: 140
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
In the case of Clinton, they were removing appointees from the Reagan/Bush 1 admins - which every admin does when it arrives.
In the case of Bush 2, they are removing their own appointees that are actually doing their job and going after them and/or their friends.
A major difference.
But don't let facts get in the way of good spin.
