Quote:
Originally posted by jyl
4. Firing the Attorneys. United States attorneys can be fired whenever a president wants, but not, as § 1512 (c) puts it, to corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding.
Let’s take the case of Carol Lam, United States attorney in San Diego. The day the news broke that Ms. Lam, who had already put one Republican congressman in jail, was investigating a second one, Mr. Sampson wrote an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement. Congress has also started investigating the removal of Fred Black, the United States attorney in Guam, who was replaced when he began investigating the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Anyone involved in firing a United States attorney to obstruct or influence an official proceeding could have broken the law.
[/i]
|
This is the main issue of interest (the other stuff seems like so much fluff, such wishy-washy "could be" "possibly is" language, and is all tied to this primary underlying issue).
The problem with this is that this argument can always be made. Because prosecutions and other such "official proceedings" are always ongoing.
If a Dem gets elected, he/she will certainly be smart enough to avoid this problem, and will release the majority of the Bush appointed USAs. All of them will be in the middle of prosecutions and investigations, of which Bush approves, and of which the new Democratic president disapproves.
The new Democratic president will appoint USAs who are not likely to investigate Dems, and will remove those that are. Same if a Repub. president is appointed. The president is entitled to appoint USA's who share their agenda and viewpoint. And if a Dem is elected president and a USA slips by who appears to be focusing on investigating Democrats, you can be sure the Dem president will be quick to remove that person, too. Why keep someone who serves at your pleasure, but is diametrically opposed to your viewpoint? The president (Dem or Rep) won't, and isn't required to. In that regard, it's good to be king.
USA's are not Article III judges.