For about the 500th time, the prosecutors served at the President's pleasure, which meant that he could have fired them based on the advice of a talking shoehorn.
And for about the 501st time, serving at the "pleasure of the President" is not a blank check to obstruct justice or violate the Hatch Act.
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/contempt_memo_072407.pdf
"Firing a U.S. Attorney in order to impede or obstruct a pending criminal case, or a pending criminal investigation,
could constitute an obstruction of justice. (snip) If Mr. Iglesias or another prosecutor was fired in retaliation for failing to bring vote fraud cases that lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis, the firing could also violate the
criminal Hatch Act prohibition on retaliation contained in 18 USC 606. (snip) To the extent a prosecutor was fired in order to bring in a more compliant individual to pursue politically advantageous cases, such misconduct could possibly violate the
prohibitions on obstructing government proceedings contained in 18 USC 1505 and 18 USC 1512(c)(2)."
"Concerns about the apparently political nature of these firings are only heightened by the emerging allegations that some U.S. Attorneys who were retained by the Department - the so-called "loyal Bushies" -
may have selectively prosecuted Democrats. Bringing the force of the federal criminal justice apparatus to bear on an individual based in any way on that person's political affiliation is a
clear abuse of the prosecutorial function, and may well violate the person's civil rights.
"Evidence that such wrongdoing may have occurred includes a recent academic study finding that federal prosecutors during the Bush Administration have indicted Democratic officeholders far more frequently than their Republican counterparts. The study's authors found that
of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats, and noted that
local Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to be subject to criminal charges from the Department of Justice."
Please review the Clinton era firings of far larger numbers or Federal prosecutors for political reasons.
And for about the 501st time:
"Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office,
legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors."
Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile,
wrote that it "
is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind."
"
Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term."
So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not? - Public Eye - CBS News
