On Sep 29, 2:38*pm, RB wrote:
Cliff wrote:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/...tml?elr=KArksD....
* "A Justice Department report to be released today offers a blistering critique
of the political motivations that led to the firings of a group of U.S.
attorneys in late 2006 ..."
* "The report was also expected to produce evidence that Sampson was carrying
out directives from more senior officials, including former White House adviser
Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers."

What part of "..serves at the pleasure of the Executive office" do you
assholes not understand?

Well, if they were fired because they refused to *not* drop
investigations into prominent republicans, or were fired because they
refused to *maliciously* prosecute democrats that were not under
otherwise scrutiny, there's a problem. And there was a crime (in their
marching orders).

If they were fired just because they didn't walk the walk with proper
republican ideology, I see that as a problem because a DOJ that's just
an executive political tool will of course be misused... but such use
is indeed legal and constitutional.

IOW, they were legally fired, but if they were fired because they
wouldn't break the law, I for one would like to know.


Dave