From: "Geo." 

Ok picture this Hillary gets elected, decides to keep the current crop then
2 months in decides to fire 10 and replace them without confirmations, the
replacements are very anti-bush and start going after him and his
ex-administration and other select reps.

You're ok with this?

Geo. (I know, now you won't sleep tonight because I said the H word..)

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:45ee2c62$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Look, as I've already said, I have no problem with the loophole being
> closed, but it's still just not that big a deal  self-serving speeches littered with faux questions by Levin, Specter
> et.al. just before they can't find any reason not to confirm> 
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:45ee2a35$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> It's not the hiring and firing that is the problem. It's the bypassing of
>> Senate confirmation in the process due to the Bush sponsored change to
>> the Patriot Act that is the problem - Going from 120 days to indefinite.
>> It should not be a partisan issue. I wouldn't give the Dems that power
>> either
>>
>> Mark wrote:
>>> I'm still nonplussed about this whole thing. The president is empowered
>>> to fire and hire them at will, he doesn't need any well-vetted reasons
>>> for it. You're saying he should have not fired them because some Dems
>>> would complain about it? Why?
>>>
>>> Look, don't get me wrong, it's fine with me if that loophole is closed,
>>> but it's just not a big deal -- it's not like the appointees don't have
>>> to follow the law. If Bush wants, for instance, his attorneys to
>>> prosecute Union pension fund corruption as a higher priority than CEO
>>> corruption, that's his perrogative -- they're all going to get theirs in
>>> time anyway.
>>>
>>> In this example, union guys will be in jail between now and the Obama
>>> presidency, then starting in Feb '09 the CEOs will get theirs >> example actually, since Bush went after the CEO corruption that was
>>> hatched before he was elected>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>> news:45ee1cdc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>> news:45ee0b2d{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:45ee007a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> Right - bunch of nothing - Just fire those
prosecutors who wouldn't
>>>>>> file charges against Democrats before the election
then appoint your
>>>>>> own goons without the need for Senate approval -
Hail Caesar!!!
>>>>> I simply don't ascribe nefarious motives to every
*single* thing a
>>>>> president (any president) does. My understanding is
they were not
>>>>> operating with their priorities in alignment with those of the
>>>>> administration. You seem to think his priorities are
filing charges
>>>>> against Dems, I disagree. Hell Sandy Berger's
sweetheart deal proves
>>>>> that out. 
>>>>>
>>>>> My only complaint is I wish he'd fired them because
they wouldn't
>>>>> prosecute illegal aliens fast enough, but I know
that's not true.
>>>>>
>>>> http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6188497
>>>> What the Justice Department has said about six U.S.
attorneys who were
>>>> asked to resign. Under each prosecutor are comments from previous
>>>> department-issued performances reviews and then statements
Tuesday by
>>>> William Moschella, an associate deputy attorney general, about the
>>>> reasons given that the prosecutors were asked to step down. He
>>>> testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CAROL LAM, U.S. attorney in San Diego
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "Her gun prosecution
numbers are at the
>>>> bottom of the list. ... (On immigration cases), her numbers for a
>>>> border district just didn't stack up."
>>>>
>>>> 2005 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "An effective manager and
respected leader ...
>>>> respected by the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, and (U.S.
>>>> attorney's office) staff."
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> JOHN McKAY, U.S. attorney in Seattle
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "The department really had policy
>>>> differences and were concerned with the manner in which he
went about
>>>> advocating the particular policies ... on information
sharing. He spent
>>>> quite a considerable amount of time advocating for a particular
>>>> system."
>>>>
>>>> 2006 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "An effective, well-regarded
and capable
>>>> leader ... (who) established strategic goals that were
appropriate to
>>>> meet the priorities of the department."
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> BUD CUMMINS, U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark.
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "His was not for
performance-based
>>>> reasons. ... The administration asked Mr. Cummins to move
on only after
>>>> we knew that he had indicated he was not going to serve out the
>>>> remainder of his term."
>>>>
>>>> 2006 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Very competent and highly
regarded by the
>>>> federal judiciary, law enforcement and civil client agencies. ...
>>>> Established strategic goals that were appropriate to meet the
>>>> priorities of the department."
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> DANIEL BOGDEN, U.S. attorney for Nevada
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "There was no
particular deficiency.
>>>> There was an interest in seeing renewed energy and renewed vigor in
>>>> that office, really taking it to the next level."
>>>>
>>>> 2003 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Highly regarded by the
federal judiciary, the
>>>> law enforcement and civil client agencies, and the staff
of the (U.S.
>>>> attorney's office). He was a capable leader."
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> DAVID IGLESIAS, U.S. attorney for New Mexico
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "The district was in
need of greater
>>>> leadership. ... Mr. Iglesias had delegated to his first
assistant the
>>>> overall running of his office. U.S. attorneys are hired to run the
>>>> office."
>>>>
>>>> 2005 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Experienced in legal, management and
>>>> community relations work and was respected by the
judiciary, agencies
>>>> and staff. ... Had a well conceived strategic plan that
complied with
>>>> department priorities."
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> PAUL CHARLTON, U.S. attorney in Arizona
>>>>
>>>> JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TESTIMONY: "Mr. Charlton had
undertaken in his
>>>> district a policy with regard to the taping of FBI
interviews and set a
>>>> policy in place there that had national ramifications. It did not go
>>>> through the whole policy process. ... On the death
penalty, we have a
>>>> process in the Department of Justice. It is the one area that is
>>>> nondelegable by the attorney general which (Mr. Charlton), in a
>>>> particular case was told and authorized to seek in a
particular case.
>>>> He chose instead to continue to litigate after that long
and exhaustive
>>>> process."
>>>>
>>>> 2003 PERFORMANCE REVIEW: "Well respected by the (U.S.
attorney's
>>>> office) staff, investigative and civil client agencies, local law
>>>> enforcement community, Native American nations, and
judiciary regarding
>>>> his integrity, professionalism and competence."
>>>>
>>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5