Technology, Innovation & Telecomm

Call me thick-headed, but I’m really having a hard time with this whole attorney-firing “scandal”. Where is the originating malfeasance? Last I heard, US attorneys work at the pleasure of the President. The department fired 8 of 93. When Bill Clinton was President, he and Janet Reno fired all 93, didn’t they? In fact, those kinds of positions are always in jeopardy, since they are “at the pleasure of…” jobs.

Now, if you’re tempted to analyze this from a “yeah, but were the firings motivated by the goal of serving some political purpose…” perspective, consider these:

1. At least one of the 93 attorneys fired during the Clinton administration were in the process of investigating him.

2. Since when is *anything* in Washington *not* politically motivated?

3. Since when is the motivation for firing someone subject to Congressional investigation, subpoena, etc.?

4. Nowhere in my career has there ever been a guarantee that if I were fired, it would be for the “right” reasons. That may not make it right, but it is the way of the world.

5. What particular advantage would be gained by firing only the 8?

This is yet another case of a media-enhanced, drive-by “scandal” created to try to make the current administration look as bad as possible for the upcoming election. No, by itself it won’t make or break the election, but the more of these kinds of trumped-up situations that can be shoved in the public’s face, the better, as far as the liberals and liberal press is concerned.

Lastly, when you place individuals into a situation (our current attorney-general) where they have to justify something they should have free reign to do, with the glaring lights of the media on them, what kind of responses would you imagine they’d give? I will never justify lying, but this isn’t a clear case of that either.

Plus, just what is the real importance of any of this?

Sorry, but comments are now closed. Check out another post and speak up!