To: combjelly who wrote (791386 ) 6/22/2014 9:04:15 PM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to I'm familiar with the concept of ad hominem , and my comment wasn't. You cited opinion then tried to refer to it as fact. The underlying article cited by your Wiki source was this one:washingtonpost.com but I do not find it to be an important or material one . 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 Attorney General, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term. However, all of the incumbents had served more than the four years presumed in their original commission and, I suggest, replacing them is entirely the prerogative of the executive, as each deposed U.S. Attorney has agreed . The personnel practices employed, giving inaccurate reasons for terminating them and not giving them the courtesy of notice, are, as the AG now concedes, unacceptable. Washington: How were these prosecutors political loyalty assessed (or was it)? If it was, how do we justify this? Stuart M. Gerson: I was not involved in the evaluation of these persons, so can't answer definitively. I don't think, however, that the administration has to justify itself, except if evidence emerges that replacements were made to thwart investigations. As I've noted earlier, I don't see any evidence of this. [This would be contrary to your previous claims].Washington: At what point, if any, do these firings create undue executive branch intrusions in the judicial branch and its workings, thus becoming a constitutional crisis? Stuart M. Gerson: I don't think that there is any point where there is an Executive Branch intrusion into the Judicial function. washingtonpost.com
