White House's recent scandal..?

Sorry kid, but that is not a scandal. First all political appointees work at the pleasure of the president. That means that at any time the president can tell you to resign and you are gone. The only way that can’t happen is if the prosecutor is working on a political case that the firing of the prosecutor will hinder the case. Since these people were not involved in a political case of that type the president is free to fire them for wearing the wrong colors shoes. Case on point, Mr. Clinton fired all federal prosecutors in order to hire all democrat lawyers. Totally legal. In this case the President fired 8 out of the hundred or so people.
It has little to do with GOP leaning or supporting on JU, it has everything to do with the fact that it is not a scandal and totally within the law of the land. What is there to talk about or debate?

then why did the White House deleted email logs about this topic, when the law asks that every emails are filed for the archives?

I mean, they did try some kind of cover up, or so it seems?

If it's just a fluke, why did I've read it in The Economist's opening editorial?

within the law of the land then why did the White House deleted email logs about this topic, when the law asks that every emails are filed for the archives? I mean, they did try some kind of cover up, or so it seems? If it's just a fluke, why did I've read it in The Economist's opening editorial?

What does this have to do with the topic of fired prosecutors?

Back on topic...maybe you should go read this instead of relying on "The Economist".
From USA Today:

Before 2004, for instance, e-mails to and from the accounts were typically automatically deleted every 30 days along with all other RNC e-mails. Even though that was changed in 2004, so that the White House staffers with those accounts were excluded from the RNC's automatic deletion policy, some of their e-mails were lost anyway when individual aides deleted their own files, Stanzel said.

The whole story at Link

Not all the facts are in. Until then I don't have an answer because I am not in the loop on this topic and I have not done any research beyond the basic look. Based on what has been reported, no laws were broken in firing the people. Looking deeper some procedures may have been avoided but no proff of this so far.

I wasn't arguing that point. But the general opinion about the people fired, they were doing an excellent job. They just didn't obeyed the White House's orders.



I've read it..

It just made my point. The whole law about forbidding the White House staff to delete emails is to prevent political decisions by it's members. They were given Republican account, which is clearly a way to bypass such law.

Then we learn that the standard procedure was to automaticly delete emails, and "we don't know what has been lost", and probably never will. This throw a lot of fog on the whole situation.

And the 2 points are clearly related, since there have been clues within the recovered archived of White House email account, that the staff were already considering the succession of the people that will be fired, which is in clearly violation of apolitical decision requirement by the staff.

These clue lead to the discovery of said-deletion of emails. If it's not a deliberate cover-up, it's clearly the habit of an organisation who wants to hide things from public interest - even if the law forbid it to.

I love it when people try to create a scandal out of nothing. The appointing and firing of the federal prosecutors is completely at the discretion of the President. So, by simply saying they were fired because "just didn't obeyed the White House's orders" is meaningless.

If you work for someone and do not follow their "orders" you can well expect them to fire you. Since when is this a scandal?

The President can fire those prosecutors any time he likes, and for any reason at all. That is well within his right and the law. There is nothing to cover up and there is no scandal.

Nothing but a bunch of claptrap from people in a position to benefit from embarrassing the administration by accusing them of breaking some imaginary rule that never existed. They just decided post-facto to claim different rules should have been in place. I have less & less respect for Spector each time he flaps his outraged jaws about this, backstabbing jerk that he is.

Such an excellent job that Senator Feinstein wrote a letter of complaint because the woman fired was not doing a good enough job in her area and wanted the justice department to do something about it. Now that same Senator is screaming that the prosecutor was a fine person and did not need to be fired. Is this not the same war profiteer that made billions funneling no-bid military contracts to her husband while at the same time attacking Halliburton and the President for their no-bid contracts? Like I said no laws were broken with the firings. The e-mails are another matter that has not been fully fleshed out yet.



If this was planned from the beginning then your theory might have some merit. But can you prove this is what happened? Or was it simply having multiple accounts. I have five separate accounts with the government, I have a few accounts under different names and different organizations. Do I have those accounts in contradiction of federal statutes or do I have them as a private citizen in addition to being a federal employee? Am I bypassing the law or just making use of an account that is convenient? I use outlook as my e-mail program and sometimes I forget to swap out the current user and send out stuff and I get replies like who is paladin? Oops! That happened a lot when I was a consultant with Lockeed Martin a few years back. Was I bypassing security protocols or make a mistake?

I wasn't arguing that point. But the general opinion about the people fired, they were doing an excellent job. They just didn't obeyed the White House's orders.

That's the "whole" point. They weren't doing their jobs correctly! I can only cite the one I remember. You know the US has an immigration problem. One of that were fired, was fired because he "failed" to prosecute immigration law breakers.

It just made my point. The whole law about forbidding the White House staff to delete emails is to prevent political decisions by it's members. They were given Republican account, which is clearly a way to bypass such law.

Then you didn't read it very well. Let me help.

Before 2004, for instance, e-mails to and from the accounts were typically automatically deleted every 30 days along with all other RNC e-mails. EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS CHANGED IN 2004, so that the White House staffers with those accounts were excluded from the RNC's automatic deletion policy, some of their e-mails were lost anyway when individual aides deleted their own files, Stanzel said.

Do you get it now? They changed the policy in 2004...LONG BEFORE the people were fired. Don't you typically delete an email after you've read it? If not you must have a VERY large harddrive.

First, have you ever deleted an email? If as Paladin says (and he is correct), it is legal, why worry about keeping documention of legal actions?

Second, it is alleged that some emails were deleted. But emails never received cannot be deleted. So again, where is the proof they were deleted or that they need not have been.

You did not get that information from Diane Feinstein as she wanted one of the fired ones fired 2 years ago. Come to think of it, other than some bloviating politicians that are looking for anything to yell scandal - no one has said any of them were doing an excellant job.