Author Topic: US Attorney timeline  (Read 4346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2007, 10:50:06 PM »
Clinton fired 93 at one time. Hubbell was the henchman. they were not fired for incompetence or malfeasance. They were fired for political reasons. Clinton wanted his own people on board. It's a patronage job. Simple as that.

As has been asked many of times in this very thread, why was Clinton's bloodletting OK and Bush's not?

Which continues to go unanswered     
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2007, 12:10:58 AM »
"Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration."


Ok , the irritaeing thing is that Bush put up with a large nuber of Clinton appointees for six years , if he were a decent person he would have fire every one with the the taint of the opposition party immediately .

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2007, 01:28:19 AM »
Quote
Ok , the irritaeing thing is that Bush put up with a large nuber of Clinton appointees for six years , if he were a decent person he would have fire every one with the the taint of the opposition party immediately .

In the case of Iglesias and others he fired a Republican. Which i am pretty sure he is also allowed to do.

It is humorous reading charges of obstructing justice by firing these folks. Iglesias was charged with moving too slowly with bringing forth charges. The new guy might move a bit faster. Heck he might move as fast as the DA pursuing Tom DeLay. Then everyone will be happy!

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2007, 01:31:40 AM »
'When the party in the White House changes hands, it is common for the new president to fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as Ronald Reagan did in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. By contrast, Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although all were replaced eventually.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400462_2.html
'
In the current controversy, Democrats have accused the Justice Department of playing politics with the prosecutors' jobs. They suggested some of the prosecutors were fired for either investigating Republicans or failing to pursue cases against Democrats. Several of the ousted prosecutors have told Congress they were improperly pressured by Republicans on pending cases.

Even some Republicans suggest the rifle-shot dismissals of the eight prosecutors was handled clumsily, raising issues of political interference with the administration of justice rather than the president's undisputed ability to make political appointments. It displayed "idiocy on the part of the administration," suggested Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a House Judiciary Committee member, warned that the Justice Department was "going to have to come up with some answers" in explaining the firings. "If they don't, they're going to lose everyone's confidence."

For Bush it all adds up to trouble ahead, trouble behind.
'

___
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2007, 02:11:48 AM »
ABC, CBS, CNN, FNC, NBC Morning Interviews With Gonzales All Skip “March Massacre” of 1993

Mass Amnesia Over Mass Clinton Firings

    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on five broadcast and cable network TV morning shows to comment on the sudden media-manufactured “crisis” that the Justice Department fired eight U.S. Attorneys, political appointees of the President. None of the Gonzales interviewers – at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC – ever mentioned that the Clinton administration fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993.

How can firing eight be a “crisis” and firing 93 be not worth a solitary mention?

    The TV journalists asked Gonzales 42 questions this morning, and not one touched on the previous administration. Every network asked Gonzales whether he would resign – 10 times in total. (ABC asked three, CNN asked four, the others just once.) Here’s the network breakdown.

    ABC. Good Morning America wins a prize for the most visibly shameless Clinton spin against Team Bush, alternating between Hillary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos. Reporter Jake Tapper touted an exclusive interview with Mrs. Clinton and never challenged her on air with a whisper of her husband’s actions. Then came Stephanopoulos -- who was White House spokesman defending the Clintons when they canned all 93 attorneys. He pressed Gonzales like a prosecutor, asking “if it turns out that evidence of political interference does come up in these e-mails and other communications, will you resign?”

    CBS. On The Early Show, anchor Harry Smith fueled the notion of a political purge, telling Gonzales about how “the perception” is that the U.S. Attorneys were fired for not “carrying out the White House’s agenda.” He also asked: “What’s more important, the rule of law or the appetite for change at the White House?”

    CNN. American Morning anchor Miles O’Brien constantly interrupted Gonzales, badgering him to answer whether he would resign four times. O’Brien was most outrageous in using the term “mass firing” and then asserting it was unprecedented: “This is an important personnel matter – unprecedented levels of firings of U.S. Attorneys. It’s a big deal, isn’t it?” Gonzales started to say it’s “not unusual” for a “new president” to change the guard, but O’Brien interrupted: “Yeah, but we’re talking mid-term...the beginning of the second go-round.”

    FNC. On Fox & Friends, anchor Gretchen Carlson sounded like the other networks, asking if Gonzales would resign and echoing Democrats: “Chuck Schumer, senator from New York, says the buck stops with Attorney General Gonzales.” She did note that U.S. Attorneys can be fired for any reason, and asked Gonzales if he was saying they should have been told why they were fired.

    NBC. On Today, anchor Matt Lauer tossed the typical blocks of accusatory liberal text at Gonzales. One was from liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus accusing him of being “an absentee landlord, chronically clueless.” The other was Sen. Charles Schumer comparing the Gonzales chief of staff that resigned, Kyle Sampson, to former Cheney chief of staff Scooter Libby, saying Sampson’s resignation only “raises the temperature” of the scandal.

    Back in 1993, the media had a different sense of “crisis.” Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, and;
ABC and CBS never mentioned it.
CNN and NBC mentioned it in passing.
(FNC didn’t exist yet.)
The media do not merely arrive at the scene of a “crisis.” They are the manufacturers of “crisis.” If they decide a political action is not a “crisis,” then it is not – even when the facts of yesteryear are much more dramatic than the facts right now. — Tim Graham

Hypocrisy on grand display
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2007, 04:49:59 AM »
Sirs,
These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term. 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/important-to-karl/?resultpage=1&

***********************
via anonymous liberal

UPDATE: A number of commenters (no doubt directed here by Instapundit) are claiming that this really isn't a big deal because Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys. It's hard to understate just how silly this argument is. Yes, Clinton (and Reagan and Bush and every other president) replaced all the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his term. This is what always happens when a Democratic administration replaces a Republican one (or vice versa). It's what Bush did when he took office. The U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. But once a U.S. Attorney is appointed, he or she is supposed to serve only the interests of justice. It is highly problematic if U.S. Attorneys are making prosecutorial decisions based on a fear of being fired by the White House. That's why no previous administration has engaged in this sort of prosecutor purge mid-term. If you don't want to take my word for this, here's what Kyle Sampson wrote in his memo to Harriet Miers last year:

    In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed . . .

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. Just because someone serves at "the pleasure of the president" doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to fire them because they are bringing charges against the "wrong" people or not bringing charges against the "right" people. If U.S. Attorneys have to consider how every indictment decision might affect their job status, it would severely undermine our system of justice.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/03/email-that-may-take-down-alberto.html
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2007, 04:59:39 AM »
Sirs, These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term.  

And..........................?  They were fired because Bush43 apparently didn't want them any more.  They were political appointees Lanya, all whopping 8 of them.  And he did it because of political reasons.  JUST AS CLINTON HAD.  Except Clinton fired 90+ for political reasons, and there wasn't even a burp of protest.  Yet the left & the mainscream media is having a hissy fit when Bush fires 8. 

That's called hypocrisy.  But don't let that stop you.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

R.R.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: US Attorney timeline
« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2007, 03:33:14 PM »
Sirs,
These were Bush43 appointees, that he himself had appointed in his first term.


So were Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and John Snow. All were replaced in Bush's second term.

All of these appointees serve at the pleasure of the president. I guess liberals are too dumb to understand this?

The same people who were so silent when Clinton purged the prosecutors investigating his land deals (Whitewater) and the shenanigans of Dan Rostinkoski are the same people who are yelling so loudly now. Funny how that works. Phony hypocrites.