Former Clinton Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too
Former Clinton Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too
At a speech in Little Rock today, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place.” Watch it:
Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claim is “pure fiction.” The Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as political retribution:
Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.
We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.
Earlier this week, Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:
You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney.
As White noted, attorneys need to serve “without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way.” By firing well-respected federal prosecutors and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system.
TPMmuckraker has the transcript:
QUESTION: One of the top talked about current issues is this issue about the appointment of US attorneys. And it has an impact here and in other states. Can you give us any insight on that?
ROVE: Look, by law and by Constitution (sic), these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and traditionally are given a four year term. And Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys. When we came in, we ultimately replaced most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place. We have appointed a total of I think 128 U.S. attorneys — that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more. Clinton did 123. I mean, this is normal and ordinary.
ROVE: What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it. And it’s served at the disadvantage at the people who…. Look, some of these were removed for cause. Some of them were policy disagreements. One United States attorney refused to file cases… of death penalty case… refused to ask for the death penalty, contrary to policy.
ROVE: Another United States attorney was doing an otherwise excellent job in the San Diego district. [She] refused to file immigration cases… at the direction of the Attorney General, she was asked to file, and she said I don’t want to make that a priority in my office. Others are (u/i) with performance issues. But this is the right of any president to appoint people to these offices. They serve at the pleasure of the president. And my view this is… unfortunately a very big attempt by some in the Congress to make a political stink about it. And the question is did they have the same reaction if they were in Congress in the 90’s, or did they have the same reaction if they were in the 80’s. Because every president comes in, appoints United States attorneys and then makes changes over the course of their time.
QUESTION: Do you think they ought to go through the confirmation process?
ROVE: Oh sure, and so do we, and we believe they should. There is in the law a mechanism. The old mechanism said that if the Congress didn’t act, they’d in essence, a judge would appoint a US attorney. We believe that presents some constitutional challenges and really is not the way the executive branch ought to be run. But yes, our intention is to submit every—for all (u/i) vacancies to submit a nomination to the United States Congress for their review and confirmation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does Rove project much?
Doesn’t Rove sound an awful lot like some of the trolls here?
‘He did it, so we can do it.”
Hey dumb sh!ts, if it was bad when Clinton did it, it is STILL bad that you are doing it.
If the car in front of you runs a red light, do you think the cop will not give you a ticket because the other guy ran the light?
March 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmSo Clinton did the same thing Bush did but simply gets off the hook because of their assumptions and opinions of why they and Bush fired US attorney’s? LOL
March 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmSheesh… How freaking cliche’? Can’t the GOP get a better defense than “Clinton did it first!”
March 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pmthese attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president
Rove is soooooo doing Bush.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmYou fu*king republican retards own the House and Senate and did nothing (if it’s even true), so suck a fu*king egg.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmAs usual, Rove is distorting the facts to meet his already-in-place agenda. He’s a political *hore and a raving, pathological sociopath. Maybe he should go join Britney in Rehab, on the OTHER wing.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:57 pmdoesn’t this seem to be a method of filibustering / slowing down the democratic congress?
March 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pmSqueal like a pig, Karl! WEEEEEE… WEEEEEE… !
March 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pmWell a Clinton chief of staff wouldn’t lie? LOL
March 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pmHi, Patsy1.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pmPeople who take opposing views and derive some satisfaction in antagonizing others simply to give creedence to thier miserable, nonproductive existence are the biggest idiots in the world. What do you want to be when YOU grow up? Did you finish your homework, yet?
Slowly now, so Bush cultists can begin to see a distinction. Clinton cleaned house upon entering the office after 12 years of Repub rule.
Bush is clearing out those who have not marched in political lockstep during his administration.
I know that for many of you, this is a very subtle distinction, but to legal scholars, it’s important.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pmIs it actually true that the FIRST U.S. Attorney fired by the neo-Tammany hall gang is not a prominent part of the current story?
This older chapter of the story has a lot more than just congressmen going to jail, tying in all of the fun parts of recent scandals, and even providing some material for the national media to be shocked, shocked, I say, at appalling conditions (with little U.S. flags on them).
After all, “…Jack Abramoff wanted to take the credit for getting rid of the chief federal prosecutor for U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean”, from a story “Abramoff sought credit for work he didn’t do”, MSNBC, Joel Seidman, June 30, 2006.
Frederick Black was the interim U.S. attorney for the territories. The story also said “Black told FBI agents investigating the wide-ranging influence-peddling scandal spawned by Abramoff that he was replaced because he stirred political controversy by starting his own, earlier probe of Abramoff.”
And Hastings was involved in this for along time, see Lawmaker in DeLay Inquiry Tied to Lobbyist”, AP, June 8, 2005. Also, the Charlie Brown congressional campaign (ran against Dolittle) sent out a bit of info on these issues, see “Campaign 2006: Brown Campaign releases records…”, Sept. 27, 2006.
THIS firing wasn’t merely the usual (for Cheney/Bush) political corruption: it is a felony conspiracy to obstruct justivce in a case where several people have already gone to jail!
March 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pmCan some one on this site give us the figures, name’s of the one’s from the Clinton years that were fired and the same for the bush bunch…He said. she said does not work for me, especiely when refering to evil #2 rove….Stat
March 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pms please, I would do it but my computer is on slow today….Blessings
So Clinton did the same thing Bush did but simply gets off the hook because of their assumptions and opinions of why they and Bush fired US attorney’s? LOL Comment by Roger_Roger — March 8, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
In light of the content of this thread, and your post, it should be clear to everyone why I call roger a st*pid c*nt. Roger thinks doing something ‘different’, is the same as doing some the ’same’. What a fcuking moron.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pmOK, have you all actually read the post you’re commenting on?
1. It is normal for a new administration to replace U.S. attorneys when they come into office.
2. Clinton replaced Rep. U.S. attorneys with Dem. U.S. attorneys.
3. Bush replaced those D.’s with R.’s.
All perfectly normal up to that point.
Now Bush is replacing his own R. appointments who were not political enough for him. David Iglesias, for example, the R. U.S. attorney from New Mexico, who did not bend to the wishes of Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson to publicize indictments of D’s right before the election. Others got on the s*** list for investigating Republicans, like Randy “Duke” Cunningham.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pmRove lied. Huh. Go figure…..
March 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pmPatty gets defensive when his boss/job is threatened.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:33 pm14. In light of the content of this thread, and your post, it should be clear to everyone why I call roger a st*pid c*nt. Roger thinks doing something ‘different’, is the same as doing some the ’same’. What a fcuking moron.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Now take a deep breath and count to ten and realize who you’re talking to. Roger_Dodger! Calling him stupid and moronic makes it seem that his intentions aren’t EVIL. And while he is obviously a very S_L_O_W L_E_A_R_N_E_R he is being programmed by his neocon handlers and so he is an EVIL LITTLE TROLL.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pmOf course his evil intention is not to make sense but to distract.
Any Repug site would have him and Patrick1 locked out. I couldn’t even leave a message for my Republican congresswoman today.
But is the little Repuke grateful. Nope.
What a d—– bag.
Well a Clinton chief of staff wouldn’t lie? LOL
Comment by Patrick1
Why there’s nobody in the Bush administration that would lie, right? Just step back from your keyboard before you make yourself look like a bigger @$$ than you already do…if it’s still possible.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pmU.S.: Military force alone won’t solve Iraq woes
Petraeus says political talks must eventually include some militant groups
March 8, 2007
Why does the top military commander want to embolden the terrorists?
Why does Petreaus hate America?
March 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pmKKKarl is the head liar, the liar of liars as it were.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:59 pm400 years from they will still be blaming Clinton.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm#15, chartreuse dog, very succinctly put. That SHOULD be clear enough for even the dumbest of the trolls. Do you mind if I copy it?
Hey, Sharon, how are you feeling? Blessings right back at you! :-D
March 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pmThis lame attempt to equate these firings with replacements at the beginning of a term is really only for the very stupidest of Bush’s base. That they can’t do any better than this shows how desperate they are. All they can do is try to keep 30% from going to 15%, hoping that holds the line on the impeachment threat.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm#15, chartreuse dog, very succinctly put. That SHOULD be clear enough for even the dumbest of the trolls.
Sadly, Jane, I suspect that many of the koolaid drinkers are actually too stupid to understand.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:04 pmReplacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution.
ok… so the KEY word must be “retribution”…
cause it’s ALL political…
i’m with sharon… names, please…
this meme has been going on a long time – ’bout time for the pushback…
March 8th, 2007 at 7:09 pmsure wish it had been more substantial…
…
#23, Jane, feel free to copy it. I often think the trolls must be feigning stupidity, no one could be that dense.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:12 pmSharon, here’s the link to American Progress’s detailed report on the Attorneys that Bush got rid of: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/03/pushing_justice.html
I’m leaving in a few minutes, so I’ll say goodnight now.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:16 pmJane, thank’s for the link and I’m doing much better, Sorry if I missed you, hope you get this tomorrow…Big hug’s to you and Wayne, love your post’s..Blessings back at ya…
March 8th, 2007 at 7:31 pm#14
Explain why Clinton repace all of the U.S. attorneys when he came to office.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm#26
Only John Podesta took it upon himself to use the word “retribution” when he doesn’t know the motive. Can you explain why Clinton replace all of he U.S. attorneys from Bush Sr.’s administration? BTW some please cite another administration that didn’t do the same thing. Bush Sr. fired alot of Regan’s appointees FYI. This is not about political retribution and TP is trying to make something out of nothing.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pmA recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (released Feb. 22, 2007) revealed that since 1981, no more than three U.S. attorneys had ever been forced out under similar circumstances.
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/07/US_attrny_rprt.pdf
March 8th, 2007 at 8:11 pm#31 – Tracy
Re-read Amanda’s post, you’re not making sense.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pmOnly John Podesta took it upon himself to use the word “retribution†when he doesn’t know the motive. Can you explain why Clinton replace all of he U.S. attorneys from Bush Sr.’s administration? BTW some please cite another administration that didn’t do the same thing. Bush Sr. fired alot of Regan’s appointees FYI. This is not about political retribution and TP is trying to make something out of nothing.
Comment by Tracy — March 8, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
When Clinton came in, all U.S. attorneys were replaced and I’m assuming they were all approved by the Senate w/ no complaints from the Congress for him doing so. When the Supreme Court made Bush president, he replaced most of the U.S. attorneys and I’m assuming again they were all approved by the Senate w/ no complaints from the Congress for him doing so. What Bush has done is fire attorneys in the middle of his term for political reasons and replaced them w/ hacks that were not approved by the Senate.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:19 pmWhere is the seperation of the two powers , Judicial and Administrative.
If the President,whether he is Republican or Democrat,can send the prosecutors home as he wishes….
That does not show independence of the Judicial.
Makes the system weak for political use and manipulation.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#31 – Tracy Re-read Amanda’s post, you’re not making sense.
Comment by Zooey — March 8, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
It’s incredibly generous of you to think that he has any (sense)! Always the half full optimist – how beautiful! ;)
March 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pmIt’s incredibly generous of you to think that he has any (sense)! Always the half full optimist – how beautiful! ;)
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Well, just in case…. :)
March 8th, 2007 at 8:31 pmThere is not level to which Rove and the spin misters aren’t willing to stoop. These people are the biggest liar to ever come down the pike. How can they sleep at night, knowing that they lie more than Bagdad Bob ever did? Fat boy needs to be sending Scooter a thank you card, because he saves him from going to jail. He should be the number one cheerleader for a pardon for poor Scooter. This moron must have been born under a lucky star.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:11 pmOf course Clinton didn’t fire all 93 US Attorneys for political reasons – he is just a “family values” kind of guy and wanted the attorneys to have more time to spend with their families….
March 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pmComment by valiant venus
Try again, Hagette.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pmPodesta calling Rove on his crap. Nice to see how loyal Clinton’s lieutenants are, as opposed to Bush’s.
March 8th, 2007 at 9:32 pm“The Administration has politicized the Judicial system?”
Hell, they’ve politicized virtually EVERY SYSTEM.
Name one part of our government structure that has not been fully politicized.
You can’t.
Now name one law – just one – which applies to George W. Bush.
You can’t.
Why does POLITICAL OPERATIVE KARL ROVE have a US SECURITY CLEARANCE?
Why is he even allowed inside the White House?
March 8th, 2007 at 9:43 pmRove needs to be sent to Abu Ghraib, tortured by the inmates there until dead, and his BLOATED CORPSE hung on the White House lawn for a warning to all the REST of the Bush TRAITOR criminals.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:01 pmWe shouldn’t be criticizing the president when he’s out of the country…
…so if he remains out of the country indefinitely…
…we won’t have to ever criticize him ever again…
…hmmm…
March 8th, 2007 at 10:17 pm#30 and #35. Every new president appoints his own people throughout the administration. That includes cabinet level officials, US Attorneys, and all manner of aides, assistants and advisors. US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, meaning they can be fired at any time. Normally, as long as they do a good job, they serve for the duration of the president’s term in office. In this case, the fired US attorneys had good performance reviews, so they had no reason to expect to be fired. In each case, either the attorney was too aggressively pursuing investigation of Republicans, or not aggressively enough pursuing Democrats, to suit the administration.
#35, the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The judicial branch consists of the court system. Federal Judges are appointed for life, so they can be independent. We have often seen federal judges rule in ways that might be surprising, and unpleasantly so, to the president who appointed them, but they cannot be fired like the US attorneys can be.
Presidential appointments of judges, US attorneys, and cabinet members must be approved by the senate. The latest version of the Patriot Act eliminated that requirement for US attorneys, but that is about to change back to the way it was.
There is nothing unusual or difficult to understand about a president wanting to select his own people to run the country. What is unusual is for several US attorneys to be fired in the middle of a term, when by all accounts they have been doing a good job.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:45 pmKarl Miss Piggy Rove has about as much CREDIBILITY as a MOLDY BAG OF ROTTEN POTATOES or a DEAD MUMMIFIED RAT CAUGHT IN A DISCARDED RAT-TRAP!!!!! SHIT-SKID-MARKED PAGES FROM HIS OVERDONE PLAYBOOK–BLAME YOUR OPPONENTS, CHANGE THE SUBJECT, SHIFT BLAME FROM YOURSELF ONTO YOUR OPPONENTS, SWIFT-BOAT-SMEAR THE RIGHTEOUS AND VIRTUOUS, USE FALSE STATISTICS AND LIES TO JUSTIFY YOUR MISTAKEN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, USE JINGOISTIC DEMAGOGUERY TO TRY AND SWAY THE PUBLIC SENTIMENT, USE CALUMNY AND INNUENDO TO TRY AND CHANGE THE PUBLIC SENTIMENT–THIS FAT F*CK STILL HAS NOT LEARNED HIS LESSON AND WILL FIND HIMSELF CRUSHED UNDER THE PUBLIC’S ANGER AND RAGE AT HIS FILTHY TACTICS, WHICH WILL PROVE TO BE HIS ULTIMATE UNDOING. MEANWHILE, I WILL CONTINUE TO ASSAIL THIS PIECE OF RANCID HYENA-SHIT WITH EVERYTHING AT MY DISPOSAL, INCLUDING Rove’s HOMOSEXUAL MISADVENTURES WITH CHIMPya, Cheney, Gonzales, Gannon/Guckert and others in the white house–OH, for some PICTURES of their “Daisy Chain”!!!!!
March 8th, 2007 at 11:24 pm#30 You are so smart Tracy. Ok, no, you are not.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:39 pmFOr those who cannot figure the difference out…….
When a President or administration first comes into office there are a lot of changes that occur, different staff, key people placement and confirmation in key positions.
The difference here is that this is toward the end of the current administration’s term. And it was done subsequent to attempts at strongarming decisions. AND it smacks of near illegality.
It is pretty obvious, really.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:46 pm#48 …and only after Specter snuck into the PATRIOT Act that the Pres doesn’t have to go to Congress for advise and consent.
March 8th, 2007 at 11:50 pmFor the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the politically motivated prosecutor firings, see:
March 9th, 2007 at 12:19 am“The Bush DOJ U.S Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Funny how the Republicon’s HATE Clinton yet justify EVERYTHING they do by comparing themselves to Clinton. I think thats called wicked. Oops did I say bhush is wicked.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:53 amI can’t believe all the anger and vulgarity in these comments. Some read like high school kids who just want to fight. It’s weird. The whole point is not the firing of USAs with a change in administrations. Clinton and Bush just did what every other President did when taking office. It’s expected and common procedure. The problems with these fired USAs is that unless there is strong performance incompetence these Attorneys usually serve out their appointments with the administration. The problems here is that 1. when the firings began the first replacement Attorney(Arkansas) was a Karl Rove henchman who was not qualified but was assigned the position as a reward for party performance. 2. Because of a piece of legislation slipped into the Patriot Act at the last moment, without Senate knowledge or approval, the new appointed USAs could be appointed by Bush without Senate approval (previously unheard of) 3. The firings were first attributed to poor performance but previous assessments by the DOJ on these attorneys showed only excellent performance. So after that was brought out the DOJ then said it was because of “policy” differences with the president. 4.Then it starts to come out that these USAs were all working on corruption cases involving Republicans or the Attorneys were pressured to bring indictments on Democrats to time with elections. This is what the investigation is about and also the Senate Democrats want the provision repealed that gives Bush the power to appoint new USAs without Senate approval as has always been done in the past. Clinton never fired USAs after he appointed them unless it was totally due to extremely poor performance of their duties. I don’t think he ever fired any after he appointed them so Rove is trying to gloss over this “purge” as if it were common place, suggesting Clinton did it too…which he did not. Rove is trying to downplay any political motivation behind the firings (which is unethical), when there is strong evidence to suggest the firings were politically motivated. If not stopped, and the provision repealed, who knows how many more USAs would have been replaced, and by who…Cheney’s son-in-law or Pat Robbersn perhaps??
March 9th, 2007 at 1:53 amHe noted that Clinton’s Administration did the same thing.
The summary you wanted to close with was that replacing prosecutors in response to something was bad, as opposed to just doing it for political reasons. I mean, if the idea was to point to something that Bush did but Clinton didn’t.
Even then you are talking about what, 6 ? Out of 120 ? How sure are you Clinton didn’t do this also ? That in turning over 120 prosecutors under Clinton not one of them had a favourable review being being replaced ? Yeah that sounds plausible.
March 9th, 2007 at 2:33 amNo. 45, chartreuse dog, good summary. Mr. Rove knows the law and custom, too. He is just carefully misstating it to further his client’s power and destroy his opponents’. It’s what he does. It’s all he does. And he’ll never stop. To paraphrase Terminator II.
Mr. Rove is a political consultant, not a political leader, administrator or manager. He is not a stand up guy, nor would he stand behind his positions or facts. His wealth and job explicitly require him to avoid that.
So why on earth would the best Dirty Trickmeister ever produced by the State of Texas ever be used as a public spokesperson by any government. Because, like Ann Coulter, he represents what that government does and how it thinks.
The best response to Mr. Rove is to stay very close to him, listen to what he says, ignore it as truth, and never, ever print it.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:24 amBush Sr. fired alot of Regan’s appointees FYI. This is not about political retribution and TP is trying to make something out of nothing.
Comment by Tracy —
That would make sense, as Bush wasn’t particularly fond of Reagan, if you remember. But yes, it is about political retribution; Carol Lam, from San Diego, said that she couldn’t make immigration cases a priority, with the limited resources that the Bush administration provided. But Karl left out that part.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:57 am“One United States attorney refused to file cases… of death penalty case… refused to ask for the death penalty, contrary to policy.”
This may actually be true of the fired US Attorney for the Western District of Michigan, who was reluctant to bring death penalty cases (although she brought a few) for the very good reason that Michigan juries have a long history of not imposing the death penalty–there has only been one federal execution of a Michigan prisoner in the last centruy, and no state or territorial executions since 1835 (and that guy turned out to be innocent). The fired US attorney nevertheless brought and won one death penalty case–but apparently the adminstration wanted more blood.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:07 amNICE ARRAY OF COMMENTS, I DO DECLARE. KARL ROVE IS A GARDEN-VARIETY MORON…
DISREGARD ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING HE SAYS AS COMPLETE SELF-SERVING BULLSH!T. LIES, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD.
REVERSING EVERY SINGLE BUSH-EXECUTIVE-ORDER… THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PLACE FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO START — NOW THAT THEY CONTROL (?) CONGRESS.
THE END, HERB.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:58 amEverytime the Repugnants play the Bill Clinton card, the arguments over and they’ve lost.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:45 amIt seems to me that all the shenanigans involved in this Bush/Rove/Gonzales conspiracy to defraud the American public by eliminating competent prosecutors should be considered in nature, AND THOSE ACCUSED SHOULD INCLUDE ARLEN SPECTER.
The inclusion of his little ‘addition’ to the infamous ‘Patriot Act’ was obviously part of the conspiracy to politicize the prosecutorial part of the Justice Department.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:36 amClassic Rove sleight of hand,……”clinton replaced at the beginning of term, so we can replace at midterm”, essentially replacing them twice.
How can these guys get away with such obvious BS all the time.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:35 amBoy the trolls on this website are really dense, aren’t there. There’s a BIG different between replacing US attorneys at the beginning of a presidential term and replacing them when you only have two years left, morons.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:09 amEVERY president, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter replaces the US attorneys when they are elected to office. It’s changing them midstream that’s the big political corruption question du jour. AND especially changing them only one or two months after you get a handy little provision tucked into another law that lets you willfully appoint without Senate consent. BECAUSE normally when the presidents pick their US attorneys at the beginning of their term, the president has to get approval of the appointments from the Senate.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
So because Clinton simple says they fired people for different reasons makes it so? Currently we don’t have any reason why Clinton or Bush fired people only assumptions. That is fine in the world of public opinion, but nothing more.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:22 amSadly, I do not believe even that breakdown was simple enough. As demonstrated by #30 Tracy, you might as well be trying to explain quantum state tomography to a banana.
But but Clinton.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:02 pmThe staffer who reportedly performed this bit of dirty work is Michael O’Neill, a law professor at George Mason University and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Times explained when O’Neill was appointed as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s chief counsel, many observers believed that Specter had hired him to reassure conservatives of his loyalty to the Bush White House. Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O’Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.
Take direct action:
March 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm1. Demand that Gonzales be impeached.
2. Demand that the fired prosecutors be returned to their positions so that they can continue their investigations.
3. Demand that Specter be held accountable for this direct assault on our independant judiciary.
4. Contact George Mason University and demand that Michael O’Neill be fired.
I long for the day when the Democrats play hard ball. They know how. They can make Republicon’s look tame. Shout to the Republicon party in the most God bless America voice the Democrats can muster, “HUSH and sit down!” bhush, hush and sit down. OH for the consequences for the Republicon’s actions! If bhush doesn’t publicly proclaim IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY he will not pardon that rat Libby tell him privately what the consequences will be and stick to them. Wicked children like the bhush bunch understand ONLY that.
March 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pmThis is what Rove does. He is a professional liar and cheat, with no honor and no sense of loyalty to the country whatsoever . How would you like to have a dad like that?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm#33
What number is Amanda’s post?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:45 pm#34
“What Bush has done is fire attorneys in the middle of his term for political reasons and replaced them w/ hacks that were not approved by the Senate.”
The purging of these attorneys in question happen when?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:50 pm#33
Oh the original post. When did these attorneys in question get purged?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pm#47
Answer the question since you aren’t that smart.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm#45
“Federal Judges are appointed for life, so they can be independent.”
That’s EXACTLY when the don’t become independent and turn into activist judges that have zero accountability because the weren’t elected. Federal judges getting to serve for life is total BS.
“We have often seen federal judges rule in ways that might be surprising, and unpleasantly so, to the president who appointed them, but they cannot be fired like the US attorneys can be.”
Again that’s the problem with federal judges being appointed for life.
“What is unusual is for several US attorneys to be fired in the middle of a term, when by all accounts they have been doing a good job.”
So all of the attorneys left over from Bush Sr.’s term weren’t doing a good job? Who does the reviews? If the Bush doesn’t think that these attorneys are not agressive enough in pushing the agenda of the executive branch then they shouldn’t be appointed by the president. Again the president it these guy’s boss. This happens all of the time in the work place. Someone get hired by the boss, starts not to do their job as their superiors see fit, and they get fired. It’s common.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#63
So this is about following tradition and precident? Again if the provision is in there for the president to remove and reappoint whenever and with whoever he wishes then maybe that provision should be repealed.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:14 pmI enjoy these threads where I get to see the most naive people on the internet commenting. The irony in this USA issue is that after all the complaining about Bush’s illegal acts, the one time he does something perfectly legal and not requiring Senate confirmation (albeit the provision making what he did without requiring Senate approval was a last minute addition… and the Senators voted for it w/o reading the altered bill…. too funny) their are subpoenas issued and hearings held.
March 9th, 2007 at 6:01 pmPolitics are local all right. Hearings about a legal act and nothing about all the other stuff from NSA to Iraq.
Rove talking about what’s “normal” and “ordinary” is like Hitler talking about “peace” and “compassion”
March 9th, 2007 at 7:54 pmTJM
Nothing Bush does is “perfectly legal.” Perfectly illegal yes, perfectly legal, no.
Everything BUsh does is corrupt and design to f”k over the US and the world in the service of his masters who he regularly kisses on the lips and the ass.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pmCan we stop all the legal bs and declare Bush Supreme Leader already?
I want to ba a guard at wherever they put the liberals!
March 9th, 2007 at 10:38 pm[...] personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House,” thus calling into question the White House’s involvement in the recent firings of eight U.S. attorneys. 8:26 pm | [...]
March 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pmthis article did not prove that Rove changed these attornies due to political retribution, it was because of policy. Clinton changed most of the attornies, not for poor performance, but for POLICY (who would prosecute what). John Podesta’s comment, “But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution” is framing the argument in terms that are not fair to Republicans. Many other comments, cursing and swearing like children, are obviously not looking for anything other than the old Bush=Bad formula. They see nothing else.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:31 pm[...] authority and merely “poorly handled” and “unseemly.” He also repeated Karl Rove’s lie that President Clinton also purged attorneys. “Clinton let them all go when he took [...]
March 11th, 2007 at 7:27 pmWhat is the diffference between firing all 93 prosecuters when you come into office and firing a handful 2 years into your second term?
There is none.
It is the President’s perogative to remove those he doesn’t like.
The Dems trying to turn this into a political issue is hilarious. (hate makes you do stupid things, doesn’t it) Just look at the above posts for evidence of foaming-mad hatred.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:51 am[...] this too, regarding the scandal over the politically-motivated firings of several US Attorneys: John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton: Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 12:17 pm[...] Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, 3/8/07: Mr. Rove’s claims [last week] that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pmClinton didn’t fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys. He fired 92.So what’s the big deal?
March 14th, 2007 at 6:27 pmThis is quite simply untrue.
Openly denying logic is a good strategy in that it prevents others from arguing with you under the assumption that you cannot be convinced. However, your arguments will remain unconvincing as well.
March 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pmWhat you all seem to be missing is the USA PATRIOT ACT.
When Clinton fired all federal prosecutors at the start of his administration, all of his appointees had to be approved by the Senate.
In a little read provision of the USAPA renewal of 2006 (slipped in by Karl Rove perhaps?) The president may remove a US attorney and his replacement does not require Senate confrimation and the interim appointee may serve IDEFINITELY WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL!
This was slipped in at the twilight of Repugnant control of the reigns of power.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:33 pmI’ve never heard that “pleasure of the President” line used more than in the Bush admin. What are these guys on??
March 16th, 2007 at 1:44 amThe three branches of the federal government are legislative, judicial and executive. In other words they are the Congress (Legislative), the federal courts (Judicial) and the White House and all federal agencies (Executive).
A U.S. Attorny is a part of the Executive Branch not the Judicial Branch of the Federal government
March 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm[...] House Advisor Karl Rove, 3/8/07: Look, by law and by Constitution, these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pm[...] process that was also carried out by President Clinton. ThinkProgress has spent some time debunking this claim, but the Congressional Research Service has put the nail in the [...]
March 20th, 2007 at 2:48 pm3f62k5160b89 mckkpr87paa5zi6 baiajrl2y7s9
March 21st, 2007 at 2:57 amThe difference, you monumental douchebag liberals, is that the media didn’t peep when golden boy Clinton did it, but now it’s a big friggin’ deal now that Bush did it.
I hate Bush, and can still see what a bunch of hypocritical partisan douchebags you all are.
It WASN’T wrong when Clinton did it, and it ISN’T wrong now that Bush is doing it, you stupid little bitches.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm[...] and Bush fired 88. But as current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors for partisan reasons is [...]
March 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pmThe firing of these attorney’s is the President’s right. The lying about why it was done is a crime. If the Bush White House has said we fired these quys because we can, there would be no crime done, but they didn’t they lied about job performance and the documents, like job performance reviews and numbers of cases prosicuted show different.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI hate Rove for his support of Bush and his administration. Everybody knows that these are desperate attempts to legitimize Bush’s obvious plans to discriminate against gays and lesbians and poor people in order to propiate the Religious Right.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm