Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too
Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too
At a speech last week in Little Rock, 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. … What happened in this instance, was there were seven done all at once, and people wanted to play politics with it.” Watch it:
But in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”:
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta previously told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claims that the Clinton administration also purged attorneys is “pure fiction.” He added, “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.”
(The Gavel has more.)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
63 Responses to “Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Karl Rove LIED??? OMG. Say it isn't so. The Bush Administration campaigned in 2000 on a platform of returning "honor and dignity to the White House." It cant be honorable or dignified for them to be LYING can it??
Oh, wait. The honor and dignity Bush was talking about was blowjobs, wasn't it. This other lying. Thats ok because he has 'god" on his side. My bad.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pmWhoops....that's gotta be embarassing, huh, trolls? ^_^
March 13th, 2007 at 2:19 pmThese latest U.S attorneys revelations show more than a White House determined to enforce loyalty to President Bush and entrench partisan Republican hatchet men throughout the DOJ's ranks. Simply put, the Bush White House planned to systematically drive down the turnout of Democrats and independents at the ballot box through an unaccountable
campaign against "voter fraud."
For the full story, see:
March 13th, 2007 at 2:22 pm"THE LINK: GOP Purging Prosecutors - and Voters."
Whoops….that’s gotta be embarassing, huh, trolls? ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
In order to be embarrassed you need to be capable of (a) admitting error and (b) feeling shame. Don't hold your breath.
Trust me, there will be multiple spinning about this to make it seem like he never said what he said but really he said something different which means its all Clinton's fault. Whew.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:24 pmOMG. That is funny.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pmWhoops….that’s gotta be embarassing, huh, trolls? ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Facts? the trolls don't need any stinking facts ( as proven by most of their posts =)
March 13th, 2007 at 2:25 pmYeah, where exactly are all of the trolls? They seem to have poofed out of existence.
I thought we could at least get one warbly little voice to chime in about how we should stop worrying about little things like purges in the judiciary and concentrate on keeping our children safe from the MUSLIM HORDES...
March 13th, 2007 at 2:27 pmRove is an arrogant liar and Congress needs to castrate him ASAP. He doesn't need those silly 'ole testicles, anyway, since only men have use for those thingies.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pmWhen all else fails with the lies and corruption say Bill Clinton did it.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmIt's getting to funny. Clinton has been out of office for 6 years and the White House blames him for all the crimes, mistakes and invading Iraq. I guess it was Bill Clinton who gave the trillions of dollars to Halliburton for doing nothing while our troops suffer. Clinton leaked the CIA's name and Clinton ordered the torture of prisoners. In short Bush has done nothing but it was all Bill Clintons fault. Maybe George W. Bush can run for President and clean up the mess and chaos Bill Clinton has made. At lease we can believe an honest truthful born again Christian like Bush who would never lie. If you believe that I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge again.
I think the key to this issue is that they were fired mid-term with the understanding that BushCo could appoint replacements without Congressional review.
Second is the fact that all the remaining prosecutors were willing to go along with BushCo's demands.
But the wingnut trolls are already all over the "Clinton did it too" mantra. Think we'll hear about Janet Reno's purge on Meet the Press?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pmTP had better re-edit this post. The quote from the email is a little off.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pmWhoops….that’s gotta be embarassing, huh, trolls? ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Not for Jake, he's on one of these other posts insisting that Bozo Gonzo did nothing wrong.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pmDidn't Bill Clinton make Rove lie?
March 13th, 2007 at 2:36 pmYou're right!
How dare Bush give these attorney's a chance to do his bidding before firing them. He should not have even giving them a chance like Clinton did and simply purged them all from the start. I at least understand now. If you purge all the US attorney's at the start of your presidency for political reasons it is acceptable, but if you purge them after giving them a chance, your're wrong. Makes perfect sense!
March 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pmI see that Mandolin hasn't shown up. Too embarrassed, I suppose, after all the chest beating and taunting a few days ago.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm#14 (....stupid, stupid, stupid, ....)
March 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pmRoger_Rhetoric sez:
They're not there do do the 'president's bidding', RR. They're there to uphold the law. The fact that this distinction is lost on you speaks volumes.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pm"#14
You’re right!
How dare Bush give these attorney’s a chance to do his bidding before firing them. He should not have even giving them a chance like Clinton did and simply purged them all from the start. I at least understand now. If you purge all the US attorney’s at the start of your presidency for political reasons it is acceptable, but if you purge them after giving them a chance, your’re wrong. Makes perfect sense!
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm"
Rogerx2, you do know that Bush put these people into office???? You really need to do research before you go and open your mouth and remove all doubt! OOPPSSSS too late.......
You can try your little heart out to spin this, but the FACT is that Bush fired these people HE appointed because they would not put party over country!
March 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmWell now Gonzales says he was wrong and this is one of his many mistakes or criminal acts so get over it and move on. As for lying under oath to the Congress he can't remember as the Libby Defense of memory lost is embodied in the Bush Policy. Spying on Americans, false arrest, fixing criminal cases and indictments of only Democrats was all a mistake. Gonzales said as an immigrate he has to learn alot and people should understand his position. Now as for the actual crimes well stuff happens. He will continue to do what he's doing and make more so called mistakes and their is nothing anyone can do about it. In other words K_SS hIS A_S.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt just doesn't matter how many times Roger2 has the situation explained to him. He doesn't get it.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:48 pmHow does that song go,.,
March 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pmhe's a lying sack of shit, a lying sack of ....
When Repubs start feeling desperate, they start placing blame on Clinton, again. Over and over, that's how these botards react to any sort of discussion. They're like ill-disciplined, stupid and willful brats. The kind you want to seriously bitch-slap (as long as no one is looking).
March 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pmBesides which, Roger_Rhetoric, you and the other trolls continually dodge the central issue...that Chimpy can appoint whoever he likes to the vacancies, and Congress is now powerless to stop him, thanks to the PATRIOT Act. A vital check on the power of the Executive has been removed, and this administration is blatantly taking advantage of the situation.
Warble on all you like about how Clinton cleaned house at the start of his term (which is NORMAL, by the way), but you have to concede that all his appointees for the vacant positions were subject to Congressional confirmation. Do you remember which party controlled Congress during the Clinton years?
Chimpy's administration no longer has this vital check on their ability to blatantly politicize the offices of the U.S. attorneys, and they're pursuing this advantage with all the ruthless efficiency we've come to expect from this administration (when it comes to furthering their own political agenda, that is).
March 13th, 2007 at 2:55 pmGonzalez: "Make the President look bad will you? I`ll show you"
This makes me wonder what an otherwise "obscure" Gonzalez has done in his life, (what bad thing(s), he has done to warrant attaining the coveted "prize" of AG.
In BushWorld, it seems the more worse things that you have done, are equally rewarded with a position in kind.
Jesus, with that logic, it makes me really wonder what Condi Rice has done in her past to warrant Sec of State.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pmHe should not have even giving them a chance like Clinton did and simply purged them all from the start.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Once again, slowly this time: The purged attorneys were appointed by Pres Bush at the beginning of his term in the first place -after dismissing the attorneys appointed by his predecessor.
This is the second time Pres Bush purges the US attorneys except that these people are his own appointees.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:03 pmG R E G O R S.
N o M a t t e r h o w s l o w l y y o u s p e l l i t,
R2DumbToo just ain't gonna get it.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm#23 Assuming I am for the patriot act is a bit of putting words in my mouth #23 don't ya think? I personally am against the patriot act as it stands right now and am also against president purging US attorney's for mere politcal agenda's. I have stated this from the start. I just find the issue petty when we have a war in Iraq going wrong, Global Warming to Fight, plus an aray of social issues. Is the the standard practice for the next 2 years to do nothing positive and simply attack a president that isn't running for reelection? Spending all your time smearing a loser like Bush is a waste of time at a minimum and a huge mistake costing us precious time they could have used for much more important issues.
This lawyer purging story has 1-2 weeks more of legs at the max and will simply be a political point at the end of the day. No one will care in 3 months time anyways. These other issues that they SHOULD be working on however, have legs that could carry them well past the 08' elections.
Either way, I am game to keep playng this petty political grap ass game for as long as you want. Kinda boring thought when TP doesn't even think Iraq, Global Warming, and other issues deserve a space on their front page anymore (other then minor headlines).
March 13th, 2007 at 3:07 pmRUCerious,
LOL.
Nobody can say we didn't try, eh?
And I really did type that p o s t v e r y s l o w l y . . . ;-)
March 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pmomment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
This entire comment displays quite eloquently that you have no idea of the importance of the U.S. attorneys...not surprising, considering that you seem to think their purpose is to 'do the president's bidding'.
*sigh*...
March 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pmWow, only one troll has even tried to justify this. Gonzalez' own flunky is arguing against what the trolls in other threads have been saying. By his own words, this is NOT what Clinton did. The Republicans were wrong, again, and their own people are arguing against them.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pmRoger_Rube, you're a st*pid dum bass. Interfering with ongoing investigations are obstruction of justice. You know, the thing you whackos claimed was an offense worthy of impeachment?
You CONs are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and fools.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pmWow, only one troll has even tried to justify this.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — March 13, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Yeah, but some freak calling itself Jake is soldiering on with yesterday's talking points a few threads down.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:24 pmThe Right makes false claims.
The claims get debunked.
The Right goes on making the claims.
Round and round it goes.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:28 pm#14 Roger_Roger
For that matter, Roger, why do presidents want to replace the cabinet members at the beginning of their term?
How partisan of Clinton to do that. Oh yeah, and all the other presidents, too.
March 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pmsome freak calling itself Jake is soldiering on
March 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pmYeah, if you call shooting all your toes off while trying to reload your empty straw man gun "soldiering".
And to think that we had the opportunity to make Harriet Myers a SC justice... my my
March 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pmGet up in arms all you want, this story is a loser. You honestly think the average voter in this country gives a rats when presidents purge US attorney's? Go ask your Grandma what she thinks. She then ask "What the hell are you even talking about". My point exactly.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pmGreat story! Just fired this morning, and already spilling beans. So much more to come.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pmGet up in arms all you want, this story is a loser. You honestly think the average voter in this country gives a rats when presidents purge US attorney’s? Go ask your Grandma what she thinks. She then ask “What the hell are you even talking aboutâ€. My point exactly.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Yes, the average American thinks this administration is drunk with power, and blocking investigations. What they don't give a rats ass about, is your st*pid opinion - you old ignorant coward.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:26 pmSpending all your time smearing a loser like Bush is a waste of time
Roger_Roger
I keep telling you you're on the wrong site. You want us to handle the issues your concerned about but we aren't your people. You are a Republican. You want people to help with your causes go talk to other Republicans. We're not going to listen to what you want. And we're not going to do what you tell us, not ever.
We will smear that prick president of yours as long as we have to. Of course speaking the truth is not smearing anybody.
Why don't you run off to some safe little blog where everybody agrees with you and when we want your opinion we'll come looking for you.
Don't hold your breath.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pmEarth to Roger, Earth to Roger, Come in Roger.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI'm not here
Roger that Roger
#37 Roger_Roger
Get up in arms all you want, this story is a loser. You honestly think the average voter in this country gives a rats when presidents purge US attorney’s? Go ask your Grandma what she thinks. She then ask “What the hell are you even talking aboutâ€. My point exactly.
I think the average voter is more interested and understands this better than you.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pmGet up in arms all you want, this story is a loser. You honestly think the average voter in this country gives a rats when presidents purge US attorney’s? Go ask your Grandma what she thinks. She then ask “What the hell are you even talking aboutâ€. My point exactly.
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Ha ha! The "average voter" gave enough rat's ass in November to give the Dems the majority, even with Bush & Co. screaming "the terrorists will win!!!" Someone is paying attention to this administration, and they aren't listening to that SOB Bush any more.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pmJust heard on CBS Evening News that the original plan that Gonzo turned down would have purged all 93 attorneys.
I've just skimmed a couple of the threads on this today...anybody heard this?????
March 13th, 2007 at 6:43 pmYou’re right!
How dare Bush give these attorney’s a chance to do his bidding before firing them. He should not have even giving them a chance like Clinton did and simply purged them all from the start. I at least understand now. If you purge all the US attorney’s at the start of your presidency for political reasons it is acceptable, but if you purge them after giving them a chance, your’re wrong. Makes perfect sense!
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Here's the big question, Roger. Just what the hell does replacing attorneys at "the pleasure of the President" and not having any approved by the Senate have to do with national security to the point it has to be in the Patriot Act?
Can you answer that?? Didn't think so.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pmAnd answer this, Roger. What business does a political advisor have in "advising" the President on attorney purges? Especially if those purges are done solely on performance issues, as the administration claims?
Why the hell would Rove be concerned with performance issues?
Hmmmm?
March 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pmHey Roger! According to documents released, it appears that a list of attorneys was perused, and that the people recommended for retaining are (were) those that “exhibit loyalty to the President and the Attorney General.â€
I thought the attorneys were supposed to be impartial. You apparently don't have a problem with that. Why do you hate America?
March 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pmRoger Roger:
You're a Moron Moron.
March 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pmTYPICAL Rovian SHIT-SKID-MARK STRATEGY--LIE THROUGH YOUR TEETH AND HOPE THEY DON'T NOTICE AND HOPE YOU DON'T GET CAUGHT--NOT POSSIBLE IN THESE DAYS OF E-WARRIORS WITH E-MAILED FISTS THAT ARE EVEN NOW PUMMELLING THAT FAT-F*CK Rove AND CRUSHING HIS FOUR-EYED FACE IN WITH OUR IRON FISTS OF VENGEANCE!!!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 12:05 amThis is another in a long string of DoJ/Bush/Rove abuses of our country...how much longer will we allow it to persist before we (or preferably our elected leadership) DO something about it.
http://jeremiasx.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/impeachment-vs-revolution/
http://www.impeachbush.org
March 14th, 2007 at 2:31 amThis e-mail from Sampson, quoted in NY Times story on 3/14, tells you all you need to know about the honor and integrity of the Bush team.
All presidents are necessarily political--they have to be elected and to try for re-election. The difference is that Bush & Co. have nothing but politics to offer, and place that above governing the country.
April 1 would be a good day, but I don't see Gonzales as lasting nearly that long. As soon as he got his "Heckuva job" statement from Bush, he was toast.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm[...] chief of staff Kyle Sampson (resigned two days ago), 1/9/07: In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 2:28 pm[...] Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors (Gonzales Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors At a speech last week in Little Rock, Karl Rove described the Bush administration ’s purge of [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pm[...] Kyle Sampson, Gonzalez’s Chief-of-Staff explains in an e-mail to Harriet Miers. Rove attempted to say that the replacements were sort of like finally getting around to replacing holdovers. Not true. [...]
March 14th, 2007 at 4:40 pmOh Please, Karl Rove, you are the biggest joke in america, right next to kenneth starr.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:35 amWell Roger this is a "Grandma "and I do care about the future of this country.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:25 pmI'd like to ask Attorney General Gonzales this-if the justice system is peopled with Republican toadies does justice follow? I think not. Firing judges because they did what they are suppose to do--mete out justice--instead of following the administration's game plan, shows me how corrupt they are.
Serious Question (as so many of you seem to hate more than think or attempt to dialogue) :
Has Pres. Bush done something illegal here?
Has Pres. Bush done something immoral here?
Yes... I think#14 is still right and so many responses simply said 'stupid!' and left it at that as if it was a self-evident truth why he/she was wrong.
Don't get pissed- talk to me. Even if Pres Bush fires somebody who does not agree with his policies... what is wrong with this? This is the point of exercising you authority/power. See... at the end of the day you are like him! You want to fire him because you don't agree with his policy. So many of you react as if its HORRIBLE, unlawful, etc that BUSH has an agenda which I find is not uniquely Bush; in other words... nobody really thinks BUSH is guilty because he holds and carries out policies. Rather many of you feel there is something about the nature of his policies that bothers you and yet you dont articulate them.
This smells of the Dubai report all over again (which btw Dems and Republicans pulled the funding for port security since it has not been in the news and even today the Dubai company hosts more U.S. navy ships than the U.S. navy itself!!!) It is similar because all I hear is freaking out because Bush is exercising political power/ playing politics rather than discussing the nature of the policy by talking facts. It goes like this. Pres Bush is at it again with his crazy cowboy stupid decisions; case closed no need to dialogue about other possibilities.
I digress. its late.
by my liberal friends!
March 16th, 2007 at 3:57 am"Has Pres. Bush done something immoral here?"
Absolutely. To cover up a political move, the Bush administration dishonestly impugned the performance and potentially damaged the careers of US Attorneys who were doing their jobs and doing it well. I think that's immoral in anybody's book.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:02 am[...] own Chief of Staff recognized the unprecedented nature of what they were planning in an email he wrote to the White [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 1:56 pmGreat posts, everyone! Yeah, even those of you who could only muster the energy to call names.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI admit to not being in Mr. Bush's camp; my standards for evaluating public figures was developed outside the United States in a much more corrupt and rough and tumble political environs and would require a bit more space here than I deem polite to occupy, but suffice it to say that, where I come from, for a born-again Christian, or anyone of that ilk, in a position to grant clemency to a similarly born-again Christian, or someone of that ilk who has been condemned to death, to allow execution to proceed is widely considered hypocrisy of the most blatant kind.
Needless to say, no words or deeds originating thenceforth from said person are considered above scrutiny, criticism and/or rebuke.
I may not be able to raise the average intellectual currency of the cumulative postings here, but I assure you all, it would have been far easier for me to just call Bush names.
Just for the record, no one is safe. Politics by its very nature is hypocritical. In all likelihood the very reason more women don't flock to the profession in droves-it is such drudgery to put makeup on two faces.
[...] own Chief of Staff recognized the unprecedented nature of what they were planning in an email he wrote to the White [...]
March 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pmWelcome to the Democratic Fiction Machine. The plain fact is that Clinton is the ONLY president to fire all 93 attorneys, in the middle of their terms, for purely political reasons. Since U.S. Attorneys serve 4-year terms, in post-Clinton America, these terms expire now shortly after the presidential innauguration. Bush replaced most of the Clinton-appointed attorneys after their terms had expired, as had been traditionally done, by every president except Clinton. I don't know if Clinton replaced any of his attorneys after their initial 4 years, but if any of them were not performing their jobs satisfactorally, as was the present case, then he should have.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:45 pmmy friend joe has a great piece on this on his site
http://www.joeleonardi.wordpress.com/
mia
March 26th, 2007 at 1:46 pm