Bush Falsely Claims His Prosecutor Purge Is ‘A Customary Practice By Presidents’
Bush Falsely Claims His Prosecutor Purge Is ‘A Customary Practice By Presidents’
Today during a press briefing in Mexico, President Bush attempted to defend his prosecutor purge, stating that firing prosecutors “has been a customary practice by presidents. U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the President. Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys. It is their right to do so.” Watch it:
Mass firings are common when a president takes office. But as current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors is unprecendented.
Gonzales 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 did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
Former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, 3/8/07:
Mr. Rove’s claims [last week] 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.
Former U.S. attorney Mary Jo White, 3/5/07:
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.
Transcript:
REPORTER: What is his [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s] future in your Cabinet? Do you have confidence in him? And more importantly — or just as importantly — how effective can he be in Congress going forward when he has lost a lot confidence among Democrats and does not have many defenders among Republicans?
BUSH: I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales. I talked to him this morning, and we talked about his need to go up to Capitol Hill and make it very clear to members in both political parties why the Justice Department made the decisions it made, make it very clear about the facts, and he is right, mistakes were made. And I’m frankly not happy about them because there is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by presidents. U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the President. Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys. It is their right to do so.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Obviously, the Chimp-in-Chief doesn’t know what the hell is going on around him.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised……
Yep….Patrick Star, Rogerx2 (you can only raise one hand, Roger), michael…..well, the rest of you will ba along soon enough.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:31 pmCan he just stay in Mexico and box up lettuce? Although there may be more E. coli break outs if he is able to touch them.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:32 pmwhat a sad little handpuppet that man is
March 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThink Progress telling a baldface lie.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAh, Bush explaining to Mexicans why it is great democracy (in his view) for a democratic Judicial system to be politicized and made malleable to political agendas. The law? Well, that just some words on paper.
I guess when you look at things that way, then you can see that government corruption is actually a good thing for the people that benefit from it.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:36 pmBush is a liar.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:36 pmAnyone supprised at this revelation?
For all the latest news, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
March 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pm“The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents.”
Poor Bush. He tried and tried to ignore it, not give the story any more attention… but nevertheless, his tired little chickens are all coming home to roost.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pmSo why would the President lying yet again surprise anyone?
The folks in this administration are so delusional I truly think they’ve started to believe all of their political spinning.
I am waiting for the shoe to drop here on the NEXT step.
Gonzales resigns or is fired. Almost a foregone conclusion. President appears to be distancing himself. Republicans are going after him.
Does the President then try to appoint a new Attorney General WITHOUT the consent of the Senate using his new powers under Patriot II? Can you imagine the uproar on that?
So the President decides he has to go through the Senate.
I can only imagine what that confirmation process would be like.
Habeus Corpus?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pmTorture?
Detainee Rights?
Wiretapping?
AGs who are still in their positions?
Unitary Presidency?
The list is way to long to even think about!
Well we’ve all learned by now that anything that comes out the Emperor’s mouth is either pure propaganda or an out-and-out lie, so this should come as no surprise. Neither should the forthcoming empty defenses by his fascist appeasers (Patrick, Firehead, etc).
March 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pmThink Progress telling a baldface lie.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007
Clarify your statemant and provide evidence.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:37 pmReminds me a bit of the Texas redistricting scandal. It’s no big deal, redistricting is political, we do it all the time….
March 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pmDo you have any real proof? I mean real proof, not just some guy said and another guy felt and another guy thought. You know, facts.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pmSo bush says that they serve at his pleasure and that purging US attorney’s is standard practice in Presidental history. THAT IS ALL HE SAID. TP takes that statement, which is completely true, and attempts to spin it. Bush didn’t even take about the timing or when president in the past purge attorney’s for politcal reasons. He simply said other presidents also purged them which is completely true. Clinton actually purged ALL the attorney’s simply to get rid of the Dis, of Columbia Attorney that he was upset with for investigating his politcal buddies and allies. Bush seems to be doing the same thing except he has been more pointed. I thought it was kind of him to only purge the attorney’s that weren’t cooperating with him instead of purging them all to get rid of a few. Tomato Tamato IMO.
Call it what you want, anytime a US president purges some or ALL US attorney’s it is nothing but a politcal decision based on their political agenda. There is no other reason for it. It is wrong for sure. Maybe we should change the law so president don’t have this authority.
The end of the day, Bush certainly has the authority to do this at his leasure once again proving this is “much ado about nothing”.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pmConserfatov speak coherant sentences wif mi thiwd gwade edumacation patwick.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pmI repeat, just because you have the “right” to do something, does not mean it is the “right” thing to do. And it has not been “customary practice” to allow replacements for U.S. Attorneys without Congressional approval. This is the real issue and it speaks to the pattern of this administration’s numerous attempts to reduce the power of the Congress and the Courts in order to drastically increase the power of the Presidency. You know that “decider dictator” thing.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:39 pmOops, guess my post came a little late…
Think Progress telling a baldface lie.
Comment by Patrick1
How is Bush’s baldface lying ‘telling a baldface lie’?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pmThe US Code provides that each United States Attorney “shall be appointed for a term of four years…[and] shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor’s appointed abd qualifies.” 28 USC 541(b).
Accordingly, once confirmed by the Senate and appointed US Attorneys server for four years and then hold indefinately (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton DID NOT seek to remove and replace US Attorneys, find suitable replacements (i.e. receive the “advice” of the home-state Senators), complete background investigations, and secure Senate confirmations.
Kyle Sampson wrote that, but he’s resigned now.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pmProbably at His Royal Highness’ “pleasure”.
Hurrah for King George!!! (*sarcasm*)
Rogerx2 (you can only raise one hand, Roger),
That’s funny, Zooey!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:40 pmthis administration alone [i.e., not clinton’s or carter’s or reagen’s] snuck a provision in the Patriot Act to get around the senate confirmation. this is unprecedented.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSome of these firings were not political at all. Some were to stiffle investigation into now long since exploded scandals, particularly Jack Abramoff / Northern Marianas Is. and Cunningham / Foggo / et al. The rest were fired because they wouldn’t play ball with Karl’s “voter fraud” / “let’s disenfranchise the poor, minority and elderly” BS during an election season. Seems though most voter fraud these days is through absentee voting in the mails, the GOP just want us all to have that government issued ID card to vote. What is up with that stuff you conservatives? I thought you didn’t like government intrusions into anything but the bedroom?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:44 pmPatrick1
So why did AG’s chief of staff resign? Why did the AG accept that resignation? Why did AG admit that “mistakes were made” (btw, did they make themselves or did a person make them?)? Why are Republicans complaining about this?
Why? Why? Why? do you bow before Bush as if he is a god?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThere you go again Roger trying to call an apple an orange. It is NOT a customary practice, the facts will point this out. And like I said before, when Bush says so, then nearly without exception the opposite is true. But we know by now you are unwilling to see this for what it is.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:45 pmThink Progress telling a baldface lie.
Comment by Patrick1
Post some facts please.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pmBush did not tell a “baldface lie”. He simply failed to tell the whole truth. Cherry picking information - AGAIN!
March 14th, 2007 at 2:47 pmHi, Roger!
“…end of the day, Bush certainly has the authority to do this at his leasure once again proving this is “much ado about nothingâ€.”
If it’s much ado about nothing, then why are republicans so pissed off at getting tossed under the bus? Why the need to fire staff? Why does Gonzo need to apologize? Why aren’t republicans speaking with a unified voice on this issue?
Hey don’t blame us for being amused when you guys scapegoat people in your own party.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pmIt is true that, when roasted slowly, all NeoCons taste like chicken?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:48 pmMr. Bush is still caught in his worm hole of, “Repeat the Big Lie often enough, they’ll eventually believe it.” That’s soooo twenthieth century.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmRoger_Roger
Do you even believe HALF the tripe that you post here as talking points?
Clinton firing all the AGs. . . Already disproven in the article. Of course you read the article, right?
Clinton saving his friend. I’m assuming you mean Dan Rostenkowski. Funny as I remember it, Rostenkowski ended up in prison. So either Clinton didn’t do much influencing or there really wasn’t an issue.
“. . . nothing but a political decision based on their political agenda.”
See Roger_Roger that’s where you’ve totally lost it.
The Department of Justice serves the United States interest, not the political interest of the current administration. If you don’t understand that then you have become totally jaded.
By the way. Other than Nixon (and we know the outcome of that) can you tell me ONE other President who use the Department of Justice to go after the opposing political party? Just ONE example.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmMass firings are common when a president takes office. But as current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors is unprecendented.
This is a damn lie. First off six is not “mass”. Secondly the average time for a U.S. Attorney is a little over two years they are removed from office frequently to be replaced by other political apppointees. If Think Progress had any honor they would remove this Clinton-like lie immediately.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmPost some facts please.
Comment by JPV — March 14, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Facts are republican kryptonite ;)
March 14th, 2007 at 2:50 pmCan’t someone bring up the following report to see how often a US Attorney has been dismissed in term by all of the administrations from RWR onward. Pages 12-14 contain charts.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pmPatrick,
March 14th, 2007 at 2:54 pmWhere is your evidence, all I see is opinion.
In my 32, please note the paucity of dismissals during the Clinton administration and at least 58 served at least a four year term.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pmWaltTheMan is the man. Doesn’t seem like dismissal happens all too often, does it? Wonder why so many now? So many troubles, so little time . . .
March 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pmSpeaking of chicken,
Why is Rove so very afraid of appearing on Capital Hill?
Could it be because sunlight is the best disinfectant?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmCall it what you want, anytime a US president purges some or ALL US attorney’s it is nothing but a politcal decision based on their political agenda. There is no other reason for it. It is wrong for sure. Maybe we should change the law so president don’t have this authority.
The end of the day, Bush certainly has the authority to do this at his leasure once again proving this is “much ado about nothingâ€.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Yes, it is customary to purge US Attorneys at the start of a new administration.
However, Bush also purged numerous Attorneys mid administration. From what I gather, this is not normal.
The problem is, that these Attorneys were seen as tough on corruption. One of them, Carol Lam, was responsible for the prosecution of “Duke” Cunningham, and was apparently after even bigger fish…
http://www.opednews.com/ articles/ opedne_internet_070314_gonzales_countdown_3a_.htm
Given this context, the Attorney purging is starting to look an awful lot like a case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Let’s hope that Congress has the balls to pursue this avenue of investigation. I doubt that they will, since there seems to be a serious case of missing backbones in Congress these days.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmMass firings are common when a president takes office.
This is a damn lie. First off six is not “massâ€.
Comment by Patrick1
And those six were not when a president takes office. You are distorting and using very faulty logic. Is it because you don’t know better or are you doing so intentionally?
Six, compared to zero, is significant quantitatively. Further, qualitatively, in terms of the meaning of the actions, the firings are of monumental significance.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThis is a damn lie. First off six is not “massâ€. Secondly the average time for a U.S. Attorney is a little over two years they are removed from office frequently to be replaced by other political apppointees. If Think Progress had any honor they would remove this Clinton-like lie immediately.
Comment by Patrick1
So what’s YOUR definition of ‘honor’? Parroting every Bush talking-point lie like gospel? You already have the Fascist Propaganda Channel (Fox Noise) to do that, we’ll take the truth instead. Your calling it a lie carries about as much credibility as anything that comes out of Darth Cheney’s mouth.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pmThis is a damn lie. First off six is not “massâ€. Comment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
You responded with an irrelevant answer dum bass. The point you responded to was the common practice of ‘mass’ replacing attorneys at the beginning of a presidential term. And you’re wrong. You’re the dam liar.
Secondly the average time for a U.S. Attorney is a little over two years they are removed from office frequently to be replaced by other political apppointees. Comment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
They are removed from office frequently? Prove this.
If Think Progress had any honor they would remove this Clinton-like lie immediately. Comment by Patrick1 — March 14, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
If you had any honor, you would retract your Bush-like like immediately. St*pid c*nt.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pmIt pointed out that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys and gave them 10 days to get out of Dodge.
When will Think Progress retract?
March 14th, 2007 at 2:58 pmSo, Patrick-the-ZERO, Walt has shown you to be a bald face liar.
Fess up creep. Admit that you’re a lying st*pid c*nt! We all know it to be true, but it would be fun to see at least *one* GOP Nutjob admit they’re a baldfaced liar!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pmI heard Chimpy speak on AAR earlier and the timbre of his voice suggests to me that he is fairly wetting his panties. What a fearless, law-breaking coward. His mother must be proud, of this one.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmit’s called context, patty - look it up. and quit wasting everyone’s time with your inexcusable mis-reading of everything. hfs, dude.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmIt pointed out that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys and gave them 10 days to get out of Dodge.
When will Think Progress retract?
Comment by Patrick1
About the time you retract your ignorance.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmHey Patrick1, guess what Bush did when he took office? Yup, fired all 93.
Please remove your head from your ass, severe blockage can cause death.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmCall it what you want, anytime a US president purges some or ALL US attorney’s it is nothing but a politcal decision based on their political agenda. There is no other reason for it. It is wrong for sure. Maybe we should change the law so president don’t have this authority.
The end of the day, Bush certainly has the authority to do this at his leasure once again proving this is “much ado about nothingâ€.
Comment by Roger_Roger
It pointed out that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys and gave them 10 days to get out of Dodge.
When will Think Progress retract?
Comment by Patrick1
Yes, it is customary to purge US Attorneys at the start of a new administration.
However, Bush also purged numerous Attorneys mid administration. From what I gather, this is not normal.
The problem is, that these Attorneys were seen as tough on corruption. One of them, Carol Lam, was responsible for the prosecution of “Duke” Cunningham, and was apparently after even bigger fish.
Given this context, the Attorney purging is starting to look an awful lot like a case of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
Let’s hope that Congress has the balls to pursue this avenue of investigation. I doubt that they will, since there seems to be a serious case of missing backbones in Congress these days.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmPatrick, you really are an idiot. I apologize for coming down to this level, BUT………..WTF
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pmPlease see below threads for facts supporting the President’s claim it is customary.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#41- They won’t, because you’re wrong as usual, Patsy.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:03 pmPP boy can’t even get the number right..It’s 8 not 6……Damn, I sure wish being stupid was painful, maybe then these troll’s would be in a world of hurt and learn something…..We can’t fix stupid….Blessings
March 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmPrayer and patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but contextually deceptive cries of “Clinton did it!” come close.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnother blatant lie that will be regurgitated endlessly bny the rightwing as “truth” and believed by the sheeple.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:05 pmWaltTheMan:
That Report points to the BARE MINIMUM of dismissed U.S. Attorneys. CRS (and I assume DoJ) is still compiling the information.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:06 pmCherry picking information - AGAIN!
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Cherry picking???
March 14th, 2007 at 3:06 pmU must be talking about TP right?
Please see below threads for facts supporting the President’s claim it is customary. Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Please see below threats for facts debunking the President’s claim it is customary.
Your ignorance of the facts, merely proves you’re ignorant, it doesn’t prove your *opinions* - dum bass.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:06 pmCherry picking???
U must be talking about TP right?
Comment by Flaco — March 14, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Well, we do let Cherry pickers like you post here - so in some sense that would be a yes. Dum bass.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pmThat Report points to the BARE MINIMUM of dismissed U.S. Attorneys. CRS (and I assume DoJ) is still compiling the information. Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
Show a single attorney that has been dismissed by the Attorney General in the past 20 years for political reasons - other than this 6.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pmguess the customary thing to do would be to impeach you then, hmm?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pmor you could resign after you fire cheney. that would be the respectable thing to do. alas that you do not recognize any of these symbols as language
Patrick,
Listen carefully. Maybe you should take a screenshot of this page and print it out.
It is not uncommon for a president to clean house of his predecessor’s attornies at the beginning of his term. The beginning of Clinton’s term was 1993, when, as you reported, he fired a great number of U.S. Attornies. I say again, this is NORMAL. What is uncommon is for a president to dismiss U.S. Attornies midterm, particularly after they have begun investigating his fellow party members or refused to investigate members of the opposing party.
What further aggravates the situation is that, in accordance with a clause in the PATRIOT Act, he is appointing U.S. attornies without congrssional approval. Please please please say you are up to speed now.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:08 pm“Cherry picking???
U must be talking about TP right?”
Or is he talking about uranium tubes from Niger? Now THAT’S cherrypicking!!!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:09 pmIn my 34, ‘58′ s/b ‘85′. Never was good at using that Num part of the keyboard!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmEight is not mass either and is common for administrations. Think Progress has been caught in yet another lie.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmis forcing out an a.g. in the middle of an investigation that led to an indictment on the #3 in the c.i.a. also customary?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmThe end of the day, Bush certainly has the authority to do this at his leasure once again proving this is “much ado about nothingâ€.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Well, then there shouldn’t be any problem with Rove/Cheney/Bush appearing before congress and explaining their decision making and business as usual decisions. . . I am sure most Americans would be very interested in how their president makes appointment decisions.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:10 pmIt pointed out that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys and gave them 10 days to get out of Dodge. When will Think Progress retract?Comment by Patrick1
Atta boy, now you’re maintaining that 1 rating as the troll’s troll. You’re the best. Do you want the trophy made out of one of Bush’s dried turds or the one fashioned out of O’Reilly’s used falafel?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPatrick1, as you know by now this site is not about facts and logic — so I would advise distortions and illogic. It is a language they speak here at TP.
You TP guys really need to move on from this one — it’s distracting you from the war. You are letting the chicken-dems avoid making a real decision on funding for the war. Why are you carrying their water on this meaningless diversion?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPity that Congress with all its oversight ignored the LA Times (and others of similar ilk) in its editorial: “We opposed Gonzales’ nomination to be attorney general two years ago, arguing that the nation’s top law enforcement job should go to someone who understands the limits as well as the power of the law, and someone who understands that his loyalty is to the Constitution as much as it is to the president. Gonzales’ atrocious performance as White House counsel, when he enabled far too many shortcuts in the war on terror, was ample reason to disqualify him for attorney general.” (See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ eandp/ news/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003557783) Everyone who failed to vote against his confirmation shares the blame in where we are today in all the ways Gonzales has demeaned this country.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pmLook, people, my point in bringing up how customary this is is not that “two wrongs make a right†but rather that no Democrats thought it was wrong when their guy was doing it. For instance, here are just the BARE MINIMUM U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations:
In fact, Walt, the CRS approach in that Report above likely underestimates the number of U.S. Attorneys who departed office before completion of their four-year terms. A U.S. Attorney would not have been included in the appendix if the individual resigned (of his or her own initiative or at the President’s request) before completing a four-year term, was replaced by someone appointed by a district court or the Attorney General, and the President did not make a nomination to replace the individual until after four years from the start of the resigned U.S. Attorney’s term. If, as an example from the Clinton Administration, a U.S. Attorney confirmed in 1993 was forced to resign 1996, but a nomination to replace that individual was not made until 1998, the data collection method utilized by CRS would not have captured the individual who resigned in 1996. That’s why I said “at least†55 U.S. Attorneys have been replaced in threads below. How can you guys say that is NOT customary?!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:12 pm[…] this DoJ and White House have done has never been done before. Got that, Tucker? and even Mr. George W. Bush is either confused or lying….sorry, Bill Clinton never did […]
March 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pmFor instance, here are just the BARE MINIMUM U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations: Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Yet, you still are incapable of answering a single question.
Show me where a single attorney was fired in the past 20 years for political reasons.
How customary is this again - dum bass?
You’re as *st*pid* as Exley - and you sound just like that ignorant lying little putz.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pmAre you suggesting that Bush doesn’t have the right to purge US attorney’s? Seems like the lega code of this is pretty clear. Of course it isn’t “right” but it looks completely legal. Why are repug pissed off and xzy got fired? Because this is a POLITICAL ISSUE. I just hope the Dems are still at least minimally focused on the important issues while they waste their time on these nominal politcal BS games they are playing. We are talking about a legal right of US presidents afterall. Of course Bush got rid of these guys because of his political agenda. Anytime a US president purges US attorney’s like this or when they purge ALL the US attorney’s it is political. Please try and explain how it isn’t based purely on a president’s politcal agenda when they purge all or most US attorney’s.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pmJihadist Jake is a Bushie to the core. You can tick off the standard apologias:
1. The end excuses the mean.
2. If Bush or his cronies have crossed any ethical lines, it’s nothing that hasn’t been done before.
3. Republicans (and real conservatives) who have the timerity to object to their treatment are merely “biting the hand that feeds them.”
4. Political adversaries should be treated as personal enemies.
How’d you end up w/ such a shabby system of ethics, Jake?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAh, Flaco arrives. Patrick1 may have some competition. The trophy may still be in contention.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmis forcing out an a.g. in the middle of an investigation that led to an indictment on the #3 in the c.i.a. also customary? that sits well with you? doesn’t seem like a very ‘independent’ attitude to me.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmJake sez:
Jake, I’m going to ask you the same question I ask every troll who yammers about Clinton regarding this issue:
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmEight is not cleaning house. The 93 Clinton fired were conducting investigations as well. Rostenkowski for one. The President can fire U.S. Attorneys anytime during an administration as other Presidents have done. If current law allows him to do so without Senate approval so be it, the Senate can change the law. We certainly need U.S. attornies now who will investigate collaboration between Democrats and Al Qaeda.
I’m still waiting for TP to take down this lie.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmPatrick1, as you know by now this site is not about facts and logic — so I would advise distortions and illogic. It is a language they speak here at TP. Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 14, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Only when you putzes are on here, does this description match your posts - dum bass.
You TP guys really need to move on from this one — it’s distracting you from the war. You are letting the chicken-dems avoid making a real decision on funding for the war. Why are you carrying their water on this meaningless diversion? Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 14, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Carrying water is all you know how to do - Chicken Implant.
When again are you deploying to Iraq to put your money, where your fat st*pid mouth is? Oh right, the GOP is about *action*, it’s about blaming Dems so they don’t have to act!
Cowardly cracker!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmEight is not mass either and is common for administrations. Think Progress has been caught in yet another lie.
Comment by Patrick1
No, prop-pusher…YOU’VE been caught in yet another lie.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:15 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
Have you even read any of the prior threads? I think a pretty good case can be made that David Marston was indeed dismissed for political reasons — Mr. Marston was a grandstander too, but that doesn’t change the fact that a Congressman who was the TARGET of Marston’s investigation got him fired!
SouthwestBob:
Have you ever advocated previous Presidents/Vice-Presidents/Staff being forced to testify under similar situations?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pmGeorge, the best part of you ran down my…
list of grocery items.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pmPlease try and explain how it isn’t based purely on a president’s politcal agenda when they purge all or most US attorney’s.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Once AGAIN, the attorneys are to serve THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, not the bidding of a dictator…please tell me you aren’t THIS dense!!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pmThis is another vast, left-wing conspiracy. Clinton fired all of his US attorneys so he could stack them with his cronies and keep the lid on Vince Foster’s pending murder, oh, I mean suicide.
The left-wing can crow all they want. Will Democrats bring articles of impeachment against this President. NO. They are chicken shit liars who lead their base on while delivering nothing.
How’s that troop withdrawl coming?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:19 pmEvery U.S. Attorney is hired and fired for political reasons..geez.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:20 pmTripMaster Monkey:
No. Under previous law, the Attorney General could appoint interim USAs for up to 120 days and, after that, the impacted District Court could appoint a replacement. If the Democrats don’t like the change implemented last year, they are free to try to repeal it.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:20 pmWhat is uncommon is for a president to dismiss U.S. Attornies midterm…. What further aggravates the situation is that, in accordance with a clause in the PATRIOT Act, he is appointing U.S. attornies without congrssional approval.
Comment by erock
Erock,
In your own words you describe the firings as “uncommon”. Do you really want to set the precedent that an “uncommon” act deserves to be investigated simply because other administrations did not do exactly the same thing? That is simply ridiculous.
On your second point please re-read the phrase “in accordance with a clause in the PATRIOT Act”. Since when does complying with an Act “aggravate” a situation? If it aggravates YOU, then maybe you should focus on changing the Act.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:21 pm#69-Jake,
You’re the same Jake that in another thread called for the bombing and murder of Americans and made a terrorist threat against an American newspaper?
What are you going to call for next? That United States Attorneys be summarily executed if they do any work that may reflect negatively on the political party that is currently in “power”?
Pathetic and cowardly Jake, pathetic and cowardly.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI’m still waiting for TP to take down this lie.
Comment by Patrick1
Well I’m not waiting for you to stop covering your ears singing ‘la la la la la la la la’, you’re beyond hope.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:21 pmYou TP guys really need to move on from this one — it’s distracting you from the war. You are letting the chicken-dems avoid making a real decision on funding for the war. Why are you carrying their water on this meaningless diversion? Comment by Cynicon Implant
Oh, thank you for your divine, omniscient advice, Lord Cynicon. I wonder, though, did you tell your servants Bush and Gonzales to fire these U.S. Attorneys and to cover it up hoping we lowly liberals would find out and be distracted from your other unitary executive power play, i.e. the war in Iraq? No, never mind answering, Lord Cynicon. We know that we unworthy liberals are deficient in that we actually can consider two or more sets of facts and circumstances simultaneously unlike the “true brothers” known as neocons.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:21 pmhey trolls, if this is ‘customary’ and proper, then the testimony under oath should be a breeze. nothing to worry about, right? [i’m worried about you guys…you seem so stressed out about this]
March 14th, 2007 at 3:22 pmPound-for-pound, Think Progress has the best right-wing trolls on the internets. They constantly dodge, obfuscate and ignore facts to derail threads. It’s an amazing skill one must have to be so blindly aligned to a failed GOP administration and shrill for it without a stitch of facts! Kudos to them all.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pmThe left-wing can crow all they want. Will Democrats bring articles of impeachment against this President. NO. They are chicken shit liars who lead their base on while delivering nothing.
And the right-wing are chicken-sh*t chicken hawks who lead their base on while delivering chaos and destruction. Quit talkin out where mommy used to put the thermometer.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pmIt’s firing squad time at the White House. Let’s start with W.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:23 pmI like how you simply forget that Bush has the complete legal right to do this. I am not for the idea that the Senate doesn’t get the chance to approve them, but that is current law MADE BY THE SENATE. They should change that law IMO but that is a Senate issue afterall, not a Bush issue.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pmEveryone who failed to vote against his confirmation shares the blame in where we are today in all the ways Gonzales has demeaned this country.
Comment by Robert
I agree. The freekin Rubberstamp Congress we had just let the freekshow get the job.
You can search for your CongressCritter and find how they voted at:
March 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pmhttp://votesmart.org/
We certainly need U.S. attornies now who will investigate collaboration between Democrats and Al Qaeda.
I’m still waiting for TP to take down this lie.
OK, Patrick1, I agree with you. The statement you made about this “collaboration” is a lie. Feel better, now?
This outlandish statement puts you back in the lead for the title as “troll’s troll” but, beware, Liberals Heart Terrorists has entered the field.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#88 Actually the Dems aren’t considering Iraq anymore. They are planning to vote yes to extend the war with all the money Bush is asking for. They are covering their tracks and pacifing this crowd discussing a resolution that has no chance of ever getting a vote when they could have ended this war already (If they truly wanted to but they don’t).
March 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pmhey trolls, if this is ‘customary’ and proper, then the testimony under oath should be a breeze. nothing to worry about, right? [i’m worried about you guys…you seem so stressed out about this]
Comment by pgw
BINGO!! Of course none of them would actually go for this, they seem to believe in the ‘just-trust-us’ governance of the Bush Crime Family.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pmI like how you simply forget that Bush has the complete legal right to do this. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 14, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
And Hitler had the complete legal right to Gas 6 million Jews. What’s your point - sicko putz?
I am not for the idea that the Senate doesn’t get the chance to approve them, but that is current law MADE BY THE SENATE. They should change that law IMO but that is a Senate issue afterall, not a Bush issue. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 14, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Abuse of power, is always a bush issue. Dum bass.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pmNot if it’s to stop an impending investigation into GOPers, then it’s called obstruction of justice.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPound-for-pound, Think Progress has the best right-wing trolls on the internets. They constantly dodge, obfuscate and ignore facts to derail threads. It’s an amazing skill one must have to be so blindly aligned to a failed GOP administration and shrill for it without a stitch of facts! Kudos to them all.
Comment by D
One day u will see the light D. We can only hope.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:27 pmPound-for-pound, Think Progress has the best right-wing trolls on the internets. They constantly dodge, obfuscate and ignore facts to derail threads. It’s an amazing skill one must have to be so blindly aligned to a failed GOP administration and shrill for it without a stitch of facts! Kudos to them all.
Comment by D.
I think that says it all. The rest of us (myself included) need to remember this when responding to these fascist appeasers.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pm#76, Patrick, investigate away, as long as Bush, Cheney et al are included as well. Please write your rep in Congress to start today.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:28 pmJake, it’s wrong. You know it. No one is disputing the issue (yet) in legal terms. What’s more, many conservatives know it, which is the real bogey man for Bushies like you and Patrick1. Your usual talking points are falling flat, because it is republicans themselves who are crying the loudest.
Sorry. Thems the facts. The more you spin them, the better contrast you draw between your own failing political philosophies and the ones that are currently replacing them.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm“That’s why I said “at least†55 U.S. Attorneys have been replaced in threads below. How can you guys say that is NOT customary?!
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 pm”
Jake, your throwing everything into one basket and then trying to claim that it means the same thing.
That’s like throwing ALL traffic accidents into the pool of accidents for DUI. That will throw the results off.
Your statement “For instance, here are just the BARE MINIMUM U.S. Attorneys who did not serve full 4 year terms during the previous Bush and Clinton Administrations” is to mean the same of them not serving vs. them being FIRED!
In many of the cases you are siting they were promoted to Judge, left for private practice, or resigned (Very few resigned compared to the latter).
So you are being very misleading by what you are stating. How about stop with the “did not serve full 4 years” and provide a list of those that were fired, or asked to resign?
Then we can have a real discussion. Your statement as it stands is JUNK!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI go away for a few hours and return to find another melee of trolls scrambling to retrench and protect their man Rove. Fall back boys! Reload your talking points!
And Patrick1 leads the pack, so dumb it is hard to believe it could be human.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmIf this is business as usual why are all the fascists working so hard to make this look normal and why are they turning like the wolves they are on the Attorney General?
When you see scum work so hard to make something appear normal thats a significant indication that they’ve been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
As for the fascist retards that post here, why do ya’ll bother?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI like how you simply forget that Bush has the complete legal right to do this.
roger_clown
You are being obtuse. He does NOT have a legal right to fire them for political reasons, such as when one was asked to reveal grand jury information.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pmNixon had impeachment papers drawn for firing an attourney who was investigating him. Nixon resigned before the impeachment was voted on.
I’m still waiting for TP to take down this lie.
Comment by Patrick1
This is TP’s speciality - Cut and paste and then Google some more, just like the sheeple on this site.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm“I like how you simply forget that Bush has the complete legal right to do this.”
they snuck the provision into the Patriot Act; Specter didn’t even know it was in there. that’s what you’re going to hang your argument on?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pm[…] Think Progress has the video and more details on the President’s misleading response. View blog reactions […]
March 14th, 2007 at 3:30 pmTuber:
Perhaps you can provide a quote so that I may answer your question?
pgw:
I never worry (Matthew 6:25-34) but I am curious about your suggestion: have you ever advocated previous Presidents/Vice-Presidents/Staff being forced to testify under similar situations?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmYes, Jake. There seems to be a few questions as to your “Independent”
status in the thread where you advocate bombing a certain building
here in the beloved homeland.
Care to address them?
Some give Patrick a little tap. He seems to be stuck on Clinton.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAttention all stupid-ass, reality-denying trolls:
Is Congress going to act on this scandal? I think everyone should contact thier Representative and Senator to find out when. After all, it’s the PATRIOTIC thing to do.
Cronyism has no place in the judicial system, nor should it, EVER.
Peace, ugly ones-
March 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmHeavy Troll Shit here today.
Take a deep breath & remember; we’re not paid to be here, we’re here for the truth.
Speaking of chickens, when’s W due back?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:31 pmHis mother must be proud, of this one.
Comment by R — March 14, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Just my opinion but Bushie always seemed to be more like his mother than his father. I think she proved her true colors during Katrina. So it wouldn’t suprise me if she is proud.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pmLet’s give the bitch a big freakin’ hand.
I am not for the idea that the Senate doesn’t get the chance to approve them, but that is current law MADE BY THE SENATE.
No, I was made by Spector’s COS. Even Spector says he didn’t know about it!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:32 pmRemoveBush:
Are you claiming that those who voluntarily “left for private practice” or even those promoted to Judge were NEVER “political decisions” by Clinton?!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThis is TP’s speciality - Cut and paste and then Google some more, just like the sheeple on this site.
Comment by Flaco
This is Whaco’s specialty - projection, a parrot of talking points to protect this criminal cabal calling others who actually USE their brains sheeple.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmDon’t our jackbooted trolls tell us that only terrorists need to fear having their private conversations recorded? So if their leader Karl Rove has to testify under oath on the public record, he shouldn’t have any problem with that, should he? He hasn’t got anything to hide, does he? He would only be asked about working in his professional capacity as White House advisor. I would expect any innocent, decent upstanding citizen to WANT to testify under the circumstances. Karl is being handed a golden opportunity to clear the air, and to do it on the record. So why does that bother all his little foot soldiers here today?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:34 pmThat’s been the right wing inbred TRAITORS’ talking point all day!
…”They serve at the pleasure of the president”…
…the Repulsivescum/Inablingcodependent conned’self-servative slimeballs…
…calling in to C-Span this morning were SICKENING!
…how do they look at themselves in the mirror without puking?
…Please let’s use the Patriot Act to purge this country of these vile TREASONOUS sons-of-who*es and pigs…
…Asa Hutchinson was on C-Span and said that as a US Attorney…
…He had received calls from Congressional aides (didn’t specify which Party affiliation)…
…asking what timetable this or that case would take…
…What a LYING sack of dogsh*t…
…because if they had been aides of Democratic congressmen/women…
…his al Crackkker a*s would’ve squawked all the way to his god Ronnie Raygun…
…I despise right wing fascist scum…
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pmalp3:
Please provide the quote.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pm#110-Jake,
Here’s the quote you requested. So, do you talk regularly with Osama Bin Laden or do you just spend Christmas with him?
So, can our side bomb the New York Times building now?
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Terrorism is not acceptable and is the act of cowards and deviants. Please cease.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pmOn your second point please re-read the phrase “in accordance with a clause in the PATRIOT Actâ€. Since when does complying with an Act “aggravate†a situation? If it aggravates YOU, then maybe you should focus on changing the Act.
Comment by Cynicon Implant — March 14, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
To the first part of your post. Yes, I would like to see uncommon actions taken by an administration to be investigated if there appear to be underlying motives not in the United States’ best interest. I believe that is the case here.
To the second part, AG Gonzales stood before the Senate (under oath) and claimed that this clause of the PATRIOT Act would never be used at political whim. That is has been used once is disgusting. That it will be used AT LEAST 8 times is disturbing and subject to suspicion in and of itself.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:35 pmAre you claiming that those who voluntarily “left for private practice†or even those promoted to Judge were NEVER “political decisions†by Clinton?! Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Are you claiming that purging/firing someone is the same thing as someone leaving voluntarily? That’s a pretty st*pid claim Jake!
March 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pmI am not for the idea that the Senate doesn’t get the chance to approve them, but that is current law MADE BY THE SENATE.
Well, it was made by a senate staffer in the dead of night, and the leadership of the body had a policy of not giving its members time to read the legislation it was voting on. But that’s a whole ‘nuther basket of abuses.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:37 pmI think the fact that the trolls keep multiplying means that we’re getting somebody’s attention.
To paraphrase Bushwad, “Bring em on!”
That being said anybody up for throw a troll to the lions day?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pmPeople. Stop trying to explain things to Patrick. After three days of this he obviously is either faking idiocy or he is an idiot. Either way he is just making everyone spin their wheels.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pmPathetic and cowardly Jake, pathetic and cowardly.
Comment by Tuber
That pretty much sums up the junta and the 28%ers
March 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pm#114- Your opinion is right on. Babs was her drunken, usual self while carrying the knit-eyed, pointy-eared ape in her fettered womb. THIS, is the result of her feeble attempts at motherhood. Kinda like, The Planet of the Apes, isn’t it (in a manner of speaking)? Let’s DO give the old gal a huge applause.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pmJake is working a beat today. The Think Progress beat. He is here to lay down the same talking points, over and over. Nothing will stop him. Except when that whistle blows at quitting time.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:40 pm“have you ever advocated previous Presidents/Vice-Presidents/Staff being forced to testify under similar situations?”
if an adminstration forces out an a.g. in the middle of an investigation that led to an indictment on the #3 in the c.i.a. and there are e-mails that implicate certain staff members’ involvement, i’m all for it. but hey, what do i know, i’m an independent.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pmThe TPers here have lived in the shithouse site for so long they cannot even smell their own shit.
comment by LIEberal
March 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pm#124 Regardless, this isn’t an executive issue, it is a Senate issue. Luckily, this “issue” can easily be resolved by the DEMS who lead the Senate. The fact that TP is putting up a HUGE stick over a completely legal practice proves they are doing it for mere political reasons. I guess it is a nice way to distract your base from the fact your Dems are now supporting the war instead of ending it like they promised. Or is this pointless resolution put up now they new thing to hush the Dem base down even though this resolution will never actually get a vote?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“#116
Are you claiming that those who voluntarily “left for private practice†or even those promoted to Judge were NEVER “political decisions†by Clinton?!
Comment by Jake — March 14, 2007 @ 3:34 pm”
I’m claiming I DON”T KNOW….. AND NEITHER DO YOU! So to CLAIM that it was political is BS. Show the EVIDENCE that they were fired or forced out for political reasons!
I know that this is an unusual concept for you, but I believe in evidence or data to support my belief. If there is no evidence, I try not to speculate as to why someone does something. If there is a history to a persons actions, then this can be considered “evidence” imperically to make the determination.
Still waiting for the proof….
March 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm#30 Patrick……
“HONOR”….??? If you know the meaning of the word, I am wondering why you support the dishonorable machinations of the BushChaney autocrats? Another 30 percent enabler who is blind to facts. Go read the Constitution, then come back and see me.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pmOne question:
“At whose pleasure…
…does the President serve?”
March 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pm#69 - Jake,
March 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pmAny US Attorney who was forced from office in 1996 would have been captured in the chart as 1996 - 1993 = 3. January 20, 1997 is the basis for short termers in WJC’s first term. Perhaps an elementary school in your area offers remedial math in addition and subtraction. I make the rash assumption that you can read at least at a forth grade level by your strength in vocabulary.
I also note that 27 US Attorneys left their posts during RWR’s admin (8 years), 8 (1 died) during the WJC admin (8 years) and 27 (so far, including the magnificent 8) during the GWB admin (6.25 years). GHWB, being but a flash in the pan did not have an opportunity to “clean house”.
#37
“Yes, it is customary to purge US Attorneys at the start of a new administration.”
So tradition trumps the fact the many of the USAs the Clinton fired were qualified and had no reason to be fired for poor job performance? Since when did tradition override the DOJ’s performance reviews?
“From what I gather, this is not normal.”
Again who determines what is “normal”? What former president’s have done or not done to attempt make this BS tradition stand as so many like Schummer keep citing it ridiculous.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:46 pmStill arguing with Flaxo and Rojer. Geez.
They will keep you arguing with them all day.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pmApparently those sleeping pills cause “sleep posting” too. Huh Flaxo and Rojer.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe question is not how many USAttys have ever resigned or not been retained….its THE MOTIVE for the unprecedented firing, without cause, of these many Bush appointed USAttys that is in question…. The whole matter smells. Like everything else this maladminstration does. Its time to fire BushChaney then hang them.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:48 pm“Regardless, this isn’t an executive issue, it is a Senate issue.”
willful ignorance at its finest. that’s like saying that the deficit isn’t a government isuue, it’s a money issue.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm#60
“It is not uncommon for a president to clean house of his predecessor’s attornies at the beginning of his term. The beginning of Clinton’s term was 1993, when, as you reported, he fired a great number of U.S. Attornies”
Does it make it right? If they were qualified and the DOJ gave many of them good reviews then Clinton fired them for PURE political reasons.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmTuber:
That’s a question intended to show the person I was responding to how illogical his / her position was. I would never advocate bombing the New York Times building (unless I knew for certain only the editors and reporters were in it). That being said, I have never spoken to Osama Bin Laden.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus:
I am saying it is possible that those who say they “voluntarily” left could have been forced out for political reasons. Even those who got “promoted” could simply know where the bodies were buried.
Shane:
Yes, when you falsely accuse the President of the United States of lying, that does get some attention.
pgw:
Jimmy Carter was never called to testify for firing Marston.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmCan Mexico keep Bush and we keep the lettuce packers?
-GSD
March 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pmjake sez:
So, that’s your argument? “Too bad, suckers”?
Chimpy is using the PATRIOT Act provision for political gain. The provision removed a vital check on the power of the president, and this administration is moving to take advantage of this.
This isn’t about Chimpy’s firing of U.S. attorneys. It’s an established fact that they serve at the President’s pleasure, and he can remove them whenever he likes. This is about this administration misusing the power vested in them by a piece of ostensibly anti-terror legislation to further their own partisan political ends.
Are you seriously maintaining that you’re OK with this?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pmPatrick1 is a stupid piece of sh!t that doesn’t deserve your time or energy. Fu*k him and the big fat cow that spawned his dumb a$$.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pm“Regardless, this isn’t an executive issue, it is a Senate issue.”
p.s.–last week, gonzo said it was just a ‘personnel issue’
March 14th, 2007 at 3:50 pmRemoveBush:
If you don’t think Carter fired Marston for political reasons, then there’s no way you are going to prove Bush firing anyone was either. Good luck though.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pmFrom the Wall Street Journal.
Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration’s decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from–gasp–the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for “the politicization of our prosecutorial system.” Oh, my.
As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we’d suggest she call herself as the first witness–and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.
Read on…
More from The Wall Street Journal:
As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton’s choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno–or Mr. Hubbell–gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.[…]
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons’ Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint “Friend of Bill” Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to “politicizing” Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
The irony of America’s Ex-Wife™ calling for anyone’s resignation over improperly handled political staff firings is very rich indeed. Recall that then Co-President Clinton was personally very deeply involved in the summary dismissal of seven career employees in the White House Travel Office.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pmTracy:
If it was O.K. for past President, why isn’t it O.K. for this one?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:52 pm#70
“Show me where a single attorney was fired in the past 20 years for political reasons.”
Clinton fired most it not all of his attorneys for political reaons as a matter of fact. There is nothing other than a BS tradition that past administrations have “made up” over the years that makes the “clearing out” the opposing party’s USAs OK in everone’s eyes at the beginning of their term.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pmWalt:
I was simply quoting from the CRS Report — have you read it?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:53 pmWho wants to go back to the “Coxshucker”?
March 14th, 2007 at 3:54 pm#135- … My own…
March 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pmTripMaster Monkey:
Yes, I am seriously maintaining that I am O.K. with this — U.S. Attorneys deal with terrorism issues all the time, so Bush needs to have people in those positions he can trust 100%.
March 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pm#153 - Jake,
March 14th, 2007 at 3:56 pmYup, your reading comprehension sucks as much as your math.